This is not a the right way of calculating “ownership”. The OG token is generated from SOV token. Origins will still be part of the Sovryn protocol, and derived from SOV token.
Sovryn is not a launchpad. The Sovryn protocol has a launchpad - and by design - this will continue to be the case.
Currently Origins is generating no revenue for the protcol. With changes, that can be facilitated by this proposal, it is anticipated to earn 5% of the sales that occur.
There is currently no team working on Origins. This is part of the scalability issue. The core devs are all dedicated to core functions of the trading and lending, and governance systems.
In the current state, Origins is purely a cost-centre. The idea is to turn it into a profit-centre.
This is not a the right way of calculating “ownership”. The OG token is generated from SOV token. Origins will still be part of the Sovryn protocol, and derived from SOV token.
Currently SOV = Protocol
After SIP: SOV + OG = Protocol There is value lost to the SOV holders short term. Long term value generation is theory at this point.
If OG has value, it is from SOV value lost on generation imo.
Sovryn is not a launchpad. The Sovryn protocol has a launchpad - and by design - this will continue to be the case.
Sovryn prtotocol currently controls 100% of every aspect of the launchapd. In the future SOV + OG will be control. If SOV retains 80% control then I like this proposal better.
Currently Origins is generating no revenue for the protcol. With changes, that can be facilitated by this proposal, it is anticipated to earn 5% of the sales that occur.
I googled Dxsales current revenue model.(BSC shitcoin LP lock and launchpad) They do a ton of traffic and offer less features and security than we do. We could charge more for our services IMO.
If we have generated no revenue from the platform it is because we have not negotiated/ set a fee to use us. We do not need a new token to make revenue.
Lets immediatley introduce a SIP introducing our Fees to every future launch.
There is currently no team working on Origins. This is part of the scalability issue. The core devs are all dedicated to core functions of the trading and lending, and governance systems.
In the current state, Origins is purely a cost-centre. The idea is to turn it into a profit-centre.
We need to hire talent. I still believe that the amazing token SOV is all the draw we need to get a launchpad team up and running. Obviously you have a much better feel for current hiring conditions and difficulty of finding devs.
Surely we could pay people in BTC after launchpad fees start being collected.
Development Fund: 10,000,000 SOV
The development pool will serve as a treasury for development-related grants and bounties for the construction of new features and rewarding new contributing builders. This will support on-going security and maintenance, as well as R&D.
We have at current values 170 million USD is dev funds. I think we will find a way to get our OG platform booming without a new token to find talent.
What would be a yealry salary, in USD, of a SOV core dev roughly?
Really love this protocol and want to see SOV on the moon.
Thank you Yago.
If the protocol could simply hire the talent needed, this would already have happened. Paying salaries is not going to cut it in the current competitive marketplace for talent.
So the alternative is to provide incentives that are a form of rev share of the future potential upside. Note that this does not mean simply to provide a split of the revenue accrued now - but also of all future revenue, since the hard work is in the beginning - and that is the reason for the difference between equity and debt/commission based systems.
So what would be the mechanism through which we should structure this? I would be interested in your thoughts.
Further, if we have a special Bitocracy, where voting is occurring specifically for the purpose of managing Origins - this will include votes on projects, development, budgeting and revenue model/parameters - how should we inceltivize direct participants in the Origins Bitocracy. What percent of revenue should they accrue?
Again, ideas can be very helpful, since even if we don’t implement them now, we can consider them in the future.
There is also the desire to provide a mechanism for building a treasury and budget for Origins. If this is done through the sale of SOV, this is purely dilutive. The market is unlikely to price in a premium on SOV because it has Origins. Indeed, it is far more likely to price in a premium for SOV, if it is shown to be the base asset of a scalable ecosystem.
Bear in mind that companies that are split up, tend to end up with higher aggregate value. Companies which merge tend to end up with lower aggregate value than their parts.
A study in 2003 by the Krannert School of Management found that subsidiaries spun out of companies outperformed their former parent by more than 20% over the first three years following the demerger; with most of the excess returns within the first 12 months of trading.
Part of the revenue is required for incentivizing talent (either directly or indirectly)
Part of the revenue is required for in incentivizing Origins Bitocracy
Part of the revenue is required for incentivizing SOV stakers
Part of the revenue is required to incentivize motivated investors.
How would you propose to split this revenue? What portion would got to SOV stakers? What would be the mechanism through which this transmission of value should be represented?
