As reported by CoinDesk, on January 13, a participant in the government forum of Yearn.Finance suggested that they did not have to go the way of Bitcoin in terms of maximum limits for crypto.
Yearn.Finance could become separated from Satoshi’s vision
The participant, yfi_lit, explained in the forum that the idea of a limit for the minting of tokens, as is the case with Bitcoin, may not be the ideal option for Yearn.Finance.
So, unlike the crypto leader, the government of Yearn.Finance is evaluating the possibility of increasing the supply of tokens by 22%, out of a minting of an additional 6,666 YFI, a third of which would go to taxpayers. principal and the rest would go to the treasury.
However, let’s keep in mind that this proposal runs counter to most, if not all, of the foundations on which the crypto community has been forged.
A new crypto vision
It is worth remembering that Bitcoin was created as a response to the financial crisis of 2008 and consequently to bad economic policy. In fact, this is why the leading crypto has a fixed supply that guarantees scarcity and therefore no one can benefit from minting new tokens, as is the case in real life with money printing.
From the creation of Bitcoin, various projects began to emerge that allowed to shape today’s crypto market and its community.
However, the sentiment in favor of a fixed supply remains clinging to the hearts of many members of the market.
In this sense, it is to be expected that such a proposal will generate opposition in the Yearn.Finance government. In fact, some members have even decided to abandon the project because it did not go according to their principles and expectations.
Before the rejection of some members of the crypto community, the user yfi_lit replied: «.… I’m sorry you’re leaving, but I’m glad people with that kind of attitude towards our builders are gone.
Consequently, Yearn.Finance is currently in a minefield and is about to make a decision that will completely change the route of the protocol.
However, the question is: Will it be positive for the protocol? Or, on the contrary, will it be their downfall?