LIVE - Proposal - $YFL token Migration

Abstract/Executive Summary

We propose to migrate tokens from YFL to a new token with a new total supply of 88,888 (a supply increase of 71%) in order to generate funding for fair launch style liquidity mining programs and a sustainable future of product development.


This proposal is designed to both fund the project and execute a rebrand on the ticker. We are not including the rebrand etc in this first prop because the rebrand and new devs will really kick things off, and we’d like a smooth token migration first so that such an action doesn’t disrupt hot market activity and momentum. We are intending to execute this in a way which maximizes benefit to the community while still gaining approval from the community before new funds are committed to anything. The intent is to use the funding to bootstrap liquidity and development, as well as refocus the project’s product line to be synergistic and play to our strengths - community, partnerships, bridging. The two biggest products on our roadmap are a liquidity aggregator leveraging many liquidity sources, and a new product development in partnership with Ren. More details to come in the rebrand bill post-migration.

The supply increase of ~75% was chosen to be a large enough treasury to fund plans for DeFi-scale liquidity mining programs and partnerships, and a runway of development. But also intended to stay below 2x of current supply so as to not overly dilute the potential for x% appreciation or staking potential for holders. This treasury will of course be under the control of existing holders.


We will create a contract to mint the new tokens, and the migration will be executed by users using this migration tool here:

Once YFL is migrated, the user will receive new tokens from the contract in one of the next blocks (exact block TBD). We will be funding the ETH gas for this, and support gas to mint migration tokens from this contract for at least the remainder of 2021. This means the contract is effectively a direct swap YFL → new tokens, but YFL is sent to a burn address instead of being swapped out from the contract itself.

When we have this contract live, we will work with team and/or market makers to LP the new token pegged at the price of YFL, to support a smooth transition with relative price parity.

-50,000 tokens will be allocated for redemption in this way 1:1; 2,000 of the 52,000 CoinGecko supply was never minted, so these will not be included in the redemption contract.

-The remaining 30,888 tokens will be placed into the treasury, owned by the protocol and will not be allocated to anything until a review and snapshot vote is held on the rebrand proposal, which will include an immersive preview of the rebrand, high level product dev, funding allocation, plans for existing YFL product code and possibly a note about partnership(s).

Finally, the remaining YFL currently in the treasury (currently ~120 YFL) and YFL LP (~10 YFL) will be withdrawn to the dev fund in order to burn for the new token when ready, and will remain in the dev fund for operating costs during this next phase (dev fund is currently down to ~2ETH).


Full remaining balance of YFL in the treasury (~120 YFL)

Voting Options


Approve the token migration and withdrawal of remaining YFL treasury funds


Reject the token migration and withdrawal of remaining YFL treasury funds


So YFL will be migrate to another token like Matic to Polygon or mint new token through YFL.

Please clear

It’s a migration, you burn YFL to get the new token.

1 Like

Happy Sunday all!

Hope everyone has had an opportunity to read through and digest the proposal that Palis dropped.

After going through it and following the discussion both on TG and Discord I decided to put together a bit of a ‘community’ response as well as some suggested changes to the prop that reflect the feedback that I have seen.

First of all, I want to say that I fully support the new proposal and direction that the team is taking the project. I think that the changes, while large, have been appropriately telegraphed and the timeline that Palis laid out a number of weeks back has been adhered to. Both of those things are much appreciated.
While I have generally seen positive reactions to the proposal I have seen some reticence among a few members, which I think is fair and I think is worth addressing.

Response to Feedback/Commentary:

  • Dilution:
    The biggest change that this proposal will bring, besides the complete makeover of the brand and token… , is the introduction of an additional 38,888 tokens (71 % increase). While no one wants to see their holdings in a project diluted I think that the context of why this is being done and to what end is very important. YFL as it stands today is a promising product that is stagnating. The biggest flaw in the initial project was that the treasury and team were not adequately funded to be able to push sustained development and growth. The result is a highly functional and, frankly, very high quality dex that is failing to draw volume due to lack of liquidity and lack of resources to attract new liquidity. The treasury funds in this prop will directly remedy this situation giving the project a war chest going forward that can be deployed in a number of ways: rewards to attract liquidity, funding for future product improvement and development, funds for marketing and partnership ventures, etc. All the fuel that this project needs to take a big step forward are going to come from this proposal. I personally am very excited to see what this team can do with these resources.

