Yago,
A recent poll was conducted with community members and over 50% of the members who participated prefer your burn/release proposal over a vesting schedule.
What would be the next steps in formalizing your plan?
I think the general consensus in TG was that people assumed Yagos plan would be effective immediately upon launch. According to team member in Discord, we would have to wait for 3 year vesting to do this.
Can you clarify this Armando?
I highly doubt community would be against vesting BOS for 3 years for a distribution, but be ok with vesting for 3 years to get nothing at all.
Please let us know. A new poll was conducted by Liam including vesting with the Burn/Token Mint, currently it sits at about 25% in favor.
This is complete fiction with no relation to reality.
You are simply a troll.
2 Likes
I would be happy to work on formalizing a plan. I would be interested in the different ways people think this could be a BAD idea - what are the potential critiques.
2 Likes
No, this is how your actions is portraying you
1 Like
Copying my reply here as well for posterity sake:
One thing that’s becoming increasingly clear is that the reason why Bitcoin works as a decentralized technology is because it has a special mission of not achieving anything. It’s an anti-mission, it’s like the eye of the hurricane, it adapts only to remain the same as everything around it changes. It’s a fulcrum.
These types of fulcrum-like missions are very rare in economics, usually tech companies are meant to innovate as fast as possible. This means that things have to happen blazingly fast. If you look at companies like Tesla, the shareholder meetings are largely theatrics. There’s a board of directors which basically advises shareholders how to vote, and the shareholders, because they believe in the directors, will overwhelmingly just follow the lead the directors give them. This means that even though shareholders can in practice vote and influence outcomes, they don’t want to go against the core leadership, because they trust the core contributors, who are “in the details” to know what needs to be done better, and rightly so.
Unfortunately if I am right, this means that the decentralized tech meme is dead and we need a hard pivot. Many people will be irked by this. “You promised us DeFi, you claimed you had no CEO and now you want to go centralized and get a CEO, wtf man?”
It’s a pickle, no doubt about it. The intellectually honest thing is to explain that our assumptions were incorrect. That while our idea was noble, reality rejected it. And yes it does look like a scam, but you gotta ask yourself, what’s the alternative? Double down on a concept even though no one knows how to make it work just for the sake of it? This is the woke thing where you can never move on from being wrong and you commit to being wrong and to endlessly victimize the victimizers.
We all gotta make our own minds in regards to whether @yago is honest or not. If you believe he’s a scammer, then sell. If you believe he’s honest then let go of the old concept and support Sovryn’s pivot.
Personally I am leaning towards more integration, more centralization, less tokens, less committees and more focus for things that need to innovate fast. A lot of things need to be garbage collected. Sovryn is a jumbled mess of protocols, tokens and projects. It’s like a company where everyone’s kinda doing something on their own, but not really.
I am fine with decentralization and stagnation in regards to layers that are soil-like - you use them as a fulcrum, but don’t really need to change them much.
As for where the CEO should come from. This is important. Typically external CEOs have almost always been a mistake in corporate history. This is because they don’t get the culture, they don’t get the product, they are not necessarily a culture fit and all they want to do is apply their short-term thinking and MBA-ize a project. There are countless examples of great projects becoming glorified consulting companies when something like this happens. And conversely almost all great CEOs have come from the inside. Particularly people who have grown through the ranks, have understood the product and have demonstrated an affinity to it, and have earned the right and the privilege to call the shots.
