--- title: Yip 10 - Indonesian tags: translation, docs, Indonesian --- yip: 10 title: Transitionary YFI Only Voting status: Implemented author: Rewkang (@rewkang) discussions-to: https://gov.yearn.finance/t/yip-10-transitionary-yfi-only-voting/481 created: 2020-07-24 implementation: https://etherscan.io/address/0xBa37B002AbaFDd8E89a1995dA52740bbC013D992 --- ## Simple Summary <!--"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Simply describe the outcome the proposed changes intends to achieve. This should be non-technical and accessible to a casual community member.--> The current yEarn governance mechanism puts the protocol at risk of a hostile takeover. The best immediate course of action would be to temporarily transition the protocol to a new voting contract recently deployed by Andre. ## Abstract <!--A short (~200 word) description of the proposed change, the abstract should clearly describe the proposed change. This is what *will* be done if the YIP is implemented, not *why* it should be done or *how* it will be done. If the YIP proposes deploying a new contract, write, "we propose to deploy a new contract that will do x".--> Update the ygov.finance voting page to link to the new voting contract where only YFI can be staked. Contract: [Etherscan](https://etherscan.io/address/0xad7e09665caa3404d9c6525d5997a10fc6c12cfe) ## Motivation <!--This is the problem statement. This is the *why* of the YIP. It should clearly explain *why* the current state of the protocol is inadequate. It is critical that you explain *why* the change is needed, if the YIP proposes changing how something is calculated, you must address *why* the current calculation is innaccurate or wrong. This is not the place to describe how the YIP will address the issue!--> The current yEarn voting contract accepts BPT (Balancer Pool Tokens) from a pool consisting of 98% yCRV / 2% YFI. This creates a dynamic where large stablecoin holders hold a disproportionate amount of voting shares and thereby governance power, while those whom have a high proportion of YFI vs. stablecoin are underrepresented in governance. Governance should be dictated by those with the most vested long term interest of the protocol - YFI holders - irrespective of their portfolio composition. More importantly, the protocol is currently vulnerable to a hostile takeover of governance by stablecoin whales who could potentially pass a proposal to mint a large supply of YFI and disproportionately reward themselves (via favoring large stablecoin holders). There are multiple different long term governance/voting approaches being debated, and it will take time to align on community consensus. While these are being analyzed/discussed, we should immediately transition to a temporary governance structure where only YFI can be used to vote in order to mitigate hostile takeover attacks. The community can replace this temporary YFI only voting structure after passing a new YIP. **FOR**: Governance moves to newly deployed YFI only voting contract. **AGAINST**: No governance changes. ## Metadata | Name | Value | |---------------------|--------------------------------------------| | Proposed by | 0x09173487b272311Edda01F45f97911aEB6aBd602 | | Total for votes | 13641124.8956 (77.08%) | | Total against votes | 4054142.5578 (22.91%) | | Quorum | 45.92% ✔ | | Start block | 10518707 | | End block | 10535987 | Source: [yieldfarming.info YFI Governance Information](https://yieldfarming.info/yearn/vote/) ## Copyright Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).