---
# System prepended metadata

title: Yip 10 - Indonesian
tags: [' docs', translation, ' Indonesian']

---

---
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/).