Unfortunately Sovryn’s in a bit of tough spot because as far as I can tell it hasn’t really started yet so there are no people who’ve climbed the ladder that can be called to action in this manner. My understanding is that Yago is the founder of Sovryn (correct me if I am wrong) and the fact that he’s saying that he’s not interested is definitely a red flag. This means that he basically no longer believes in the project. It’s well known in the Silicon Valley that the best VC funds prefer founder-led companies. It’s also well known that the #1 reason for the failure of a company is people. One of the worst red flags is when the founders don’t know each other very well (e.g. “We met at a Bitcoin conference last week and thought this would be cool.”). That’s terrible - these people don’t know each other, they don’t know each other’s weaknesses or strengths, they are operating purely on hype and they are most likely going to fall apart at the first sign of trouble. VCs like stories like “we met in college 10 years ago, we’ve been best friends ever since, both of us really like Star Trek, we started one company that failed, and now we are building together this new company. We have the same values, but we have different strengths and that makes us complementary to each other.” These guys know each other, have proven to be resilient and compatible and will handle difficulties together.
This is why I think @yago has to step up and can’t simply say he’s not interested. He should be interested if he’s still interested in Sovryn, if not the intellectually honest thing is to say he no longer believes in the mission and he’s abandoning his own project. But that’s very problematic because he did convince Sovryn to use our funds to build his next project.
@yago the ball’s in your court.
6 Likes
Well said, i agree & good post, i hope he gives you an in depth reply but he seem to be more interested in figuring out our distribution of vesting alternatives
ATM there’s a question of when the burn/release balancing mechanism would begin. I assumed it would be day one. But there was a comment on discord that it would be 3 years down the road after the tokens had vested for 3 years sitting idle in treasury.
I see no reason this needs to happen. Sure, the burn/release mechanism would release some liquid BOS tokens immediately but that release would stop once the price of sov reached equilibrium with the treasury assets.
I’m not sure how many Sov would be burned before the market balanced itself but it’s far, far fewer than giving liquid BOS tokens to Sov stakers. And by holding these assets in treasury you also save yourself the pain of having these tokens flood the market when the vesting periods end.
Did you listen to the same call? He was answering community submitted written questions for most of the call.
2 Likes
Can you please speak more about the type of projects that you have encountered recently that would be looking to launch?
Secondly, I share the sentiment expressed by others that, given the highly speculative nature of the other assets, acquiring at least a portion in BTC should be considered.
The community seems to like the idea of reducing supply, however the other side of the equation i.e. the demand side also needs to be consirered. Sovryn needs greater visibility and easier accessibility, as I’ve seen complaints on X about the difficulty of acquiring SOV. I recall a community call some months ago discussing the potential of listing on CEX. Improving accessibility could act as a gateway to attract more people and grow the community.
Maybe too soon to ask, but could you give an example of a project that Sovryn could work on in the future given that you think maintining a dex is challenging because of liquidity issues etc.
I like this part, some people are already upset about SOV valuation, lets make some others even angrier.
1 Like
As Arthur mentioned, could we get details on the vesting requirements for this? As a Staker, seeing where the project has came after 3-4 years:
I feel like I would rather staking rewards, or even vesting schedule, over a Burn/token transfer that has to wait 3 years to be used.
I really like the idea of burn. Also, at some point there will probably be an amount of BOS that will always be locked up. So it would be beneficial for BitcoinOS too.
I don’t really see a need to add vesting to this, as there doesn’t seem to be enough SOV in circulation to mint a large amount of BOS without making SOV price to expensive.
Either way, I like the burn mint idea, but adding vesting to this would be a deal breaker for me personally.
Poll in Dojo results:
1.Burn without vesting, the great majority favor Burn/token release.
- Burn with vesting: the majority in favor of distributed as staking rewards.
I would add: since Sovryn is working with BOS, a better SOV price would allow Sovryn to get more done, as development/adoption funds would be worth more.
1 Like
I think this is a very good post and I agree with most of what you write.
- Decentralization is a tool, not a goal. One pays a very heavy price for decentralization in terms of efficiency, speed of execution and decision making. I think decentralized governance of the DeFi protocols is none-the-less very important. It allows us to build incorruptible systems. The only alternative I think worth considering to decentralized governance is no governance at all - in which case, upgrades become near impossible.