An interesting point, apart for the discussion of Origins, is: if spin-off tend to create more value for stakeholders than large aggregate companies, why do large companies tend to consolidate in the opposite direction?
The answer is that conventional company structure has misaligned incentives. Shareholders, in practice, tend to have weak influence over direction. Executives are incentivised towards empire building at the expense of shareholders.
Sovryn is not a company. SOV is not a share. SOV stakers are active participants, not passive shareholders. We as a community are not trying to build an empire, we are working to build a protocol of networked institutions.
I think the Sovryn model is evolving towards being the model of the future. I see the Origins proposal as a bet on this future and an experiment in figuring out how to make it happen. The biggest value here is not Origins and its revenue. It is building an engaged community, in control of their shared destiny, and developing the mechanisms to make this scale.
The debate the origins proposal has generated is already of immense value. I think we have much more to learn from taking the bet than not taking it - that will be the biggest value.
I have listened to your 3 videos on the topic and feel that I am understading the goal trying to be achieved.
Thank you for the thoughtful responses.
I think first we should look at the proposed value being given away vs a spinoff.
What is a demerger?
A demerger or a spin-off is a corporate action in which a business unit or a part of a large organisation or a conglomerate, is carved out and listed as a separate company on the stock exchange.
In a demerger, the parent company transfers a proportional number of shares in the spun-off entity to its shareholders. Usually, the parent company continues to hold a substantial shareholding position in the spun-off company.
I think what is at the core of the issue is the value held by SOV after OG. 20% revenue does not seem substantial. If it was over 60%, I think there would be less pushback.
Sovryn was created as
Sovryn will provide decentralized alternatives of all the most popular centralised Bitcoin finance tools.
I think everytime we add a feature to SOV it is reflected in our token value.
I think that paying developers in SOV is that capture of current and future value.
Here is one approach that uses OG that seems like it wont be a large risk to current holders.
If there is lets say 5% launch revenue gained in a OG launch
2.5% in underlying token
2.5% btc raised
25% to OG (dev incentivisation token, has no more than 40% control in voting for OG). Concentrate token to the devs, which we need, and not a public sale. Dev guild tokens. SOV can still control OG with excellent consensus
75% to SOV holders. We are retaining a substantial value.
The launchpad has many organic sources of income. I see Origins as a piece of the current SOV valuation.
For Zero or Mint I beleive the proposed bonding curve makes more sense. I am much more comfortable experimenting on those features. This is still short term enough to lead the way and learn the best/perfect way of a Sovryn spinoff/guild
I expect all sales of SOV dev funds to be a temporary dillution, as it is being converted into making the protocol better. We have already experienced/will continue to experience this dillution. It was created to Fund Development and should be used. When Tesla does a stock offering to open a berlin factory, shareholders do well.
To near everyone involved, SOV has represented a monetary investment. Regardless of what we want to become we need to honor our early holders and stay accreative to our SOV holders as we continue. Not trying to say you mean otherwise just feel as though this is a skewed risk for holders.
Lets experiment on the protocols that don’t have immediate and obvious value to our holders(low revenue generation from 0 interest loans). Zero seems like a great place to start.
Launchpads have proven to be a great way to make people stake tokens. I would want people staking SOV for allocations and Airdrops not OG.
Thank you for all your insights! I know you are focused on SOV and it’s success.
As I voiced on the call last week, I am struggling with the same exact issues which Wilder and others are voicing here so I’ll summarize them here in the forum and then shut up.
In my mind the current argument presented boils down to:
a) We can’t realize the vision of Origins today with current liquidity and incentives provided by SOV, so value is suboptimized.
b) Governance will gum up the existing SOV governance with minutia
c) Spinning off will allow new tokens to be issued, funds to be raised and incentives to be provided to key personnel
d) SOV holders will give up 80% of future revenues but 20% of newco Origins should be > 100% of what oldco Origins can achieve, so it should be accretive.
My argument is similar to Wilder and others’ argument:
a) Origins has been a part of the Sovryn value, and thus is baked into the SOV token price
b) Origins has some non-zero value, which should accrue to SOV holders (otherwise, why does new Origins project need any of it). Seems like the base case would be that it could create more than 20% of the future value if not spun off, but I have no analysis to prove that.
c) Let’s figure out what the current value is, workout an equitable way to transfer the value, pass the vote and get going.
There are several ways the value can be preserved.
Come up with a value of the 80% to be transferred and ‘sell’ it to the OG project, up front or over time.
