A reply to d-man's SIP

The gargantuan thread from d-man appears to have been deleted, but I promised people in the Dojo that I would reply to it. So here’s my post. If the thread comes back, I’ll post it under there directly. *

Update the thread is back but I kept this one here so it doesn’t appear anything is being deleted

BCW has contributed some super-gem individuals to the community and I appreciate the few of you who have been active in good-faith communication over the past year. I also hope many of you others will become more active in our community, independent of whether d-man posts and tells you to comment or not. This will help us break the lines between being exclusively BCW or Sovryn.

Here are a few critiques of the proposal:

  1. UI/UX: Saying UI/UX needs to be fixed is not a proposal, it’s a demand with no substance that doesn’t assist the team at all. For context:

    • We recently hired a third party branding agency to refine the Sovryn brand, identity and look. This is estimated to take 12-16 weeks and should include a revamping of the website (but not yet the DAPP). We’re probably in week 2-3, so a ways to go. We don’t yet know what this will look like but it could have material change to our identity, logo, colors, images etc. Can we really re-design a new UI/UX if it risks being incongruent to this work and missing this newly created material?
    • Perhaps we could start a new UX in parallel to this branding? I agree that would be great! But we have severely limited resources internally and are looking to hire as much good talent as we can already.
    • Alternatively, what if BCW team asks in their 250K person community for some tangible UI/UX proposals? It would be great if you submitted some actual design-boards, or mock-ups or wire-frames or actual experienced talent. If you don’t have talent internally, it would be amazing if you spend a little bit of money and hire a third party agency to create a sample UI/UX then bring the images to us for inspiration or a proposal for Exchequer to fund? Sovryn can take on the bulk of this but having it kick-started for us would be really helpful!
    • UI/UX is also subject to technical limitations. Many of which we may not be able to fix until we get to roll-ups which likely won’t be until EOY at earliest.
    • Understand fixing UI/UX isn’t simply saying ‘see how simple Google’s search page is! We need it like this!’
  2. Staking: This proposal is lacking adversarial thinking and appears to be modeled to best suit early investors (not founding members) opposed to the long term protocol itself. A few considerations:

    • If we remove the lock-up & penalty, how do we prevent against flash-loan attacks where in the future someone could borrow large amounts of $SOV, vote, then repay the loan all in a single block to manipulate a proposal. This is a real attack and has occurred before. If you can freely un-stake it allows these flash loans attacks to ensue and is a major governance risk.
    • Perhaps instead we could go with a model discussed here where there is no penalty to un-stake, but it’s time weighted so the longer you’ve held the more VP you have. For one thing, this doesn’t eliminate the risk of flash-loan attacks, but it could possibly hedge against it. Regardless, another problem exists. In this model how do you prevent OG mega-whales from gaining insurmountable power with no future commitment to the protocol? On-top of that, since most of the team shares are not even unlocked yet (meaning they are still on a vesting locked contract), it means they are not liquid and would not be able to generate this early VP under this model to gain ground on the early BCW investors. The real beneficiaries of this proposal are the early whales who would possibly have even more power than the founding members. It could grant people who don’t really have understanding of the protocol mechanics un-touched power over voting and revenue and is another governance attack vector.
    • The next proposal on staking is to allow holders to share in revenue. Unfortunately, this would obliterate the token price floor on $SOV as it drastically reduces the ‘value investing’ aspect that currently exists. At the moment the revenues being generated by the platform are very low. But the token price is so low as well that you can buy $SOV today, max stake it for 3 years and make a pretty reasonable yield in rBTC paid weekly, plus you get SIP24 rewards paid in liquid $SOV. Those of us that have run the numbers are doing this and essentially bolstering the floor on the SOV token. And so even if the token price drops further, it theoretically will have a soft floor because of the yield in rBTC that can be earned by stakers. This is as opposed to a memecoin which can literally go to zero with no value backing it up. So, if we add holders to the revenue share it massively dilutes the yield any given person could earn on $SOV because it’s shared across a far, far larger pool. This basically eliminates the incentive to buy $SOV when the price has fully capitulated as it has now. This is how we truly run the token into $0.
  3. Token Burn or Lock-Up: This is one part of the proposal that I am open to digging into more. Tokenomics have been a recurring issue since inception. But there are some other things to consider:

