That are some very legit questions. And I would expect if there is ANY kind of founding coming from Sovryn that longterm Stakeholders are getting a cut on Sovryn Bank. Why is it a totally different venture, why has it the same name then? Why is it building on the reputation of Sovryn.
This needs to be answered. I feel this could be a sneaky way to leave the ill managed Sovryn token behind and just incorporate all the technology build on our back and start new with those first supporters of the project left in the dust behind.
I do have serious trust issues when it comes to these sort of things from team Sovryn as we already been through this that team tried to dilute the value of SOV the token with other “side projects”. Community could barely stop this from happening, thats why we have the ill-fated MYNT token disaster that let SOV token slide 90% in its wake. We would have three more diluting tokens if community didn’t scream out loud. I think we are at that point again. Fully not support SOVRYN bank if it again dilutes liquidity of SOV the token.
I don’t share your concerns (yet). At this stage it is all speculation.
Who tells you that there won’t be a beneficial factor for SOV stakers?
“A totally different venture” in my eyes means that it is centralized and KYC -
and therefore quite the opposite of what SOVRYN dex aspires to become.
But in order to make this (probably decade long) transition away from Fiat
there is the need to have easy ways for on and off ramps and most importantly
have a reliable and well sized liquidity to cater a growing community.
SOV stakers could still participate in ways e.g. a fraction of fees for on- and off ramping
goes to the stakers based on their bag size.
Mynt is “very late” and I separated from all my tokens before liquid SOV for stakers was cut.
I still believe it might have its comeback later on.
but there was supposed to be a zero token and a token for the launch platform as well so this “separate venture” does tingles my nerves a little bit too much. After that fiasco with the other tokens price really startet to plummet - I think we would be nowhere near the price we are now if that wasn’t proposed and I can see how they are trying it again as they simply have no funds for anything other then Sovryn core atm. I would say slow growth of Sovryn core and if that finally is established, price stable and everything then we can talk about taking talent and funds and start side branching. Inglandia is the person for making connections to other projects and if he uses the connections he made as a spoke person for Sovryn to start a “bank” and sovryns not getting a VERY VERY good deal then I for one will raise hell… Long time stakers have gone through a LOT of pain because of bad decisions and bad communication from Team Sovryn. Its time this stops - full transparency - no questions like the ones from the OG post above even raised.
This is something you should ask the team and something that should be treated as “just speculation” because this is what this post is. I am patiently waiting for a presentation from the team regarding the Sovryn Financial app and will comment on the facts and not on the speculation
this is what OG post does - it asks the team these questions. and there is no response so far. smooth talked over on telegram and here tumbleweeds. this is same pattern as always and does not give confidence team has learned anything from the past.
Sovryn Financial is an early stage venture that looks to build on Sovryn. Sovryns and Sovryn core are directly involved in assisting them along, in much the same way we have been involved in encouraging Liquity Wallet, BabelFish, EviDAO, MoC and many other projects that look to integrate or build on Sovryn.
In our efforts to build an ecosystem, we should will often assist and encourage those who want to build in all sorts of ways, sometimes it can take the form of grants, technical assistance, fundraising assistance, comms or marketing assistance, etc.
One of the best things we can hope to see is see more people, especially core members developing ideas into projects and products on Sovryn. Indeed, I would like to see Sovryn as a project primarily be a nursery of innovation and entrepreneurship and I think we will know we are on the right track if people start to see contributing to Sovryn as a path to their own sovryn entrepreneurship.
Specifically in the case of Sovryn Financial, the Exchequer has provided no funding or grant to the team. There is no expectation that Sovryn, the protocol can or should own any part in whatever legal entiry is formed. I personally have been asked to advise the project and may receive some equity as an advisor and or investor.
By the way: What amount of money flows from BabelFish to Sovryn since incubation? (And to whom? Is it the protocol itself or private wallets?)
None - Babelfish has paid Sovryn, not the other way round.
Also for Mynt: Never got this question answered:
Who are those mysterious core Mynt founders and their connection to Sovryn (I still strongly believe it’s you, Light)?
Sovryn culture places the right to Pseudonymity front and center. It is rude to ask and rude in the extreme to doxx. It was not Light or any currently active member of the core team. Even insinuating that it is Light is bordering on crossing the line - not just of being rude but entering into the territory of conspiracy theories. Not cool.
I would say if the entity is in such an early stage and its not part of Sovryn core it should be left out of official communication completely until its finished and its clear there is a product that is beneficial to the wider Sovryn Ecosystem (with exception to hear from the founders now and then in the community call as has been the case with other small projects that are close to Sovryn). Otherwise its seen as a Sovryn venture and sets high expectations of a coming product. We had too many failed small ventures along the sidelines taking focus away from Sovryn.
If a working beneficial symbiotic product is launched then of course Sovryn can also promote that as its done with Babelfish and to a lesser degree MoC.
Thank you for also revealing your part in it - I think it builds trust to have this kind of transparency.
So this is a dilemma. At what point do we start to highlight things? It’s true that when you discuss things early, they may fail - but the entire Sovryn project may yet fail. What about before people can use things? Well, how are people to know what is in development? How can people sign up to test things? Perhaps most importantly, if things are highlighted while still in development, that allows other to connect with them to assist, join the team, provide funding. It is always a dillemma when to discuss or announce things, and always a trade off.