Transfer OG tokens to existing SOV holders the estimated value of the 80% in OG tokens, and let the market decide. And raise the necessary working capital through public sale. (Can somehow the bonding curve be funded in an original transaction and then XUSD and RBTC be raised at appropriate valuation in public sale? My head hurts trying to think thru it, but I think yago said it was problematic for the bonding curve.)
Look, whatever the outcome, it’s a great problem to have in that SOV has more value creation opportunities than resources, so let’s figure out a way to get it done.
Note: The reason I think it’s so important to do this right, is that this will either create confidence or uncertainty in the SOV market. Capital flows to areas of less uncertainty. If the market perceives that the SOV governance structure gave away 80% of value for a less than equitable price, than it will have less confidence in the governance structure and place a lower value on future expectations of the revenue to SOV.
Whatever the case, my intention here is not antagonistic, but constructive and hopeful of a long, successful future for Sovryn and any of it’s future sub-DAOs.
Like the others after me in this thread, I don’t think the bonding curve solves my concern. It seems we are starting to hear a common theme of concern that we are losing value. I like several of the alternatives listed, so if we have a separate coin, I would estimate some value, and spin it off to the current SOV holders who can then either sell those tokens or hold them and maintain similar up/down side and can take part. Then have another OG fund raising from that price to raise funds. But, again, not a fan of another coin at this point. Just alternatives if we go that way.
I just don’t see the value in another thing for everyone to understand when we have had one “outside” launch. And it didn’t go well. The distribution to SOV holders was wrong, even after months of delays when they could have really tested it to make sure it works. A tangent, but concern with that is how much Sovryn is depending on XUSD as part of the platform when I now have doubts about their technical abilities. As SOV gets bigger, these types of fails will definitely hurt the SOV protocol by association.
I still like my idea of delegation pools. I can delegate my SOV vote in the different areas (trading, farming, lending, OG, general Sovryn for governance, etc.). I keep all the benefits and outsource the expertise if I choose. Then, someday, when SOV is taking over the world, think about spinning off sub-coins to release more value, maybe…
Is the real goal to raise more funds? If so, let’s think of alternatives for now. Lots of smart people here who really want this to succeed, as I do. We can all work together to figure out alternatives.
Yes, I agree. Most interest rn in retaining and increasing value in my SOV. Excellent ideas. Thank you! I feel condident that we will find a solution where philisophical and financial/vpreservation of alue concerns can intersect and form a solution.
I think that when we look at the issue (should we have subprotocols or not!?) we as stakers must have in mind the the future of sovryn and not our own pockets.
Even if it hurt my pocket a little bit I still think that Sub-protocols are the way to scale for Sovryn. It is the most decentralised and the most sustainable, efficinet way to scale.
Subprotocols ad tremendous value to the Sovryn ecosystem , they bring new talent in, they create new value and they add it to Sovryn through the bonding curve.
Origins seems the obvious way to start! It can get traction very easily as the market it would serve is in need of a good launchpad.
I know that stakers seem to lose a few percentiles but I feel like the ones that think that there is serious value in OG should buy the token and look for a more active role within origins so that they get to be more active in the governance and get a bigger portion of those returns.
Maybe if we split the 70%(excludin the 10% reserve and 20% treasury) of revenue 30-40 the that might be more atractive tot he sov stakers.
There is also the issue of portability to other layer twos. It is much easyer , frictionless to have mudules to be ported rather than having to port the whole ecosystem at once.
As a member of the Bitocracy invested for more than 3+ years I really think that these subprotocols are bringing huge value to Sovryn and it will scale the Sovryn ecosystem exponentially.
I am curious about how @remedcu will change the sip and how itll be updated and my hope is that we will get to vote soon on this.
I feel this is a great opportunity. Excited for the future!
Let’s get a few successes before we start adding complexity to new users. We are getting ahead of ourselves. Better bridges, more trading pairs, more than one Origin sale (and ones without issues) then we can talk about big leagues. A Fast BTC offramp and better trading pairs first… I know everyone is working hard, making great progress, etc. I am a Genesis buyer, but this feels like a distraction that dilutes the value of the SOV we all have.
Maybe we can allocate our stake for decision and raise funds other ways. Then, after we solve some other issues, we proceed with stuff like this.
I don’t think we can get to be this complacent! We must “get ahead of ourselfs” in order to stay relevant and always be at the cutting edge of progress.
I think that you simplify the user experience by introducing subprotocols
I think that by adding subprotocols you free up the “core Sovryn’s” table and they can focus on better bridges , more pairs , two way Fast BTC , optimising primitives. You improve everything by introducing these subprotocols.
