[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Yearn

Yes we’ve looked for a viable $OP strategy, but haven’t found one yet. We’re always looking for new strategies and vaults to add, so if anyone sees something with some promise please reach out!

I could add these details to the main proposal

1 Like

hello @omgcorn, it’s marc from Candide Wallet. Thank you for the proposal, and welcome to Yearn on Optimism! It’s exciting to see you coming given the talented contributors that Yearn nourishes and the framework that you have set to build one of the most trusted names on Ethereum.

Overall, very solid proposal. I would encourage you add the competitors section to follow the template guideline, even if your competitors have different strategies in terms of yield and risk-adjusted.

I have noticed that there’s notable difference in TLV between Fantom and Arbitrum.

  • Can you elaborate more how Yearn managed to be more successful on Fantom than on Arbitrum?
  • What worked and what didn’t?

Adding more details to your proposal in terms of specific strategies of collaborations or other will help. Many protocols that are already deployed on Fantom are now starting to deploy on Optimism. Yearn coming to Optimism will increase that the network effect, especially with their partners. It remains to be seen if Yearn can encourage and work with protocols deployed on Mainnet to come to Optimism, where most of the TLV is currently sitting.

With the amount requested, the expectations is that it would match somehow the amount deposited in the protocol and that you have showed some traction. I would recommend to either lower the ask at the current state, or wait for the next round until you have shown officially launched with more traction with optimism vaults. You would have both integrated on yearn.finance front-end, and on-boarded your partners to Optimism. I believe that the proposal would have a higher chance of getting through either way.

Overall, I am in support of this proposal as Yearn will bring lots of value for Optimism, both with their yVault partners, and their active contributors to EVM infrastructure.


Hey Marc – Thank you for the comment. At one point we had over $1 billion in Fantom. The biggest factor in that was great yield opportunities. Today Arbitrum has mostly options plays that are outside the risk profile we use for making strategies. Here on Optimism, there were opportunities for the 5 vaults I mentioned in the proposal that are key building blocks partners.

Those 5 vaults are really the secret sauce to bringing others to Optimism and getting that network effect you’re referring to. The specific strategies we’re running are using: Aave, Velo, Uniswap, Curve, Stargate, and Ironbank. We’re always looking for new strategies and if there are any others on Optimism who would like to have us take a look and see if there’s something viable we can do together please reach out to me.

To show Optimism continued support, we’re testing Vaults V3 on Optimism first, even before mainnet. This is still months from launching and will bring a new style of composable vaults for the first time. You can read more about Vaults V3 here: YearnV3: Motivation and design. After the brief overview of the next… | by jmonteer | Yearn | Medium


I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote

1 Like

Hey just wanted to say that when Yearn launches on Optimism Alchemix should be able to integrate them pretty quickly!


Chiming in that I would absolutely love to see Yearn in Optimism and that I am a delegate with sufficient voting power. Would love to see this go on a vote eventually.

But I would also like to see some back and forth feedback of either of the DeFi committees first before including the proposal to the vote, to make sure all concerns, if any, are addressed and the proposal that does go to the vote is the one that everyone is happy with.
Tagging @linda @katie (DeFi A) and @OPUser @SEED_LATAM_Joxes (DeFi C)


Hi @lefterisjp , Thank you for the tag. Writing my personal opinion here.

I would love to see Yearn live on OP, on UI. Second, I would also reduce the token duration to 5-6Months(20 Weeks) and adjust the amount requested accordingly. Proposal is mostly focused on vault depositor which might attract mercenary, came for reward and once rewards is gone they might hop to another project.

There are many assumption on why users will stay once incentives are over and no co-incentives. Performance on Arbitrum is also not well received. A full deployment on OP will help with many open question and would be easy to valuate the proposal.


Hey OPUser thank you for the comment. I don’t think 20 weeks is enough time to see this through. What I think you’ll get with 20 weeks is a lot of depositors into Yearn Vaults directly who will be mercenary.

With 40 weeks you’ll get these partners who I already have commitment from to build on Yearn Vaults on Optimism: Alchemix, QiDao, Swype, Rhino, Omni, Spool, Revest, Abra, DeFi Saver, Tapioca, and more coming. Partner integrations leads to usefulness and stickiness.

