I understand your proposal is not a full blown utility token where SOV would be required to use platform. But, it feels like a quasi-covert utility-esque token in disguise and I’m just not a fan of trying to defend the platform against some nuanced point that may or may not be perceived as disingenuous
While it’s innocent, I don’t want to play these games. It’s like when we tried to push Bitocracy into TVL calculations and ETH DeFi Twitter community lost their shit on us. Technically, yes it should be in the way too broadly definition of TVL so we weren’t in the wrong…but we kind of were and I think the community ultimately determined it was a questionable tactic. That was kind of an embarrassing moment IMO. I don’t want to have a similar scenario that pulls us away from our core narrative which is Bitcoin whenever and wherever possible.
While other DeFi platforms, such as Bancor do require their token as the trading pair, we are not other DeFi platforms. If we compete in their game we lose our competitive advantage of a beautiful Bitcoin driven narrative. SOV doesn’t exist for sake of seignorage. It exists out of necessity, to pool the individual resources of Sovryn’s together. The token is necessary to pool together the collaborative efforts of individuals as one single entity which collects platform revenue and eventually a more impactful Bitocracy. Doing this pooled model is not easily possibly on a 100% purely Bitcoin only token standard. If the features of this platform (pooling efforts of individuals together) could be done strictly with Bitcoin, then I would never be involved in this project. In the same vein, it is not necessary to require pairs to trade through SOV as Bitcoin does as good if not a superior job at this, so I do not think we should push for that.
Put another way, money in society is the ultimate single trading pair that solves the double coincident of wants. It’s a common bond and communication channel between all individuals. Bitcoin is the best money, SOV is not. Therefore I believe this is Bitcon’s role and not SOV’s.
Do we have any data to back this up? I wrote a piece here that I think indicates fees can already be impactful with a few small changes and it doesn’t even include the slew of other revenue generating activities we can add. Let's see some statistics - Any support for SIP? - #5 by dseroy. Granted the math and analysis was rough but I’d like to see people poke holes in this before saying fees are insufficient. What evidence do you have for the fees fallacy if we make the changes I proposed?
I don’t have a hard-line stance on this. I guess just my only push-back is it feels risky to commit to locked in loot drops because circumstances change. We already are passing SIP24 which gives excellent APY to long term stakers. For LP’s they aren’t locking funds so there is no commitment.
See other post above. I’d like to see push-back and analysis or data showing that the current ideas we have for increasing fee revenue is truly in-sufficient rather than anecdotal. With that said, I do agree loot drops and rewards are necessary so I definitely am not anti that position. Just saying we’re not giving enough credit to fees immediately available to us after a few changes.
I’m cool with SOV being used as collateral if individuals opt for that themselves. Caveat emptor. But yah requiring it I am just not a fan of at all.
You can earn revenue from liquidations. However. the $14M revenue I referenced does not include liquidations and appears to just be from when borrowers draw against the collateral (fee paid in USD) and when users redeem USD for the collateral. Here’s the code indicating how the $14M is calculated. https://dune.xyz/queries/34676/69231.
Regardless, I’ll partially correct my stance here. I suppose that $14M accrues directly to Liquity token holders and I am not sure how much if any of that would go to stakers except for the token we likely would get airdropped then stake ourselves.