[Informal Poll] Yearn want to open a big vault to mint ~ 15M, as client

Do we want to open a specific vault for them with a fix rate?

Do we want to create a specific vault for them?
  • Yes, great. We need Dai to be generated.
  • No, let’s them minted and sell YFI and go to hell.

0 voters

Which long term rate?
  • 3.5% like RAW
  • 4.5%
  • 6% like all the others
  • 10% go to hell, too risky

0 voters

  • 6 months
  • 1 year
  • 2 years
  • 3 years

0 voters

I believe that is going to be a good first experience with fix rate. The amount is perfect in term of risk.


I think allowing Yearn to mint DAI using YFI is a good (and profitable) thing we can do for the community. However, I have two concerns.

  • Does creating a YFI-X vault type require significant dev resources? Would we be able to bring it up in time for Yearn to benefit?

  • I am not sure the additional commentary on some of the poll options is appropriate for a signal request. Also multiple choice voting might be preferable.

This is a great experiment! Lower stability fees are fine with the assurance that Yearn will manage this vault like yETH.


In my opinion 6 months would be too short… Think about 1 year with 3.5RAW would be the best fit …

The rate here is more as an indication. Risk management should assess it.

1 Like

I think one year is appropriate, and the SF indicator should be the same as other token indicators.

Assuming the YFI community does choose Maker as a lender — I believe they only need a short-term loan per a few comments @banteg made on Rocket Chat.

It’s possible other outlets might step in with offers at lower rates/better terms. Assuming there is appetite for such risk.

personally speaking, if it doesn’t scale, it isn’t worth the scarce bandwidth of governance.


Hi There,

Removed the signal request tag as it isn’t and add sentiment.
A proper pool will be added further.

I think we reach the general sentiment (100% yes with 15 votes) and a more constructive plan needs to be discussed with both parties.

  • it’s fixed rate, so i don’t assume much governance is needed?
  • I assume there should not be much work for smart contract team, oracle etc
  • it would be good marketing for Maker

It’s mostly about risk and rate.

1 Like

no dispute on any of your points with one catch.

in my eyes, governance should ** start **to have minimum usage targets. Eg 50MM in one year.

and if those targets can be reached, it may be time to remove the collateral type and ensure scarce risk and governance resources are directed at scale opptys.

1 Like

I disagree with the fact that doesn’t scale.

Yearn is looking for fresh capital and at the end of the day they are a sort of hedge fund.
I am sure they will be happy to borrow 500M if we let them doing it.

For me it looks more a RWA with an already existent on-chain token.
I am not sure if they have an actually entity but I believe they do.


I dont know how big it will be… my point is reference the desire to ensure a minimum over a period of time… (not what it will be to start)… regardless of the collateral.

for example, no disrespect to BAL… however with 780k debt outstanding… the DAO is probably paying more in gas fees for the oracle than revenue and when the risk is included i suspect it is a net upside-down engagement (though I am ignorant on the gas… it is just an impression)… and the time that its takes to eval the risk isnt “free”.


We already have a YFI vault, no oracle feed needs to be added.


While i agree we should define some minimum (relative) threshold where does not make sense to onboard, we should probably treat this differently. We can get few 100k of fees in a year for not much work and additional risk. Imo such 15m it’s not worse than 50m with a lot of new work/risk.

But, yeah. I agree.

I kind of agree.

But here I think it is worth doing this, even for just 11m DAI, as a first experiment.

The experiment: set up a Vault type accessible by just 1 individual/user/entity (i.e., restricted). A private line of credit, sort to speak.
This is motivated, of course, by the fact that this individual is particularly trustworthy.

In the future, if it works, we might do this at a much much larger scale with other organisations.


I am all about testing… all about bringing on new collateral… but at some point, we need to “call it” on collateral that is economically upside down (none should be sacred).

1 Like

Yes. But another route, to follow in parallel, is to expand the limited resources of MakerDAO and increase the Risk/Oracles/SC Core Units.


@alexis I think it would be important to vote on the collateralization ratio as well. Was there one you had in mind?