- I think decentralization of strategy and execution has not proven itself. The dream is that we all come together and contribute. Sovryn is community built. Most of the people working on it - “the team” - started as just casual community members and their contribution and activity just ramped up. However, what we have found is that as people turn to spending most of their waking hours on Sovryn, they do become a “team”. There is a discontinuity in the engagement spectrum, it is not a smooth spectrum. You go from casual to dedicated.
- I think that Sovryn is an innovation platform. We are attempting to build innovative technologies and products. This requires creativity, and an almost delusional appetite for risk. Moreover, it requires that you have to be willing to do what pretty much everyone disagrees with - because otherwise you are not innovating. You have to be disagreeable. This does not work well with non-hierarchical community decision making. There are 2 failure modes:
A. Highly agreeable community culture - the hard decisions cannot get made.
B. Disagreeable community culture - turns toxic. Everyone is willing to take risks, but these are different risks and no hard decisions can be made. - This is why I have been pushing for Sovryn to launch products as independent projects - with their own community, team and token. The more that Sovryn tries to do under a single banner and the. ore things it needs to maintain, the less flexible and dynamic it becomes.
- I am extremely proud of what we have done with Sovryn. We succeeded beyond any reasonable expectation. I think we have been weighed down by two main things:
A. Rootstock - which has hindered us in every way possible and wasted massive resources.
B. Our Omni-system structure. We are doing too many things and decision making for everything runs through Bitocracy. - I have been working for years on an escape plan for Sovryn - a way to escape these two things that have been weighing us down. BOS is the lever. BOS is the opportunity escape both, and uncap our growth. BOS gives us a platform to escape Rootstock. BOS gives us an opportunity to reset our mission, governance and structure.
I have been working for years to help us navigate these challenges, help push us in the direction of explosive growth, build a system which is as transparent and incorruptible as pragmatically possible and position us for explosive growth. I am not the founder, but, in many ways, I have been playing the kind of role @tatsumaru describes, plugging holes, persuading, pushing, pushing, pushing. I have rarely had the confidence to just come out and say: “this is what we are gonna do”. I feel very uncomfortable speaking for Sovryn. I speak on my own behalf. Despite this, I think I have helped to get us over the hump. I think we are positioned to launch BOS, deploy a launchpad, use it to launch multiple projects building on what we have learned - an improved system of governance, an improved BTC-backed stablecoin, improved trading and a big project I am not in a position to speak of yet. And more.
I do think we could benefit from an external interim CEO. Here is why:
I have twice burned a lot of social credibility, trying to position us for this moment, and lost.
A. MYNT was a highly controversial experiment in launching a product as a separate project. It failed and people like to remind me of that everyday and in every thread.
B. I tried to turn Origins into a separate project so that we could have a robust launchpad ready and waiting. I failed to persuade the community and I think we are much worse off for it.
I think Sovryn could benefit from a new face pushing for things like these. Someone given the mandate to do so. I’m not sure I can credibly be given that mandate. I suspect people would fill every thread claiming that “Yago just wants to grab power”. “Yago is a dictator”. “Yago screwed up MYNT”.
I just want to build. Maybe someone else can give me the aircover to do that.
3 Likes
im a big critic of you but the strongest thing you could do to persuade me & have me confidently cheering for Sovryn is to take complete responsibility over SOV officially and run it the way you want without being hindered & i believe most critics feel this way.
for years you have had your vision of how to do this, to continue that same vision but with someone else as frontman is far worse & its no one else better suited than you for this job within Sovryn, your already seen as the CEO by many (with limitations on decision making, lets change that then.)
This also put you in a position to both redeem yourself, show that you indeed care about Sovryn & possibly succeed to create that value we all missed out on for years, no better ending than that right?
2 Likes
Thank you for replying and sharing your thoughts on your role and Sovryn’s future. An extremely important topic (maybe the most important) and you’ve given us a lot to discuss and unpack.
But I would like this thread to remain focused on your original post of discussing holding BOS tokens as a treasury asset and using a burn/release mechanism to peg the SOV price to the treasury MC.