  • Allocation:
    As a follow up to Dilution I wanted to make it clear that the newly created tokens are not simply being created and distributed. They will be retained for the purpose of growing the project and will continue to be allocated through governance as before. Don’t think of the percentage change in your stake as a dilution to the ether, but rather an investment that we (the team and community together) can leverage to create considerably more value as the project is pushed forward to a bigger and bolder future.

  • Team Trust:
    One bit of feedback that I saw was that some members of the community didn’t have enough trust in the dev team to cede a portion of their share. I will keep my response here polite. This project is centered on the contributions that our dev team have stood up and made. This project has had ups and downs but the leadership I’ve seen from the current team has been impressive and I consider myself lucky to be a part of this community. This team makes themselves available for discussion/questions on a fairly regular basis and anyone who doesn’t know anything about them has not made it a point to try to learn about who they are. Bottom line: If you don’t have trust in this team then I honestly don’t know why you would be invested here.

  • Team Info/Intro:
    That being said, I think this rebranding may be an excellent opportunity for the dev team and any new additions to introduce themselves, especially as we may be attracting new faces to the community in the coming weeks/months. Palis has already done this in discord, but clarifying who the multi-sig members are should also be included in this update.

  • Holder Rewards:
    The final bit of feedback that I have seen is the request for rewards to longtime holders/stakers. I have seen ideas such as higher rewards for longtime holders through 1.2:1 or more migration ratio or airdrops to long time holders. While I do understand this sentiment I think a lot of these schemes end up getting complicated quickly due to the nature of the contracts needed to perform them. However, I will propose below a possible alternative that I think may be simpler to execute while giving a small reward to community members who actively migrate and join the new project promptly.

Additional Proposed Items (These can be voted on in a subsequent proposal if they get enough support):

  1. I propose that 38,000 of the new tokens go to treasury as originally intended. However, I propose that the 888 additional tokens be allocated as follows:
  • Dev Fund: 88 of the tokens allocated to the dev fund along with the full balance of the current treasury (~120) to bring the dev fund up to an initial balance of around 210 to cover costs during the migration and rebrand period.

  • New Gov Vault Rewards: I propose that the additional 800 tokens be distributed in the new token governance vault over the next 2-3 months to reward token holders that actively migrate and restake in the new governance vault. Just as we want to kickstart our LP pools, getting our Gov Vault Staking level up helps with the TVL and this gives a little back to the holders who are active and paying attention to what is going on in the project without causing a rush to buy and then dump the tokens like an airdrop or instantaneous reward would.

  1. I propose that as part of the migration a blog post be made to introduce the team and any new additions so we have a perfect place to send new faces as the project attracts more attention in the coming weeks/months.

  2. I propose the creation of an elected Community Advisory Committee of 3-5 nominated community members to act as a liason group between the community at large and the dev team. This committee should be made up of community members who are willing to stay up to date with all happenings in the project as well as willing to answer questions as needed. The intent is that this group would act as a resource for the community at large as well as a buffer/conduit for the dev team. Essentially acting as a conduit for legitimate questions/concerns/ideas/etc. while acting as a buffer from the FUD. I know this doesn’t seem terribly necessary at the moment as the community isn’t too crazy large. But if this project takes off like we all hope it will then I think having a bit of infrastructure to handle the increased volume might be a good tool to have in place so that the community is still heard while not overwhelming the dev team while they work. (Details to be hashed out further with feedback)


As a long time holder and staker, I would like to see more information about the post-migration details mentioned in the rebrand bill above.

YFL has a special place in DeFi, which is further bolstered by the past meme competitions. If any of these new endeavors can be successfully executed without a rebrand, I would opt for that in favor a complete do-over.

With respect to Matic re-branding to Polygon, it’s important to remind ourselves that they already had a L2 Dex and many other partnerships in the works at the time of change. They had product-market fit for L2 during times of high congestion.

Is this initiative similarly momentous? But to be clear, I applaud the community for thinking outside the box. It’s necessary for us to continue thinking about new ways of adding value to DeFi.

Are the team looking at ERC677 tokens?
Stolen explanation:
“What makes ERC677 so attractive is ERC677 allows users to approve and stake in the same transaction.
Users will have an easier time interacting with our contracts and SAVE on gas fees in the process”