Work Team Analysis for $YHI

Work Team: @metfanmike, @jdcook and myself

@overanalyser has proposed $YHI (IIP-78: Launch The Yield Hunter Index ($YHI)), a diversified crypto fund of ERC20 tokens that have the opportunity to capture yield in addition to the underlying token price exposure.

$YHI scored a 1.55 in Work Team Analysis. This is a few points below iROBOT (pre-DG2) and SYI (shelved) which both scored a 1.74, and a few points above SMI (1.18), which did not launch.

Link to full analysis: Revised Product Scoring Chart - Google Sheets

Reference for scoring methodology: Revised Product Prioritization Framework


Market Opportunity: 3

Market opportunity earned one baseline point, and one point each for differentiation, and a nice-to-have user need. We noted that the potential legal implications of a productive index may hamper this product from commanding a large market. We did give that point to PAY (scored and will be published soon) – though it is also a productive product, the target audience is DAOs who do not have the same legal considerations as individual holders.

Revenue Potential: 5

The revenue structure is set up as a streaming fee (tentatively set at 1.95%), with no issue or redeem fee. All streaming fees and the methodologist bonus will go to Index Coop. The methodologist will remain a member of the Product Working Group, and will be paid for his contributions from the PWG budget.

Methodologist Impact: 3

The team earned one baseline point, and one point each for product competency and methodology. Though we appreciate the methodologist’s thorough research and liquidity analysis, points in the reputation and marketing support categories are typically allocated for larger organizations with broad community reach.


It’s worth noting that costs are factored into the rubric such that a lower score results in the product being ranked more highly.

Financial: 5

$YHI earned one baseline point here, plus two points for requiring Index Coop to seed a liquidity pool, and two points for requiring liquidity incentives. @overanalyser has done thorough research on whether Onsen rewards would provide sufficient incentive for this product and determined that they would not. Though it raises the “cost” score of the product, we appreciated the research and learning here!

Operational: 2

The product earned a baseline of 1 point, plus a point for requiring regular liquidity management operations.

Technical: 3

$YHI was evaluated by the EWG (led by @edwardk), who are taking point in scoring this section. (Thanks, Ed!) One thing that is not easily captured in this score is the cost of exchange issuance at launch, which does add a good bit of effort.

Note on Work Team Analysis:

  • This is intended to help members who haven’t closely followed $YHI product discussions learn about the strengths and opportunities of this product. It’s also designed to help methodologists uncover strengths and opportunities in their proposals.
  • Work Team analysis can never accurately predict the future, or how successful a product will be in the months/years after launch. What it does communicate is how much risk the Coop is taking on by launching a product, and a perspective on the strengths/opportunities as stated above.
  • Work Team analysis is completed by each of the three members individually scoring the product, discussing their scores, and aggregating results. The final score is an average of the three individual scores.

Future improvements to the Prioritization rubric:

We’ve renamed “Revenue Potential” to “Revenue Structure” to capture the true meaning of this section – it does not capture the full revenue potential of the product (which is largely encapsulated in Market Opportunity). We’re also doing a close analysis of the Market Opportunity section for future scoring. This is the most heavily weighted section of the rubric, but we feel we may be overscoring some products and would like to take a more data-oriented approach moving forward.


nvm - saw the disclaimer on the rubric too late :sweat_smile:

1 Like