Reading time saved: 1 minutes
5 replies, 2205 views, 9 likes
Yearn's proposal for a 3% fixed interest rate and an increase of the liquidation level to 85% for YFI faced strong opposition, with critics citing potential risks to AAVE users and Yearn's history of exploiting governance technicalities. The community emphasized the need for careful consideration of such proposals and maintaining a balanced approach to risk distribution.
The topic of discussion revolved around a proposal put forth by Yearn, co-authored by their core ops team member, Tracheopteryx. The proposal, which suggested a 3% fixed interest rate per year and an increase of the liquidation level to 85% for YFI, was met with strong opposition, particularly from Carlsagin22. They argued that the proposal posed a significant risk to AAVE users, especially in the event of another Yearn hack. They also criticized Yearn's history of exploiting technicalities to bypass on-chain votes within their governance structure. Carlsagin22 concluded that such proposals were unacceptable and that AAVE should not engage with parties that aim to maximize their exposure while offloading the risk onto others1.
Monet-supply added to the discussion by pointing out that the only way for governance to make a permanent commitment like the one proposed by Yearn is to burn admin keys. However, they expressed doubt about the feasibility of this approach, given that AAVE is still evolving2. TheoRochaix, while agreeing with Carlsagin22's sentiments, suggested that halting discussions might not be the best approach and urged caution in how the proposal was being moved forward4. Goobers007 and Jazzdawg also concurred with Carlsagin22's points, with Jazzdawg labeling Yearn's proposal as an "absolute joke" 5,6.
In conclusion, the community expressed strong opposition to Yearn's proposal, citing potential risks to AAVE users and the protocol. The discussion highlighted the need for careful consideration of such proposals and the importance of maintaining a balanced approach that does not disproportionately burden one party with risk.
Posted 3 years ago
Last reply 3 years ago
Summary updated 2 months ago
Last updated 04/12 00:18