Wow the timing couldn't be more perfect for a fledgling author as myself. Within minutes of publishing this article on the value of tokens and what makes Harvest Finances’ $FARM token so different, another publication caught my eye which in my opinion is packed with so much misinformation, its either negligence or purposeful. Lets break this down point by point, with the Honorable Dew Diligence presiding.
1 .“Harvest Finance, a decentralized finance project that succeeded in attracting over $1 billion in funds locked has an admin key that gives its holders the ability to mint tokens at will and steal users’ funds.”
Facts: Not only did the developers build in a max supply into the contracts, the minting permissions were renounced, and the Devs through community participation and governance committed to a token burn and a supply reduction from 5M to 690,420 tokens.
Verdict: Blatantly False. The first 1/3 of the article talks about uncontrolled minting and the facts show otherwise.
2. “As noted by auditing companies PeckShield and Haechi, the governance parameters are not set by a contract with clearly defined rules…In response to the audits, the team introduced a 12 hour time lock that should give enough advanced warning to users if any foul play is detected — but that requires constant community vigilance.”
Facts: A time-lock was installed to balance the risk/concerns of a rug pull, and to ensure nimbleness in deploying new strategies and vault upgrades. Add more hours, pass out multi-sig keys to “influencers” now you roll in delays and create organizational hurdles especially if there is a bug found in the strategy and requires an update.
Verdict: Misleading, but open to debate.
3. “…but the highest FARM yield can be found by submitting FARM tokens themselves, without necessarily requiring the additional layer of abstraction of Uniswap pool tokens. Such a circular dependency is characteristic of many crypto Ponzi schemes.”
Facts: Shame they did not actually reach out for any info, or read my latest which would point out that the referenced pool rewards are paid in $FARM, but the majority of those tokens are market bought daily with the profits generated by liquidity providers. A ponzi would require a majority of those rewards to be paid from minted emissions, but as explained in my article, at $25M annualized flowing to the profit share in actual profits, $FARM from a pure profit cash flow is dramatically undervalued at a P/E of 1.76.
Verdict: Blatantly false. It is clear the author did zero research because all of the data is on chain showing FARM is bought with profits, and cash profits are displayed clearly on the Harvest Finance website.
How does the jury find the accused in this matter?
“Based on the FACTUAL evidence presented in this court, we find the defendant guilty on two counts of shady intent, and borderline malfeasance with the intent to mislead.”
— Case Closed