In yesterday’s call I could sense a mixed energy of fear and excitement regarding Origin to become a subprotocol of Sovryn.
Subprotocol represents a delicious idea and is no more than the application of the subsidiarity principle to digital rights management allowed by blockchain technology.
In other words, it would allow decisions to be taken as closely as possible from the subject matter.
It is in my opinion the most advanced way to scale a DAO where liquid sovereignty is freely distributed to specific initiatives on satisfying “targeted community needs”. I am widely in favor of it.
Origin is in my sense a “targeted community need” and a key feature of the Sovryn ecosystem. It aims at bootstrapping projects to gravitate around Sovryn, and by doing so, it will increase the value of the whole ecosystem.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense for Origin to be submitted as the 1st subprotocol as it will bootstrap a substantial change by itself.
The change is substantial because if adopted, it would allow sovereignty to be distributed into various subprotocols. Such distribution could become a risk where a subprotocol decides through its own bitocracy to secede from Sovryn.
The unknown impact of such an event does drastically increases the risks to participating in Sovryn.
As a result, Sovryn’s duty is to mitigate that risk in order to serve its best interests.
A seemingly desirable way to mitigate the risk of witnessing a subprotocol to secede from Sovryn against Sovryn own’s will would be to grant Sovryn some sort of veto on decisions made by subprotocols.
In exchange and by application of the subsidiarity principle, subprotocols would preserve their right to initiate change by submitting the desired change to Sovryn’s bitocracy.
If this idea resonate with you we could then try to answer the following questions in a formal SIP:
- What weight should Soveryn have on the subprotocol bitocracy for the veto to be fair and effective without destroying the whole value proposition of the said subprotocol ?
- How do we guarantee that such veto will be effective in the future unless decided otherwise by way of Sovryn’s bitocracy.
Such SIP would open Sovryn to a whole new set of predictable opportunities resulting in the diminution of:
1- risk for Sovryn to slowly be robbed of its own sovereignty by subprotocols deciding to migrate to other ecosystems; and
2- risks for individuals participating in Sovryn not knowing what other existing part of Sovryn will be proposed as subprotocol.
Once these points answered and some predictibility injected into Sovryn’s ecosystem, we will be able to quickly benefit from subprotocols such as Origin and other ones as we will gain in effectiveness by following a clear framework to build subprotocols.
Thanks all for taking the time to read this post and stay sovryn.