    • A burn is likely a bad idea. Most burns work because they are buying the token off the circulating supply, then burning it. So, you’re increasing the price first and foremost by reducing circulating supply, then burning to indicate it cannot re-enter the market. In order to execute this strategy we need excess balance sheet capacity or a ton of fees; neither of which we have at the moment. Instead, the burn being proposed here is just to burn tokens on our future balance sheet, which are not in the circulating market. So, the impact would be primarily for people that read Tokenomics and see the change between the old and new. This probably isn’t a huge amount of people. However, I do agree this could be a signal and a psychological cue to buy more $SOV for those that do, ultimately this strategy in it of itself it won’t directly increase $SOV price as other burns have. So people need to temper expectations on how impactful this strategy would be.
    • Additionally, doing a burn increases the centralization risk. You give more power to VC’s, which would subject us to Jack Dorsey’s meme that ‘Web3 is owned by VC’s’. This is a delicate balance. VC’s do play a role and are necessary to boot-strap protocols with early funding, but if you swing too far on one of the pendulum and raise too much money or burn too many tokens, you risk falling victim to this legitimate issue. Right now we’re comfortable with doing another fundraising round with new partners. But adding a significant burn of our future balance sheet token does absolutely run the risk of adding centralization attack vector.
    • Regarding the teams 25% token allocation, since Day 1 Yago has been very clear and transparent that protocols which typically have found success are those which are shepherded by a core team of founders. I personally have no issue with the founders having a large stake and frankly 25% compared to many other projects is actually quite a small allocation to founding team member. While I agree that no single party or small elite group should control votes, to some extent we are investing in them and they are by far the most qualified and in the know to make more weighted decisions on voting. I would be deeply disturbed if the founding and core team members didn’t have a sizable vesting interest.
    • Next point, you say we’ve raised all this money and can pay for everything directly off our balance sheet. Sorry, but this really isn’t true. We’re not brimming with money on our balance sheet. We have a lot of expenses and are looking to invest a lot of the next few years. Yes, we’re in a safe secure position at the moment but frankly a multi-year extended bear market would stretch our balance sheet extremely thin and put the protocol at risk of bankrupting itself. So proposing that we just pay for everything out of pocket is just not the reality of the situation.
    • Ultimately, I’d be open to lengthening the vesting contracts on things like Founding members tokens and to some extent on the Adoption and Development funds (but definitely not 10 years on Adoption and Dev). All things considered a burn seems like the wrong call to me, but a vesting extension may be reasonable.

Ultimately, while people claim that this proposal and conversations in the Dojo were meant to help, the reality is it was a complete cluster-f*** and I’m disappointed by all sides. On the Sovryn side I think there probably is some pride and ego that is coming out when we get attacked and I’m part of that problem. But on the BCW side there are honestly a lot of un-educated takes which are missing tons of information, while bombarding us with bot-like shit-posts that make it extremely difficult to even reply.

Stay Sovryn!


I don’t “have his back”. I just don’t think we should sink to his level.


Appreciate the time and effort to compile this with perspective.

The thread is back, that was my bad. I didn’t realize deleting DMAN’s post (as he requested) would delete the whole thread.

Oh Mr FUCKING NOBODY replied. We need to pay attention now.

Ah yes, you are part of the exchequer thing. Yea I remember. Was it the SIP that was rushed from draft to approval and then to voting stage into 3 days? With a lot of comments being against that SIP? Are you that one who always believe that his opinion is above all other especially on telegram? You think because you have some kind of role or whatever that is gives you the right to characterize tons of people who care about the same thing you are part of? What makes you more educated than others?

You can have whatever the fuck opinion you want. Is it so hard for you to not characterize people and just write your points in a constructive manner? Maybe now they allow people to be characterized. This is where you missed the whole point. Again.

I would expect a lot more from admins and core team in terms of stopping this nonsense accusation, no matter the side. Surely there must be a limit. Right admins?

Dude, my god. If you want me removed from Exchequer, propose a SIP. I’ve been active part of this community far before any recent Exchequer appointment. You can go back to pretty much any Twitter Spaces, Forum posts, Discord chat or community calls and you’ll probably hear me asking questions. I’m not sure anything has changed.

Yes, I probably could’ve written the post with a more neutral tone but frankly I was upset and I felt attacked.

If you want to reply to anything I posted in the thread, we can try to go from there.

Update I modified this post to have a more neutral tone in hopes it extends an olive branch. I hope my comments are mostly seen as constructive.


When I opened a thread I thought “oh it’s just another hater idiot”.
Especially when I found you are using bolding, nice formatting yet you can’t say the name “D Man” correctly.

However, what I found in the post by you is EXACTLY what I invited everyone to do.

You gave your OWN (valid or not) ARGUMENTS (respected vs just empty words) about each part of this sip.

Imagine if we had more of such conversations, we would find the best path to move forward.

Because for example…

I don’t have to be right. Just with a lot of experience two things hurt me the most… that as every day passes, your token, SOV, is worth less (by pure law of economics as supply increases).

