The Yearn empire is rising, how many DeFi projects are starting to tremble
Editor's Note: This article comes fromBabbitt Information (ID: bitcoin8btc), compiled by: Kyle, published with permission.
Editor's Note: This article comes from
Babbitt Information (ID: bitcoin8btc)
Babbitt Information (ID: bitcoin8btc)
, compiled by: Kyle, published with permission.
We can't change the cards dealt to us, but we can change the way we play.
Players who are skilled enough to roll the dice they want can rewrite the rules of the game, while others can use chance cards and hope they don't get knocked out.
Controversial moves have sometimes been made in aggressively gaining market share in an industry vying for decentralization.
The industry is still small, and it makes sense for teams with a common goal to choose to merge with other projects rather than reinvent the wheel. For example, yearn.finance recently merged Pickle, Cream, Cover, and today's Akropolis.
But where is the red line for this conglomeration?
Pickle, CREAM, COVER, and now Akropolis. (now sushi)
Yearn is building an empire.
When YFI was first introduced, its identity tag was a "token" that could be used to manage Yearn's "control mechanisms, configurable fees, maintenance controls, and modifiable rules."
In his article “Terms of Mergers, Acquisitions, Partnerships, and Collaborations in Crypto” published by Yearn founder Andre Cronje, he suggests that the role of governance token holders can be compared to that of Ethereum miners — they both Can decide whether to upgrade the protocol.
Since the recent merger did not involve any fundamental changes to the YFI protocol, it means that governance token holders have no say in any mergers or acquisitions.
This made some YFI holders doubt their identity.
Yearn Finance governance votes are non-binding, making votes more symbolic than inherent to the workings of the protocol.
While surreptitiously announced partnerships and private deals do not align with the usual values of governance control or decentralization, most YFI holders are less concerned with the apparent reduction in their responsibilities and more concerned with “increasing prices.”
"ivangbi: If you put one product on top of another...and everyone charges a fee, how far can you scale this model so that everyone involved gets paid 'enough'? Think yearn's merger. Larry Cermak: As long as prices go up, why should you care"
Yearn's developers are clearly smart enough to make their own decisions, and anyone who puts a lot of time and effort into developing the product will have the best interest.
But do these interests conflict with those of the industry as a whole?
Aside from unlikely altruism, there's little reason for Yearn not to keep buying market share and offering more to its users.
This could lead to a powerful financial monopoly that is even more centralized than our current system, so it is understandable that this acquisition spree might unsettle others.
We have been working hard for decentralization, but the yearn merger seems to be going in the opposite direction, while we seem to be encouraging this behavior.
However, we all know that a lot of the "decentralization" and governance "control" adopted by many current projects is just to avoid legal problems.
For now, as long as this kind of protocol control works, that's fine.
Yearn powers the new era of DeFi Lego, creating something more than just a protocol, Yearn can be a powerful resource that all DeFi projects can use and reuse, and build on a solid foundation while maintaining the highest safety.
We began to understand that this new method of protocol control works best as a hub rather than a switch.
In reality, these moves by Yearn are less of a "merger" and more of a "partnership," which may not be anything to worry about, but it does clearly show just how much power Yearn has in such a small industry.