I think that by making Origins a sub-dao you improve and optimise Origins, making the launches more succesful and a better experience(just by having a team focused on one project).
If you look at Sovryn as an organism then you might be right in thinking that you dilute the value by giving up Origins but I think it is not the right way of looking at Sovryn.
If you think of Sovryn as an ecosystem then Origins is an organism that is part of the ecosystem. In this scenario the Ecosystem’s value is directly proportional with the number of organisms. The more organisms you have the bigger the Ecosystem’s value gets.
An organism will never be more valuable than an ecosystem.
I also think that we have a right to disagree.
You don’t have to force your thoughts on me an I don’t have to force my ideeas on you and this is fine by me.
That is why we have the voting mechanism, when we disagree the voting outcome will dictate the direction.
I am ok with that, I will still support Sovryn with all of my focus and heart, whatever the outcome of this vote is.
I think that It comes down to needing devs and a way to hire them.
I think the current issue isn’t setting the dao free.
It’s that SOV holders don’t retain enough value from the freedom, and 20% isn’t enough, as Magic mike put so well.
Finally I would like to have further discussions and debate and find a more optimal solution. This is a big choice to make and can not be taken lightly or forced to a vote quickly.
Core Sovryn may become less apealling to devs if they see subdaos splitting.
Yago presented something I did not realize.
The arguement is that devs won’t work for just money, and SOV voting rights.
They want the money and the power to simplify.
We are trying to hire talent that might otherwise work solo it appears.
What control should be given to the OG devs so it’s not superficial? Will any OG devs be SOV devs moving on for more explicit control? How much control should a Dev have compared to the bitocracy?
Does anyone else find it worrying that money, and lots of it, + SOV vote isn’t a motivator for OG devs?
Or is it that the non control hungry devs are hired.
I see the value in wanting a dedicated employee but we may be hiring a ton of conflicting personalities.
I am personally in favor of a direct revshare from launchpad to Development fund. Or launchpad revshare direct to OG devs. Dev guild token. No public token.
Light mentions it at the bottom of his bonding curve post as an alternative.
Thank you for your comments regarding our right to disagree. We are all in this together. Ultimately, we will all have the right to formally express our opinions through a vote, and the metric will ensure that it is an accurate measure of sentiment. In the spirit of our right to disagree, I would like to call out a couple of forms of not-playing-nice-in -the sandbox that are woven in an out of many posts. It does not matter how long you have personally been involved … it does not make more recent members’ opinions less-than. Further to this, those of us who legitimately disagree with the SIP are not taking a short-term perspective, or ‘not in it for the long haul’’; we simply have a different perspective. Finally being able to not worry about the value of SOV rn is a privilege. There are many who have seen value plummet from drastically from their entry points, have suffered huge impermanent losses in the SOV BTC pools etc. Personally, I was disappointment to discover that origins has been losing money-that is not necessary. I would imagine that devs who were incentivized with SOV are salty. That being said, I love SOVRYN and want to see its sucess, along with everyone else! I have not heard anything in the forum that convinces me that this SIP is not being lead by the need for a better instrument for dev compensation. I am untitiled to that opinion folks – before you start brandishing your weapons. Devs can be paid from the huge fund that is allocated for that purpose, or BTC if need be. SOV getting listed on central exchanges is what is bringing value back to our SOV. Let’s keep going with restoring value and put the SIP on a nice high shelf for the time being, or, better, get a new SIP. Thank you to all of the team for your efforts.
I think that we could agree on a tapering mechanism where SOV stakers get the majority of revenue at first and tapers of over time. @remedcu can come up with some figures that would work for OG and also for SOV.
I do not agree with this, I think that sub daos would be joining SoV not splitting from SOV. I think manny make this mistake when thinking about the sub daos and bonding curve. Anybody can come up with an ideea put a team together present a proof a concept write a sip and get into the bonding curve benefiting from exposure to a large community ,marketing and all the benefits that comes up when coming under Sovryn umbrella. Imagine what great feature the bonding curve will be when we get to a bear market, it will make Sovryn a huge gravitational force . It will be very good for the SOV price stability.
I think that Core SOvryn are already invested in sov and do not need additional incentives. They are Sovryn, essentially. Also the primitives(lending, borrowing,trading) will get to a point where building will be less neccessary but mainly maintenance - less need to hire new developers
Most of the people that come into crypto space especially devs are driven by the fact that they can obtain financial freedom, they run from a controlled space(as employee ) and into a space where they can be their own boss and manage their own time as they see fit. Trying to have employees in crypto is proving to be nearly imposible.