Sovryn Financial clearly described their project as something in development, to take advantage of the as-yet unlaunched Sovryn Dollar. I think it is appropriate to provide their presentation, even if just to illustrate where things can go. In that respect, I don’t see it as distracting from Sovryn - rather it illustrated Sovryn.
9 out of 10 experiments will fail. If that is true, the problem is not too many failed experiments. Instead the problem is not enough failed experiments.
I see the dilemma. Just that here a lot of old open wounds popped up with me at least. The Venezuela Bank Project that actually gave SOV a huge boost but then nothing followed up and - in my opinion at least from watching closely - this led to the sharp price drop that followed the second small rally. Then the whole MYNT & ORIGIN fiasco. Both prominently featured just based on a proposal. I think its a communication thing. The state of the project needs to be clearly stated. The connection to Sovryn core clearly stated. The goal of the marketing clearly stated (if its a funraiser or if its for getting people on board to develop etc). Then I can see a way it can make sense in the main communication. This time people got out of your kick ass presentation and thought “Oh wow Sovryn will form a bank” thats the message that stuck and was empathised and thats a dangerous message as its just not true on any level. Its not clear there will ever be a Sovryn bank, Sovryn core has almost nothing to do with it other then some people share positions in both projects. So this is a setup for a huge let down again. There was a reason Steve Jobs started to only showcase products that are ready to ship and not talk about upcoming products. I have been with apple in those years and it was a huge relief for teams when that shift happened as they now could explore until the product was ready to ship. It was also the turning point of a decade long downtrend for the company. It was a very calculated decision with a lot of research behind it. People didn’t want to wait for products, they didn’t want to let down. Now this is not a tech company and you want to innovate and you need funds and talent I understand that. I think the clear communication is the key here, not raising hopes and dreams - especially since people put their money on the line. I think this correlates with Sovryn core values of not being a scam project just in it for the money. Sovryn does not need hot air to keep afloat.
I really like the Apple approach, however I’m not sure it is appropriate for us. Firstly, the level of secrecy required is infamous and as an open-source, community project that goes completely against what we stand for. Second, we don’t have the type of top-down authority that Jobs was able to wield. Third, we are a much younger project, it a far more volatile space. Finally, the battle space we operate in is far more demanding in terms of attracting eyeballs and attention and is highly hype driven.
The reality of a project like Sovryn is that everyone is exposed to the ugliness of the sausage factory all the time. So you are 100% right that effective communication is paramount. It is also hard. Attention spans are short and there is not much room for nuance.
If there is one thing we should get better at though, it is involving the hardest-core community members is the innovative, the experimental and the potential. Sovryn Financial, for example, is an extremely compelling product. To succeed it needs capital and talent. How can we best leverage the community to help it get the capital and talent it needs?
I think everything is moving in the right direction already now. I was a real critic of the early design direction of Sovryn, but I think this has all changed now. The new design is pretty and its beautiful and most of all its positive. A positive message in this messed up world will always stand out. It screens “we have a solution for a better world through community”.
But to answer your question quite francly: ask. Say it like it is:
“We have this great vision of Sovryn Bank - it would solve XYZ (on/offramping everyday payments through credit cards etcetc) for our community and have already a small team working on it. Its a very important puzzle piece for Sovryns future growth. At the moment its in its very early development stages and we need help. We need talent from tradf as this is not our core expertise and also … … … and we need capital. If you have suggestion how to raise capital we would like to hear your ideas”
This would put the community in charge and the community would feel included. No top down approach. Even if in the end it becomes another token sale its not a top down forced decision but community would feel included in this early stage. I think the discussion on here are >mostly< quite constructive and there are a lot of smart people of very diverse backgrounds on here too… Maybe someone comes up with a real clever idea or consensus is to fold into Sovryn core or or or or.
Also updates on the project - good and bad - regularly are a must if you continue with this open aproach. It has felt in the past as if the negative was left out and then it came as a huge shock that project XY just died or was never heard of again. Its ok if these experiments run into trouble don’t hide it (it can be discussed in smaller circles here f.e. so not distract from bigger positive message) - again maybe someone feels a calling and wants to take over if a teamlead drops out as in mynt or maybe someone wants to help finance the venture if its running out of funds etc pp.
Indirectly calling names, swearing and insulting me because of me asking/suspecting a core member being behind Mynt shows a lot. There’s no need of overacting like I asked for social security number, private keys and a stool sample…
…While minutes afterwards you go ahead and post the Mynt depreciation topic/SIP by stating -for the first time ever- who in your opinion was the name behind Mynt. This question has been asked a lot in the past. It never got answered, always swiped away for some reason. So thanks for answering it finally.
This reads like being a wanted role model of core devs/contributors going away from Sovryn.
All under the nice sounding terms of being a “nursery of innovation and entrepreneurship”.
But what’s maybe good for core and Yago, must not automatically be good for stakers. I as a staker went in and locked my capital on the given promise of any current and all future Sovryn developments being beneficial to stakers.
So yes, technically, all is good as it’s not Sovryn but some different venture again. (beside name, IP, branding, and some roles)
Just branch out whatever needed. We have seen this habit and attempts in the past already.
How many side jobs a full time contributor can or should have?
Instead of making Sovryn search a CEO for your side-business / side-job… wouldn’t it be better to search for some talent to fill Ingalandia’s role?