Yes, I will hear now from some monkeys that the price doesn’t matter, but well, it matters.

This conversation, this whole idea and why it exploded into a community division, unsatisfaction, mess… is fully and 100% Yago’s fault.

One hundred percent.

His ego.

IF he didn’t try to manipulate, but stated things HONESTLY… if he didn’t think of community as a bunch of idiots he can politicise… it would be a conversation, I’d invite it for fuck sake, like a bunch of stuff like the one you just posted… focused on the matter, finding the best solution.

And guess what?

We would!

Because for me, what hurts you the most, staking, is least important of the three in making the change.

The most important is… that staking rewards in just sending SOV stop.
That further dilution of the token stops.
That tokenomics get better (most important)
and that the onboarding off boarding for new users becomes simple.

The leadership failed.

Terribly. And is so cocky to even admit it.

Brother, imagine you’re a project leader… and you are getting by choice at a bad side of the community because of your ego.

Things why some of most loyal sovryn members decided now to abandon the project (I don’t talk about dumping, I talk about hardcore, loyal support)…

Yago offered one thing, later acted stupid
Yago withdraws when he doesn’t like something
Yago tries to manipulate you while promising he is open to discussion

This whole process revealed Sovryn is actually not owned by the community nor open for discussion, so this is the last matter where you have such community.

I know what creates a good community, because I have one. The same one that is still a MAJORITY support for Sovryn.

The key elements:
HONESTY (#1 most important element with the community). – heck even when unsure, take it on you. I told when light guy admin here presented me with some screenshots, I said “brother, if I am misinformed by multiple people that don’t know each other that you censored the posts, I APOLOGIZE”…

– I didn’t hear fucker Yago apologise for anything. He is so cocky it’s unreal.

He tried to bring in so many manipulation attempts, you see it in screenshots he posted.

He wanted to post something and I told him I posted it already, then he accused me of posting it and fucker knows that when I posted it nobody saw it it was like 30 seconds before and it bothered him he could have told me, and then what he does, and what reveals TRUE character… he posts everything except the last screenshot that is not really in his favor… then I had to post it, and then he goes quiet.

I was the biggest friend Sovryn had.
Biggest friend in the project Yago had.

But over the year+, I noticed who yago is… a sweet talker.

So now tell me, how intelligent it is of you, that you got hostile, retarded, unpolite (yup, the fucker got super unpolite FIRST towards me, I am the one pushing it now because I like to call up on bullshit)… towards the guy who is by FACT, everyone will agree even the haters: contributed a lot to this project, and holds great influence over the MAJOR part of the community… and he pisses on all of you because he lets his ego go first, he didn’t try to solve things.

Look, I won’t let him, ever again, solve things by bullshits.

Some guys can be low intelligence and suck into his stories. I will not allow him anymore to EVER… say okay when he plans on doing it still his own way.

Yago’s book of dirty tricks, just so you know for the future:

Let’s say you propose something that is not in Yago’s interest, like:
burn 50% of the team tokens.

Step 1) argument - and this is the only good step
step 2) when argument lost - try to escape, switch, ignore
step 3) when cornered - propose a solution in “what if” format “what if we do this”, without committing
step 4) when cornered to commit, DELAY
step 5) when cornered, IGNORE
step 6) when cornered for ignoring, twist solutions like even if it is 100:1 in favor of this thing, “we have to do a dao” or a “special task force”… further delaying.

Facts: sip was ready to be put to a vote, he decided to decide on the matter if and when it goes to a vote, not the sip proposer who got enough people to support it.

Fuck, I won’t give you the entire playbook, if you are stupid, or ego prevents you from doing the right thing because of the way I talk and you fail to realize I am the only NEUTRAL… almost neutral because I hold sov tokens… but neutral in choice as I am not either staked (locked) nor do I have by nature be locked in this project… I am a neutral FRIEND of this project.

You cannot win by treating the community by monkeys.

Yago now has to break his ego fully in order for me to resolve this matter with him.
Not because I am the one important, but I don’t want his ego in future to fuck up and prevent further progress:

He has to come like a little bitch with his tail up his ass, apologise SINCERELY and profusely.

Give the community ALL THE POWER over my sip…
withold from voting…

in other words… he has to not say the words, but truly REALIZE Sovryn is the community project.

It’s nice to sweet talk to you: “you decide” when in reality you don’t decide shit. He asks you for opinions on things he wants to feel out, but when it comes to stuff that matters, like tokenomics, you realize how powerless you are because SIP, voting, change, and the MAJOR (most) voting power is in Yago’s and the insider’s hands.