I always opposed “shitcoins” but it appears to me that in a dao tokens are the way you coordinate, incentivise, govern. Also a token is extremly important in a launchpad becasue you will want to offer tailored launces. Allocations, tiers etc are more difficult without a token.
I think that we should keep these discutions open(specially the revenue share) and the abbility to change things, to iterate on what we will vote so that this change will have the best possible outcome for Sovryn.
BTW, @wilder , I really appreciate that you take time research and spend time and effort in thinking about this!
Agreed, we have done amazing things in a short time. These discussions are great to discuss the path forward so we continue to do great things as a community. @Lisa thank you for brining up divisive language. Definitely food for thought that I will use for self-reflection. I can read that from others, but you bring up points for me to think about in my communication.
In the end we want to continue being successful. Just differing opinions on how. The OG token at this point seems premature to me. And the rollout not equitable to the SOV holders. With good discussion I hope we find a better place for us all.
Funding development shouldn’t require a new token. And I do think it will ultimately complicate onboarding new users. Typically there is a protocol with independent “sub-protocols” as they have been described. Ethereum and then all the tokens on Ethereum. And they are free to go elsewhere if the base protocol gets too expensive or any number of things. We are keeping these sub-dao’s as under some veto control of the main protocol token holders. That seems strange to me. If we want a separate area, maybe spin it off? But after some success when value has been built.
Thoughts on this different approach with OG under SOV control to some extent. Is that how it is being pitched or am I missing something?
We’ve hammered the general concept of sub-dao (“guilds”) pretty hard at this point. All of us should have sufficient info to take a relatively informed stance. I personally am fully in support of guilds, despite lingering questions because I think the prospective benefit outweighs the short term growing pains.
However, the main point we need to address is how to split value/revenue on Origins (and all future guilds) is. I think we need to start throwing concrete ideas on this front.
Here are some ideas I have.
Defining Revenue: I mentioned this previously, but we need to clearly define “Revenue”. I’d want comfort that if we agree to 20% Revenue Fee that means we effectively have a 20% stake in the guild (without any voting power). This way our “Revenue” is aligned exactly with the guild stakers and we don’t have to worry about Revenue including XYZ but not ABC in the future. Basically, if the guild stakers receive, then we receive it. This just aligns all parties and prevents disputes down the line like “sorry your 20% revenue didn’t include airdrops we get from future projects”.
Push Pull – Airdrop vs Revenue: I think one solution to determine fee share is to have a push-pull relationship between token airdrops and future Revenue. For example, if a guild wants to propose low Revenue share, then they should expect to pay out a higher upfront airdrop and vise versa. This creates a counter-balance and effect where each party has to sacrifice something to get the other thing. This prevents any one side from feeling like they’re getting the short end of the stick as well. It would be interesting if we could create a simple curve that plots % of Future Revenue Share against % of Upfront Airdrop kind of like a bonding curve. Basically Sovryn Bitocracy would put forth the curve and say to future guild proposals that any combination of Airdrop/Revenue along this curve is the minimum we would be willing to accept for any new guild. This would still give the guilds freedom to decide where on that spectrum they would want to be with upfront airdrop vs revenue fee share, while giving Sovryn Stakers assurance of value accrual either upfront or on back-end revenue. The hard part is determining what exactly the curve will look like, but conceptually this may be a decent idea.
Tiered Revenue Structure: Another possibility is having a tiered solution similar to licensing/royalty terms. In traditional licensing agreements the higher the revenue the lower the rates. This rewards higher grossing projects. So maybe initial launch is 30% Revenue Fee Share but if it hits $X Revenue goal then that drops to 20%, etc.
Another point I’d like to make is a general gripe I have. I keep hearing about how SOV Stakers will benefit when new guild tokens are minted because it requires you to lock SOV in the curve. This isn’t really accurate. If you’re a long-term SOV Staker, then you’re locked and unable to sell SOV, so price appreciation is kind of irrelevant, since you cannot capitalize on the token appreciation. The nightmare scenario from these guilds is if every guild is cash flowing big revenue but only a minor split is going to SOV Stakers. Simultaneously SOV token goes to some astronomical price per coin and those who bought SOV but opted not to stake in Bitocracy get all the up-side. All of this could happen while the SOV Stakers can neither profit from token appreciation, nor cash flow on revenue share nor even use our stakes as collateral to borrow against. It’s just dead money in governance. This is probably over-dramatizing the situation, but it’s a valid concern until otherwise.
