Yam

Summary

This is a further proposal to clarify whether and on what basis a redemption should occur.

Certain individuals have complained about the governance process of the previous snapshots. This snapshot is intended to ‘fix’ any issues with the previous process undertaken.

7 days ago, I posted on Discord and the YAM forum with the draft proposal and invited any constructive comments on the proposal and/or process (https://forum.yam.finance/t/the-great-yamdemption-2/1785). I did not receive much comments or follow up conversation.

I have received indications that certain members on the multi-sig will veto any on-chain proposal, but I have not received any satisfactory reason for them doing so based on governance processes. Instead, a member of the multi-sig, @HodlDwon has confirmed that the multi-sig is able to cancel on-chain votes “at any time, and for any reason, or no reason at all” and even suggests that yam.finance is not the officially endorsed website for YAM. It now makes sense why YAM is -99.6% of its ATH and reinforces the need to redeem.

The proposal

There are four options to vote on:

1. No redemption
2. Redemption forever
3. Donate to charity (pro rata GiveDirectly) after 1 year redemption window
4. Donate to charity (pro rata Gitcoin) after 1 year redemption window

Option 1 and 2 are standalone options and are self-explanatory. Options 3 and 4 are to be counted together and, if they were to win, the ratio of the votes will reflect the pro rata allocation of the donation to the respective charity.

The option(s) with the highest vote (i.e. Option 1, Option 2 or Options 3+4) will then go to an on-chain vote. If the token holders vote for a redemption (i.e. Options 2 or 3+4), the base of the code has already been developed by me and @E (and it was good enough for @Feddas to then use for his own proposal) so I do not expect there to be any substantial changes in order to get this up and running.

About GiveDirectly

From their blurb:

“GiveDirectly is a nonprofit that lets donors like you send money directly to the world’s poorest households. We believe people living in poverty deserve the dignity to choose for themselves how best to improve their lives — cash enables that choice.”

GiveDirectly is a reputable charity that Jack Dorsey publicly endorsed and donated to last year (https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/03/09/twitter-ceo-will-donate-proceeds-from-the-genesis-tweet-to-givedirectly/). They seem to manage and own their own Eth wallet, which is publicly displayed on their website (https://www.givedirectly.org/crypto/).

Potential Questions:

• If a redemption goes on-chain, what if the multi-sig vetos the proposal? The purpose of this snapshot is to confirm the desire of the majority of token holders and the multi-sig should respect that decision. To veto the majority would confirm that the multi-sig is not acting in the best interests of YAM and that the governance of YAM is actually centralized by a small number of individuals at the expense of the majority. @HodlDwon has already confirmed that he thinks he has ultimate control over YAM. If the other members of the multi-sig agree with HodlDwon and confirm that the governance of YAM is centralized, then they should be aware of their potential personal liability for any damages/losses suffered by token holders (see comment above about YAM being -99.6% of its ATH) in the event it is deemed a security.

• Why is there no option for a temporary redemption? That proposal was decisively voted down by an on-chain vote, with almost 90% of votes being against the proposal (https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:1:0x2DA253835967D6E721C6c077157F9c9742934aeA/proposal/33).

• Is there code for any on-chain proposal on redemption? Yes. This code has already been developed and endorsed by two core contributors of YAM, E and Feddas (Feddas himself confirmed that the code “Looks great” and “submitted it” as an on-chain proposal with minor edits to fit his failed parameters). The code underwent a lengthy and public development process on #yam-development and no one objected to the code. Assuming token holders vote for a form of redemption, only minor adjustments will need to be made.