Give the Apy Team a mandate to allow any new farms to be added by them without the need for a vote for a period of 4 months

We can all agree that the platform needs TVL to grow and to attract more users and more TVL more farms need to be added. However, currently every new farm needs to be voted on under the guise of decentralisation which is fine but it takes time and the the votes are often going to be a yes. Look at all previous farms. Not 1 Apy was used to vote against. That suggests the community trusts the team expertise and knowledge and understand new farms improve the platform appeal.

So why do we need to vote on adding new farms if they are almost always going to be passed and if they are found to have an exploit it will disabled by team as the platform has a built in function to do that quickly?

Let’s vote to give the team a mandate to automatically include new farms without a vote on ones they think will increase yield which maybe riskier in some/a lot of cases for a period of 4 months and re-evaluate after that period ends.

The risk of adding a new more riskier farm automatically without voting is that in the event of an exploit all funds are drained from that farm and the user losers a proportion of their liquidity provision in their account. This is a small proportion anyways as an account holder’s liquidity is shared amongst the various farms so if 1 farm out of 10 is drained it’s likely the user loses ~10% of their account value. If 2 are drained out of 20 farms then again its 10% of the account value.

But this is Defi and every platform is a risk look at Compound and Yearn the biggest most reputable defi platforms out there with their compromised SC exploits?

Having automatic implementation of new farm pools without a vote means:-

  1. The team can move fast to increase yield at any given time to attract more yield farmers and increase TVL in a market that has so much choice for them already and the delays may allow other competitors to attract them instead.

  2. Include interesting and novel farms that are only just gaining traction by the crypto community so we have almost fist mover advantage and gain potentially more yield early or later on.

  3. Riskier farms tends to quickly attract more yield farmers than less riskier ones because of the perceived benefits. These normally might be voted against by the community (although unlikely given the current voting track record) but it may do for legitimate or non legitimate reasons. Although rare, what if there was a scenario of 51:49% voted in favour of yes for a particularly risky farm to be added? Would that instill confidence by the team/community that the farm should be added? The answer by the team and community in this case is likely to be “well we can add it but will disable it if there’s an exploit” so we are back to adding a riskier farm that can be disabled anyways except there was a delay due to voting.

TLDR: let’s vote to give the team a mandate to add new farms without a vote for a period of say 4 months to save time and any exploits later found then the pool can be disabled anyways.


Entirly agree with you


I also agree. Implementing as many pools as possible, as quickly as possibly to increase TVL needs to be right up there with adding token utility. I trust the team so I would vote “yes” for them to add the pools they believe would increase TVL the quickest (obviously with higher yield). This is what they do (defi) so I’m sure most of us would agree with this. Do it!


Although I do also agree with the thesis that we should not deviate from the ideals of decentralization. I also find it extremely difficult to believe that any farm would receive a negative vote, let alone be voted down. I also agree given the need to add TVL and more farms centralization of this decision to the team would make the most efficient sense. Possibly a modifier to this could be made for what might be seen as very high risk strategies, but even then it hard to believe with the low risk options already on the table that would receive any negative vote… I support!


Agreed. A higher risk threshold strategy sounds like it would most likely be added toward the end of this period I’m reading between the lines. Again, less likely to be voted against