Basically, if SOV Stakers aren’t reasonably compensated then guilds will successfully start incentivizing people to buy SOV (which is great!) but not stake it in SOV Bitocracy. As I read this Origins guild proposal I am already thinking OK I should buy SOV and NOT stake it in Bitocracy so I can capitalize on guilds with higher revenues and/or potential token appreciation. The fact that I am already contemplating not staking in Bitocracy is risk of a possible bad incentive structure. This is why I think the push-pull arrangement I proposed is compelling. If I have a whiff that cash-flow from the guild to the Bitocracy is inadequate then it’s not a huge deal because I know I at least got a solid sized airdrop to compensate.
If you’ll permit me a perhaps too-obvious analogy, consider the following thought-experiment: would Ethereum ever have achieved its present hegemonic status—all first-mover advantages aside—with ETH as not only the native currency of the ecosystem, but also the sole tokenisation of value on that network? Could Uniswap, Yearn, Aave, Curve or the current plethora of similarly self-styled, bootstrapping ‘disruptors’ conceivably have emerged from so monolithic a substrate, with such nebulous representation and meagre incentive-alignment?
Whatever SOV [the token] might represent to any one holder, speculator, or early-staker, it seems to me that Sovryn’s guiding precept has never been ‘Uniswap for Rootstock’ but rather ‘Ethereum on Bitcoin’; superior to the latter by virtue of all the ways in which Bitcoin is, inherently—because Bitcoin solves the de-centralisation of money, and “money” is the only proper, rightful denominator of mortgages, pensions, sovereign wealth-funds: in a word, nationhood.
However, as SOV is to Bitcoin, so too must the sub-DAOs be to Sovryn; and as SOV motivates us, the stakers, to active governance, then the sub-DAOs should likewise in their turn engender a calibre of discourse every bit as vital, productive, and engaged. If that means devolving a portion of my interest in de-facto ‘Bitcoin Uniswap’ for the prospect of an eventual stake in the grass-roots ‘Bitcoin Ethereum’? Well, so be it. How significant a portion? Now, there’s a debate in and of itself.
Thus, I concur with @Yago: ‘why’—and by extension, ‘whether’—both seem to me to be self-evident propositions. On the other hand, concerning the still-unresolved questions of ‘how’ and ‘how much’; @Sitizen 's suggestion of the “tapering mechanism” may chart a less divisive course between variegated stakeholders, and as such, strikes me as meriting further discussion. Equally, @dseroy’s proposal of a “Push Pull” model for revenue-sharing also appears to hold water.
At any rate, I’m grateful (as ever) to @dseroy, @Wilder, @magicmike, @Martin_Adriaan and others for surfacing thorough and insightful arguments which I would not otherwise have had the opportunity to consider prior to the impending SIP: thank you all.
Great summary and I am in agreement. I guess the one sticking point for me is personal economics. We bought into SOV as an ecosystem token. Many have staked large amounts of SOV that are now locked up for the long-term. I’d like to see SOV holders gain some initial exposure to these new tokens at the start and then let them flourish on their own. Maybe an airdrop to start, say 50% of value, and then a token sale for the other 50% to gain capital to develop the area, such as Origin, further.
Well said Profesh. But, we can’t ignore the initial pitch and motivations for SOV in the first place.
Thoughts on that?
Tremendous dialogue on this thread! Excellent stuff. I am still going to push the simultaneous Sprint + Marathon message.
Reading through it all - it seems like there are some areas of consensus that:
there may be “a need at some point” and something like the proposal feels like a good direction. Not universal agreement on the mechanic but most of the objections seem value based rather than technical.
'When is the right time?" There are good and accepted arguments based on demand (i.e. get us through 12-24 launches in a year) vs lack of resources feed a self fulfilling prophesy as project team will not engage for undetermined and unresponsive timeframes. I would default to building the capacity to act as we are in a growth cycle and speed/iteration WINS (assuming competence, valid value proposition, usability etc).
How much do I get - we keep coming back to this. We share context and back ground but can someone who is a proponent of a given approach actually develop an economic model and share it? May be super helpful on this friction point. To me - more value, more velocity, more inputs should deliver a stronger return than “steady as she goes” but “show me the money” has broader appeal.
I would support the proposal but respect the desire to nail down the value story for the community at large. I also want my SOV to stay strong.
