@dseroy @Sitizen Thanks for your thoughts! Let me just dump my final thoughts here and then shut up.
-
Will having a separate OG token in any way lead to more expertise within the sub-community? I see no reason why. You don’t need to pass a test to get the OG token, you can simply get it if you have the money. It will just attract people who like to invest in ICOs. The analogy with guilds is no good, there are no special “token launch experts” in the way that there are blacksmiths, those people who have an understanding of blockchain typically have it across the different aspects of projects, and these people will eventually be forced to get a whole handful of tokens. That’s shitty and might just turn them away, leading to a loss of expertise, instead of a gain.
-
Will having a separate OG token help with talent acquisition? I see the thought, I think it’s the one and only pro argument that makes sense to me so far, yet I remain unconvinced it’s enough. We can’t just start to introduce a new token everytime we add a new feature, just because the team would like to have a token of their own and we like it that some SOV is locked up. It’s an ad hoc incentive that we can’t keep going.
-
The overall platform loses in value in my view. Imagine, we are one year further, this SIP has passed and there are now 5 sub-protocols. If I want to have a say about which token is launched I need this token, and if I want a say about AMM pools, I need that other token. What a mess. Hard to explain to newcomers. Cries out shitcoin casino. Gives us the task to explain why it isn’t. For people to understand how all these tokens give value to SOV people need to understand bond curves, creating learning curves.
-
From a user perspective, as someone who is excited to be active in the Bitocracy, I’m not at all thrilled abut being forced to get all kinds of tokens to continue to have a say. I don’t like the risks this involves. If I don’t see a certain token will be popular, and yet I want to vote on that topic, I would be forced to get the token I don’t want, or not vote.
-
Say, we have the OG token, imagine two extremes: (1) very few people are interested. Now a very small group is making decision, and we have effectively created centralization. (2) very many people are interested. Now there has been no point to the whole thing, no scaling, or focussing, just forcing people to get some other token beside SOV. If there is a lot of interest, it’s very bad UX and serves no scaling or concentration purpose, if there is little interest, it’s bad for governance (especially now that we are small).
-
The veto / overruling governance power of SOV community. Why would one veto anything if one is not part of the discussion or not keeping track of it? Meaning that the veto power, if it is to have a point, implies that the SOV community will need to keep track of all the SIPs anyway.
I can go on. (one more: Dev resource is scarce, as dseroy mentioned as well, and it has already been admitted that there is no direct need currently. So why spend our scarce resource on this now. I’d would much rather have the dev time spent on preparing for the Mintlayer launch, for example. OK, I can’t help myself, another worry: if a launch has problems, as with babelfish, it might take the launchpad token down hard. With a token for specific features it becomes very tied to the functioning of that one single feature, and hence a relatively risky unattractive asset to have. Lot of risk, yet little governance power. okay now I stop).
I care a lot about this topic because I sincerely think that this decision could be rather harmful to the entire Sovryn project. But it seems I’m the only one left actively criticizing, and I don’t want to drag the discussion, so I will leave it at this. I think it is a serious mistake, motivated by unconvincing analogies, metaphors and speculation. I really hope the community votes against it.