Currently, the big question is when would the burn/release mechanism begin? Would it begin immediately or very soon after the launch of the BOS token or would there be a period of vesting before that mechanism would begin?
Thank you.
1 Like
Whatever vesting is ultimately decided on would need to be taken into account.
I think the naive version of the system with just a constant burn is probably not going to accomplish what we want. In the example of MSTR, the BTC is effectively off the market, non-redeemable. There was a similar situation with GBTC. The same is true of most fund structures - there are discrete redemption points, rather then constant redemption.
Since Sovryn had already launched a couple of tokens before the Origins idea emerged, spinning it off into a separate project with its own token felt like removing an integral part of Sovryn from the community. At the time, the SOV token had fallen significantly from its ATH, and the community was understandably hesitant.
However, today, many recognize the need for things to change. Sovryn seems to be lagging behind the market, so there may be broader support for a launchpad if its token distribution is transparent and fair. Additionally, a more crypto-friendly US administration is soon taking office, and BOS will have a new Bitcoin token standard. Both factors could create a favorable environment for reintroducing the Origins idea. If multiple projects are set to launch, a dedicated Sovryn Origins team makes sense.
The community will likely want clarity on how these new token launches will ultimately benefit SOV to really get behind the idea. The SOV price drop has demoralized many supporters, and many successful projects have built their communities by financially benefiting initial backers, that hasn’t really happened in the case of Sovryn.
Having said that, I support the launchpad concept. Time is our most valuable resource, so we should get to it and move forward.
–
Since you have brought up the difficulties of maintaining a DEX (Sovryn Layer), this raises an important question: if the Origins launchpad operates with its own token and team, what exactly is the Sovryn protocol for?
I just opened the Sovryn blackpaper and this is what it says:
SOVRYN:
A Fullstack Financial Operating System
2 Likes
I agree, if your not willing to say “This is what we are doing” than we should find someone who will, or the project will die.
It’s a pitty, you would be a good CEO.
Also, it would be nice to have someone willing to make a plan, stick to it until completion. One that has time to explain the rationale and keep team members updated so questions could be asked on discord, telegram, or Twitter with a response that has some substance.
Maybe some sort of success based pay would be appropriate, as SOV is so low right now they would have to be pretty terrible leader not to produce some success.
Sovryn should be a half a billion dollar project. For whatever reason it’s fate lies in obscurity.
2 Likes
I agree that Sovryn should be much more highly valued. Our fate, though, doesn’t lie in obscurity, it’s very clear - BitcoinOS.
As this cycle develops, it becomes more apparent that it’s bitcoin-focused. Even Vitalik said in a video that he imagines Ethereum becoming a Bitcoin L2. BitcoinOS is currently the most advanced project in terms of tech maturity and ecosystem projects that are building on it.
Yago is a key contributor to both projects, and it makes perfect sense for Sovryn that he’ll dedicate his time to Sovryn’s biggest chance of success.
1 Like
I see significant challenges to both a token yield and a burn/release strategy for stakers.
The problem lies with staking itself.
Most protocols, like ours, require token holders to stake to receive income. If our treasury simply holds unstaked tokens, we will miss out on all the revenue those tokens could generate for us. If we stake the tokens from treasury, they will be locked and cannot be released without penalty either to pay out a token yield or to release to anyone burning a token.
Likewise, our own bitocracy imposes a penalty on anyone who unstakes. Burning SOV would require unstaking, which would incur a penalty. Doing away with the penalty would give stakers an easy exit through the burn/release mechanism. So I don’t see how this works at all with our bitocracy model.
And before we forget, the penalty for unstaking is a strong incentive protecting the protocol from a governance attack. Without it, anyone could buy up a lot of SOV, max-stake, vote, and then unstake without penalty and sell.
1 Like
Thread starter AWOL 2 bos.
Probably will come up with something else sometime… or nothing at all.
Was this premium thread just started to give folks something to fiddle with in meantime?
1 Like