Our Arbitrum deployment was Curve 2Pool, Curve Tricrypto, and Curve MIM 3Pool in the 8 or so months we’ve been there. There were no opportunities for single deposit vaults that make up the foundation of building on Yearn.

We have many other partners I did not name above who are a little further down the road in terms of building on Optimism. I’ll keep them up to date on how things are going with the hope to accelerate their path.

I will be on the lookout for more partners to integrate with including native Optimism projects who apply on your forum here. I think that could be a good list of leads who may need sources of yield.

Thank you again for taking the time to think about this. I know there’s a lot of info here. Please feel free to dm me to chat more if you have questions too of course.

1 Like

Hey @omgcorn

Happy to see the great Yearn on Optimsim

Very clear everything, just one question, maybe a small request.

Can you define the introduction of veYfi, and how it will be what you comment? Could Yearn commit to this idea and attach it to your proposal?


Thank you Jadmat. We are happy to be here.

I think I know why you are asking that question! The answer is we are not going to be distributing $OP to veYFI holders. Just like in our proposal, we are going to distribute 100% of the $OP to yVault users.

If you don’t mind I want to avoid any potential confusion and not comment on veYFI in this context/thread.

1 Like

I reviewed the proposal and personally don’t have any issue with it (can’t speak for DeFi Committee A) and think this proposal will help grow the Optimism ecosystem so I’m supportive.


Yearn needs almost a full year to get partners to build on it? I’d imagine at least a few would sign up more quickly. I mean, just off the top of my head, Resonate could get you set up in a day, probably @RobAnon? And then within 20 weeks we could collectively reassess needs.

A million OP for almost a year of runway strikes me as excessive, as much as I very much would like Yearn to come onboard ASAP.

And if your target is partners, why not earmark the funds specifically for partner or joint programs/pools rather than overall liq mining? That strikes me as having more follow-on benefits and allows you to sidestep the question of incentivizing too much mercenary capital.


We’re definitely working with @RobAnon at Revest already and he’s aware of these vaults. I’ve included them in my list of partners who already committed to building on top of our vaults on Optimism: Alchemix, QiDao, Swype, Rhino, Omni, Spool, Revest, Abra, DeFi Saver, Tapioca. There will be many more.

I’m trying to be realistic about development cycles. It takes time for things to be built. We’ve been working with @RobAnon on the ERC 4626 adapter he’s building for a few weeks now already and that’s just one part of what they’re building.

You bring up a good point about earmarking for specific protocols. I think the length and partners here will naturally be less mercenary. If we don’t earmark for specific protocols I think it could be a catalyst for development to get onboard the Optimism train. The levers we do have are to incentivize vaults that partners are using the most.


Can confirm, we’re excited to build on the vaults yall have put together. Our ERC-4626 systems should be easy to get onboarded with your systems :slight_smile:

And thanks for the shoutout to the both of you!


Defi Committee A Recommendation

Voting recommendation: Yes

Rationale: Yearn is a well established project with high TVL. We support this proposal and believe it will drive ecosystem growth and is a good use of funds.


The defi shadow committee which is not an official committeerecommends voting against this proposal. There are some limited but high-level changes we’d liked to have seen, but we affirm that in principle we want to do as much as is reasonable to support Yearn’s onboarding onto Optimism.


We view Yearn as a key DeFi building block that Optimism would greatly benefit from. However, 1M OP over 40 weeks seems excessive, and we believe reducing the duration and size of this proposal to 500k OP over 20 weeks is more appropriate. This should be sufficient time for Yearn to show some positive traction and integrations, and the opportunity would be there to present a second proposal for another wave of incentives.

Yearn has a stellar reputation in the Ethereum community as one of the original DeFi projects. Optimism stands to gain tremendously by helping Yearn grow a foothold here—not just from the TVL their vaults will bring but from the integrations that Yearn enables with other protocols. Other projects are likely to follow Yearn here to build on top of them. There is a great multiplier effect reaped from their mere involvement, which is not something we can say for every project.

I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #18 by katie] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

1 Like

Voted yes - Following my own committee recommendation :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Voted Yes in accordance with committee recommendation.

Short duration of 6 month would have been much better but their explanation with reference to Arbitrum support a longer duration.