YIP XX: Ddd-are to ask bout Vv-vesting Schedule

Hello my dear Yam Fam!

Yamv1 was amazing and spontaneous. But let’s be honest, we are all whales or nerdy Ethereum devs.
Yamv2 was about rescuing YAM. What did we rescue? A community? A project? An Experiment? Our holdings? Our hopium?

I think there’s a very important direction choice we will make as a group of wealthy and smart peers, and I am convinced that we are making this choice right now.

This community is made of exuberant, risk taking, maybe crazy and for most, smart people.
We are addicted to two things imo about #YAM:

  • $$ bag profits
  • seeing a crazy vision of a decentralised fund project being born and getting powerful and sound:

What will you chose?

  • Short term, Hype, Ponzinomics, Exit ASAP to retailers through Marketing campaigns
  • Long term, Interesting experiment, Decentralized fund, god damn billionaire cause we changed the game.

For the latter, vesting our tokens makes a lot of sense. For example on a 1.5 year linear schedule

  • At day 0 of Yamv3, 100% of tokens in a locked pool.

  • At year 1, 66% of Yamv3 vested tokens to holders, 33% in the locked tokens pool

  • At year 1.5, all tokens are vested.

  • The locked tokens can only be used by holder to vote on Governance

  • The governance control the pool of locked tokens (i.e: send to a staking pool, to another protocol etc…)

I honestly don’t know if it’s a good or bad idea, and maybe someone will show me that we cannot actually implement these ideas but here are the positive impacts I foresee:

  • No short term strategies by whales (Dump)
  • You have nothing to do but to govern with your yamv3 tokens
  • New comers will be incentivized to join the #YAMFAM
  • Thanks to this bug, we have time to relax and look for the long term, this could set in stones that we’re gonna be something huge in the coming years. Strong signal
2 Likes

I agree with the ideas in your post. I think one of the best ways to reward and build out the core YAM community and also lock out short-term farm-and-dump’ers is to introduce long vesting periods.

2 Likes

IMO, If token is lock, we will lose treasury funds from rebase.

I think there’s a way to build vesting mechanisms and opportunities into the protocol and community in different forms after the launch of V3. I’m open to it as a mechanic for future development, but I don’t think it would get enough votes to pass governance at this time.

Personally, I think a decent chunk of current YamV2 holders are hoping to exit soon after the launch of V3. I think there’s a lot of consternation, and conveniently revisionist memory, about having potentially put money into a scam, ponzi, or failed project. There’s a portion of the community that is looking at the launch of V3 as their opportunity to make up for their initial mistake and recover the value they lost, perceived or actual, when V1 went down.

Keep in mind that whatever price point V3 ends up launching with or climbs to in that first day, the function of the positive rebase is to create selling pressure to drive the price per token back down to the target, which is $1 give or take. So even now, if V2 is to be considered a 1:1 proxy of V3 for the sake of the migration, the token is inherently overpriced.

For those reading, this is also why people shouldn’t be buying V3 tokens out the gate if there’s a way for them to farm them instead. I honestly think this is what trapped a lot of would-be speculators in V1 and lost them so much money.

What this means is that whenever that first positive rebase occurs, we’re likely to see a massive price drop as people dump their additional rebase tokens (if not their whole bags). This is what we saw initially with V1, even before we found out about the fatal rebase bug. I’m pretty confident a 2nd functional positive rebase would have driven the price further down as well. There’s a real possibility of a volatile positive-negative rebase cycle for this first launch season, especially if there are limited farming pools.

That said, what I love about YAM’s treasury functionality, and what makes it different compared to other elastic coins right now, is its ability to power future development off of that speculative volatility by accumulating treasury funds through positive rebases. Those funds become available to the community to develop additional utility and community initiatives, adding more value to the protocol in the long term. So we don’t want to completely stifle speculation using the protocol.

However, I do think it’s possible to craft a proposal after launch that would provide guidance on the use of those treasury funds for future initiatives and development. Some kind of vesting mechanism could prove useful there to make sure that the community who persists after the initial launch dump remains committed and invested in the long term health of the protocol and community.

2 Likes

I like parts of this, is there a way to lock the yamv3 of all current holders of yamv2?
I think for the uninitiated public they ought to be free to do as they please.

