# \[Ongoing Draft\] Current state of discussions around DPI product upgrades

**URL:** <https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/ongoing-draft-current-state-of-discussions-around-dpi-product-upgrades/234>\
**Category:** Products\
**Tags:** dpi\
**Created:** [27 October 2020 00:31 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/ongoing-draft-current-state-of-discussions-around-dpi-product-upgrades/234 "2020-10-27T00:31:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![neozaru](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/gov.indexcoop.com/neozaru/32/14_2.png) [@neozaru](https://gov.indexcoop.com/u/neozaru)\
**Post date:** [29 October 2020 15:32 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/ongoing-draft-current-state-of-discussions-around-dpi-product-upgrades/234/5 "2020-10-29T15:32:03Z")

</div>

> [@richard](#):
>
> The 3rd option is: **launch a separate DPI Yield Farm Set** run by the coop that accepts DPI as collateral. This will be setup similarly to [TokenSets’ Yield Farm Sets](https://medium.com/set-protocol/introducing-yield-farming-strategies-on-tokensets-60d114e0172c). It would be built on top of the DPI, which further pushes the narrative of DPI becoming a “ **primitive** ” (similar to how WBTC or DAI is a primitive)

I voted for that option (if that corresponds to option 4 - not that clear to me).

- No risk for $DPI as we know it.
- Yield-seeking users will go to the farm regardless of this being an extra-step (most farmers are power-users and they can handle that type of complexity as long as there is extra yield to make).

On this [post](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/the-2-cash-grab/195/16), I was thinking about creating two farming options : One for $DPI holders, one for $UNI-LP-DPIETH holders, with at least the second one generating $INDEX rewards (as otherwise existing LPs will be confused about whether or not they should “risk” locking their assets in a farm instead of staying in the origin LP staking contract).

However, **another option** that is also compatible with the option 4 and option 3 at the same time :

- One farm that takes $DPI as input and do all the yield stuff behind the scenes, but also return $yDPI as @Etienne and @overanalyser talked about before. That would be _extremely_ similar to a Yearn’s vault (and _can_ be a yearn vault as discussed before) with the benefit of having a liquid $yDPI that can be then traded on Uniswap.
- A second staking contract that takes $UNI-LP-yDPIWETH tokens a receives $INDEX at the same rate as the original staking contract (that keeps running in parallel).

Advantages of this approach :

- $DPI as a yield-generating instrument on an **opt-in** basis : Users do their due diligence.
- With $yDPI, we can incentivize liquidity provision (yDPI-ETH Uniswap pool) with $INDEX tokens so liquidity reaches comparable levels as for the DPI-ETH pool (as less LP in a pool will mean higher potential yield).
- Thanks to the above, users can onboard directly to $yDPI if not interested in the vanilla $DPI.
- Checking $DPI and $yDPI holders regularly can give valuable information about product-market-fit.

Cons :

- Lot of development for a complex vault (but less if we start with basic lending platforms and move slowly from there).
- $DPI and $yDPI can be seen as two distinct products, which can add confusion for newbie onboarding. However an idea would be to create $yDPI as something “external” first and see from there, how it should integrate (replace ?) the original product.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/ongoing-draft-current-state-of-discussions-around-dpi-product-upgrades/234)._