Question 1

What is YFII?

Accepted Answer

YFII is a liquidity-mining token associated with DFI.Money. Verifiable historical project design treated it as a reward distributed to participants in designated liquidity pools, rather than as a return certificate issued directly according to purchase amount or a fixed interest rate. This material describes the issuance arrangement from 2020. It can be used to understand how YFII was allocated at that time, but it cannot by itself establish that the same pools, reward rules, supply, or governance mechanisms remain available today.

Question 2

What allocation pools were historically established for YFII?

Accepted Answer

The historical design established three liquidity pools, each planned to distribute 20,000 YFII, for a total planned distribution of 60,000 YFII across the three pools. The pools were accounted for separately: participants compared their share only with other liquidity providers in the same pool, not across all three pools together. “Planned distribution” describes the target amount under that historical plan and should not be equated directly with the currently circulating quantity. Whether tokens remain at an address, are tradable, or are subject to other arrangements requires additional information from the relevant point in time.

Question 3

How were historical rewards for liquidity participants calculated?

Accepted Answer

Under the plan, rewards were not split equally among every participant. For a given week, the YFII distributable by that pool for the week was first determined, then allocated according to each participant's relative share of the pool's total liquidity. The relationship can be expressed as: an individual's weekly reward = that pool's weekly reward × the individual's effective liquidity / the pool's total effective liquidity. The numerator is the individual's effective share in the pool, and the denominator is the effective share of all participants; therefore, other participants adding, withdrawing, or changing liquidity changes the share that the same unit of liquidity may receive.

Question 4

What was YFII's historical issuance schedule?

Accepted Answer

The historical document specified that each pool was planned to issue 10,000 YFII in the first week, with the planned amount halving each subsequent week, and this round of distribution was planned to be completed within 10 weeks. Halving changed the rate of new weekly rewards: under this rule, fewer new tokens were available for distribution in later weeks. Together with the “20,000 YFII planned per pool” amount, this schedule describes the cap and timing path of the issuance design, but it should not be misread as a fixed individual weekly return. Individual results also depended on each participant's relative liquidity share in that week.

Question 5

What process was required for historical liquidity mining?

Accepted Answer

Participating in liquidity mining generally meant that participants first deposited specified assets into a smart contract or related liquidity position according to pool rules, after which the system counted rewards based on holding time and effective share. Rewards came from the YFII allocation preset by this historical design, rather than from automatic appreciation of the assets deposited by participants. Accordingly, receiving YFII required that a participant's funds were actually in a valid state under the pool rules at that time; merely holding YFII or merely holding one related asset did not constitute eligibility for the historical mining rewards.

Question 6

Why could the same amount of capital receive different amounts of YFII in different weeks?

Accepted Answer

The relative-share mechanism meant rewards changed with total pool liquidity. If an individual's effective liquidity remained unchanged while other participants' effective liquidity increased, that individual's percentage share declined and the weekly reward they could receive fell accordingly; changes in the opposite direction could increase the share. Likewise, because the weekly reward itself halved over time, even if an individual's percentage share remained unchanged, the amount of YFII in later weeks decreased as the total amount available for distribution declined. These two variables—an individual's relative share and the pool's weekly reward—must be considered together.

Question 7

How did the three historical liquidity pools differ?

Accepted Answer

The three pools each had independent planned allocations and participant groups. A higher liquidity share in one pool affected only reward allocation in that pool; it did not automatically entitle a participant to rewards from the other two pools. This pooled design allowed liquidity under different assets or rules to be accounted for separately, but it also required participants to assess the rules and risks of the specific pool they entered. A participant's result in any single pool cannot be inferred solely from the aggregate planned amount across all three pools.

Question 8

What were the basic risks of historical liquidity-mining participation?

Accepted Answer

“Liquidity mining” here was a historical token-distribution method, not a risk-free deposit. In addition to YFII market-price volatility, participants could face changes in the price of assets supplied, changes in liquidity-position value, smart-contract execution risk, and withdrawal conditions. The historical document explains how rewards were allocated by share, but it does not guarantee that participants ultimately earned a positive return. The reward quantity, the market value when rewards were claimed, and the value of assets contributed are different variables and cannot substitute for one another.

Question 9

Why should YFII's historical issuance be distinguished from its current status?

Accepted Answer

YFII's historical issuance arrangement began in 2020, and the first week, halving schedule, and ten-week period described in the document all belong to that design and time context. They should not be described as issuance activities that are still occurring today. When researching current status, “how it was historically distributed” should be verified separately from “whether comparable pools currently exist, what the current token supply is, and which contracts currently manage it.” A historical design document alone cannot confirm the latter.

Question 10

What does “20,000 per pool” not represent?

Accepted Answer

The 20,000 YFII per pool amount was a planned allocation under the historical design, not an amount available to an individual and not a measure that can be directly treated as current circulating supply, maximum supply, or tradable depth. Individual rewards had to be calculated based on the weekly pool reward and relative share. For example, even if a pool had a planned reward in a particular week, a participant could receive only a portion based on their effective share; whether the tokens were later sold, locked, or still held is a separate question of asset status.

Question 11

Does historical halving issuance mean YFII's price will change?

Accepted Answer

Historical issuance rules themselves cannot promise YFII's price or liquidity. Halving reduced the quantity of new allocations under that plan, but price still had to form through market trading and was affected by buying and selling demand, the quantity of tradable tokens, and trading conditions. Only under specific conditions could slower new allocation affect the market through tradable supply; if holders sold, market demand declined, or trading depth was insufficient, that connection might not hold. Therefore, the historical halving arrangement cannot be directly equated with a price increase.

Question 12

How should the scope of sources be understood when researching YFII materials?

Accepted Answer

Verifiable GitHub materials associate the yfii organization with the dfi.money domain and project repositories, providing a clue for identifying historical project sources; the historical token-design document supports the issuance mechanism described above. Neither substitutes for item-by-item verification of current contracts, the current frontend, or current market information. Before using any current service, users should still confirm that they are accessing the correct project resources and use currently public contract and service rules to determine whether an action is possible. The existence of historical documentation should not lead to the assumption that all historical functions remain available.

DFIMoney (YFII) Price

Price of DFIMoney (YFII) Today in USD