Also there has to be something driving the price of yam or there will be no rebases. I do like the idea of having a low supply starting out and a gradual increase this would simulate a relaunch in terms of supply and demand functionality.

Hmm thinking along this line. So it wouldn’t be good to start over with a clean relaunch. But what if instead we locked all current v2 holders’ v3 yams and left the community fund unlocked. This would be a happy medium between a full relaunch and also a fair market on what is arguably the first adequate launch yam has had. This would be similar to a founder / team vesting which is very similar to what we have here.

We borrow from community fund a small amount to seed the initial uniswap pool. This would provide the only source of free moving liquidity and would be equal chance to all, this would also kick start rebases, keep a large amount of voting power in those who have vested yams and arguably have a lot at stake in the project.

I think there are great ideas in vesting yams.

These are the kind of ideas I’m thinking about

-> Let new commers farm yamv3
-> Yamv2 will vest their tokens gradually
-> Locked tokens can be governed by votes to be used in pools or staking

=> Once yamv2 are vested, rebases shoud have happened, Treasory should be pretty big and thus the overal project in a stable, interesting, running state.

1 Like

I fully disagree

If they want to dump, let them dump now, why should they wait for yamv3 :confused:

I like though your idea of two phases: one for dumpers, one for the project but I would reorganize your ideas like this:

  • Let yamv2 dumpers dump in yamv2
  • Let the yamv3 (= the real yam) tokens, project and community be healthy and long term oriented

I also disagree with your semi-technical arguments, they kinda come out of income chosen reasoning (the income being: if we/whales can’t dump yamv3 tokens project is dead)

I think we’re on the same page in terms of what we want for the project. We both want it to be healthy and long-term oriented.

But you’re talking like everyone else who holds YAMv2 are exactly the same as you or me, and I just don’t think that’s true. We’ve seen it in the sheer number of posts during this governance process of people advocating for policies to try to pump the price as much as possible out the gate, even though that’s not what YAM is designed to do. And we have no control over when YAMv2 people will dump, but I don’t think they’re going to dump now when they think that the price could go back to the $100-$200 level per token that YAMv1 had before the first rebase. That’s what they’re all hanging on for.

So while I agree with you on the long term goals, I disagree with your evaluation of the current community’s motivations. There are multiple factions, and each wants something different.

Then we are on the same page!

I am actually trying to convince, that’s the goal of governance :slight_smile:

My arguments are:
(- Dump on retail asap is not ethical)

  • Dump on retail is far from being the best profitable strategy
  • Lucky as we are, there is an easy path as a decentralized fun/ decentralize central bank (with yam its cryptoDollar)
  • Lucky as we are, we have smart and powerful people, not just rich whales
  • Guys, its gonna be so much fun, few opportunities like this happen, I know it I’ve been here for a long time.

=> Even for you, dear yam greedy fam, it is in your interest to take a bit more time to

  1. Think about long term
  2. Coordinate the community around long term goals, this will create a narrative that will pump your bags
  3. Audit, educate etc…

In the end it’s a win win imo, that’s where we disagree

2 Likes

Agreed and here for it. I’m hoping we can convince enough people not to get too greedy too fast. We want to be smart and ethical about this.

I like a lot of these ideas and generally think vesting can be a powerful force. I think a V2 to V3 vested migration makes some sense, though I think the timeline would need to be much shorter.

One of my major concerns with this though, is that I think it throws a curveball at current tokenholders, it adds additional UX difficulty, and is just generally a complication in an already complex situation.

Ultimately, I’m not so concerned about V2 to V3 tokenomics –– the market is going to do what the market is going to do. We’re going to have a strong protocol with already complex tokenomics and huge reach/brand recognition. I def wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m against the above, I’m just of the mind that we need to prioritize simplicity, speed, and effectiveness in V2 to V3.

1 Like

Thanks for this reply.

The complexity part makes a lot of sense, that’s what made yamv1 a success. However, I think, in the narrative/the debate, there should be stuff that prove that we are here for the long run.

The aim being of coure to be appealing for new comers, legitimate businesses and developers.

1 Like

If you’re interested in adding a vesting component, please consider voting for YIP-19: Migration Vesting.

1 Like

Went all in, thanks for this proposition