Yearn Governance 2.0 Discussion

This proposal has been posted in several Discord channels, including Treasury, Org and Governance Work.

It seems to me like it might make sense to shift & centralise the conversation here.

Here’s the proposal

Let’s discuss.


I feel like a similar structure in the Coop could provide for more internal flexibility, and possibly speed up some action.

What are some downsides to this? Things would certainly get a bit more complicated in some regard.

Yeah, that will take some time to digest. The examples made me lol but wow, gonna sleep on it. And would love to hear everyone’s take. Obviously, they need to end their temporary situation but it does seem quite complicated.


I think everyone should read the Yearn proposal.

Some initial thoughts from me. Yearn is, obviously, much more complicated than the Coop. But there are a lot of similarities in the structure + some things we can learn/consider implementing.

This strikes a chord with me. This is the way I see the Coop. We are not there yet but we are on our way.

"Yearn is a network of independent doers united by a shared vision. Our bias is on action over bureaucracy. We move fast with great freedom and agency. This is our way."

Here’s the TLDR of Yearn’s proposal: delegate power & decision making to autonomous groups, centralise execution of decisions with the MultiSig, give YFI holders ultimate oversight in case things go wrong.

This is how I see Yearn’s proposed model comparing to the Coop model. I’m generalising here.

Working groups are roughly = yTeams
Treasury Committee roughly = Yearn MultiSig

The main difference is the distribution of decision making authority and role of INDEX vs. YFI tokenholders.

yTeams have the power to make decisions for their respective areas without seeking approval from YFI holders. The execution of their decisions sits with Yearn MultiSig and the MultiSig has veto power. YFI holders have oversight power. They can strip decision making powers from different yTeams, grant new powers to other yTeams and remove people from the MultiSig, among a few other responsibilities.

At the Coop, working groups have to request funding from the Treasury Committee and INDEX holders need to vote on each budget and formation of each WG. Each WG can then execute their own decisions. There’s no oversight or veto power. Once approved and funded, WGs can do whatever they want.

Adapting Yearn’s model to Index would look something like this → Treasury Committee as a MultiSig → WGs as yTeams → TWG has the power to budget and fund WGs → Each WG has the power to make their decisions, executed by the MultiSig which also has veto power → INDEX tokenholders have ultimate oversight.

If anyone is interested I can come up with some examples, similar to those in the Yearn proposal, for how this might work.

Do I think we are ready for this level of autonomy? Probably not. But I look forward to other people’s thoughts on this.


Interesting proposal with hilarious examples.
Governance in a DAO is a balancing act between providing autonomy and keeping it trustless. The yearn team seems to have found a good solution with increased autonomy of each team while not giving up control for YFI holders, which is a great outcome.
I could also see the Coop implementing something similar in the future.
yBrain = Methodologists
yDev = Dev team / Set
yPeople = Org / Compensation
yBudget = Treasury and so on

1 Like

Thanks for creating this topic @verto0912

Just pulling out a few lines that caught my eye on a first read:

  • ‘constrained delegation’ whereby YFI holders delegate their governance powers to autonomous groups like the Multisig and yTeams …
  • Rather than being asked to make specific, operational decisions, YFI holders will conduct how power flows within yearn, wielding granular and clear control over every aspect of what yearn does.
  • In contrast to core governance (which is top-down relative to users and bottom-up relative to creators) and DAO governance (which is top-down relative to creators and bottom-up relative to users), ‘constrained delegation’ avoids subordinating either group to the other.
  • Behind every DAO implementation, there is a group of trusted contributors. Our model seeks to foreground these trusted relationships and give YFI holders the ability to modify them directly.

Planning to re-read again soon.

@verto0912 thanks for posting this thread and highlighting - this strikes a cord with me as well.

I see decentralization as a path with many steps along the way. Our DAO is well along the way towards true decentralization - in my mind one of the key markers along this path is community led enterprise level initiatives. The Metaverse Index was one of our first, and arguably most important up to this point.

I think the level of autonomy you lay out should be a target we shoot for over the next 6-9 months. I can easily see a situation this fall where we have 5-7 extremely strong and productive WG that operate with a high degree of autonomy.

1 Like