[DRAFT] SIP-00XX Origins subprotocol update

Hello Sovryn Community,

I hope you all had a wonderful time during the holiday season with your family and friends. Now it’s time to get back to work.

We at Origins were doubling down on the work and research being done even during that time. And we are here to bring a new update to the SIP-0035, which we introduced in the forum a few months back.

You can find more details about the SIP here: Origins SIP with new Tokenomics - Google Docs


  • Around $2M worth of AMM will be introduced to Sovryn, thus increasing trade fee revenue.
  • Additional stability is offered in terms of AMM as the liquidity is served from the DAO itself and won’t be withdrawn.
  • Fewer tokens in circulation (75 Million)

We propose this to the Sovryn stakeholders to garner support and feedback on this initiative. And will be going forward with a vote soon. Hope to get your complete support.

Thank You



i do not like the fact that OG gets it’s own token that is NOT bonded to SOV via bonding curve. Could you explain in detail what makes Origins move away from Sovryn to this extent? I am missing a good explanation in the SIP.

This is a big no-go for me and it would be great to get more insight into why this is happening.

Also, 0.25 $ per token at a max. supply of 75 mil OG seems overpriced at current market conditions, especially when compared to the mcap of the whole Sovryn ecosystem.



A few comments

  • SOV bonding curve must be in place. Personally I am not convinced with the reasons you stated in the SIP.

  • SOV community voted for MYNT, OG, ZERO sales to happen, ‘‘giving away part of their SOV power’’ for the creation of subprotocols. Correct me if I am wrong but the basic moto that was also communicated is ‘‘We are going to lock SOV in those bonding curves and Sovryn will continue be the centre of attention’’.

  • As Sacro stated above, OG seems overpriced at current market conditions. I will also add something that personally I do not like, seed strategic investors are buying in a cheaper price than Presale. I thought the whole concept of OG was to allow SOV community to participate in projects at the same price as VC investors. Now we are having a proposal that VC will buy cheaper than the community. To me this doesnt feel right for the values that OG wants to represent.

My 2 cents



Just seems Sovryn has gone from bitcoin focused DEFI to making shitcoins.

Why cant you use SOV or RBTC to make the origins launchpad?

At least when it was bonded to SOV the value was going towards to SOV ecosystem.

Creating your own token just seems like a scam to me.

As an admin in the sovryn chats. It doesnt make sense. Any outside user who comes to sovryn will think exactly the same.

So currently $OG doesnt want to be bonded to $SOV. $Mynt is bonded to SOV. ZERO may or may not have a token. The subtokens dont make any sense anymore. Why are we deliberating trying to take value away from SOV and make it so confusing for new users?


shitcoin casino 2.0
no one has the right to complain vs bitcoin maxis.


I agree that Bonding curve should stay in place as advertised. Starting to look like a cash grab. Or just use SOV token for Origins instead.


I think its time to just keep the lauchpad, Origins, part of the original Sovryn ecosystem. It successfully has launched four already. If we need specific funding for an independent team, to manage Origins. A percentage of funds raised from projects launching on Sovryn should be used. It will highly incentivize Sovryn to launch legit projects. We need people coming and using Sovryn dapp, not another dapp. If they are one in the same, problem solved. @yago did an amazing job explaining the need to have a separate token SOV during one of the Sovryn Tea’s, I believe it was with Big Al. How would you explain this one?


I agree. That’s a lot better than developers suddenly changing tokenomics without input from the community. Specifically because the Bonding curve (Attached to sov) thing is the main selling point of making these other tokens, and not considering them shitcoin.


Without going into details, right now it’s clear to me:
No bonding curve = no need for this token at all



To sum it up, big NO. Absolutely not! I will detail further down below!

First let’s analyse some of the claims made in the new SIP proposal.

  1. Bonding Curve - which was designed to link the SOV and OG token prices, and for us, it was an ‘experiment’ - How is a decision made by the Sovryn community an “experiment”? Nowhere in the approved SIP there was any statement that would make the voters realise the the Bonding Curve was optional. The Sovryn community voted almost unanimously to pass SIP 35 not merely because it wanted a new sub-token but specifically because of the way that it was going to be implemented, through a bonding curve, which would have brought a significant benefit to the Sovryn ecosystem in the long term. If the community would have been made aware that the Bonding-Curve was just an experiment, I am sure that the votes would have been cast differently than they have been.

  2. it came at too high a cost to the project to implement. - This should have been discussed with the community openly. I am currently staked for over 3 years, and I did this to allow for this project to evolve to its best possible and to give it the time and the resources it needs to do so. If the cost is indeed to high for the project to implement, than it does not automatically mean that the project should separate even further from Sovryn to become more or less independent. Launching it this way it would mean that the success or failure of Sovryn or of Origins will have no real impact on one another. The incentive for the separate teams working specifically on developing a part of the ecosystem was that being bonded to SOV, their success would be SOV success, and their failure would impact Sovryn as well, and the other way around. Now they can be completely separate, and if Sovryn would go down(its not gonna happen) Origins would be well off without Sovryn, their success will be preserved. The idea is not go down together, but grow and aim high together. This is what the Sovryns voted for, and we are given the opposite.

  3. the large raise can limit the remaining appetite for OG in the market after the sale, especially in the short run. - We the Sovryns are in it for the LONG run! This would actually be best. I think that the Bonding Curve actually does a good thing in doing exactly what you are trying to bring up as a disadvantage. Rather than pumping a separate token, it allows for SOV to grow organically using all its sub-tokens. This was the main selling point of the sub-tokens, that they would be launched in a way that would benefit SOV directly, and not create separate tokens, but bonded tokens: allowing for governance to function and offer the possibility of separate teams to concentrate on separate parts of the ecosystem. This would have been fair for the parts that were better developed and for the teams involved more, to be better rewarded, but all progress and success would reflect directly on SOV, as it should be. Origins belongs to Sovryn. While the new SIP can provide improved incentives for SOV stakers, the main benefit of even having any sub-token and the way they were going to be implemented, has been taken out, so if this is the only way, we should not have any sub-tokens at all.

  4. a successful launch can add a lot of weight to early project adoption - and a failed launch can significantly hinder this adoption. - Agreed. Thankfully Sovryn already super-succesfully launched and is a great success! This is what it’s all about right? Sovryn success? Or is it? Isn’t this what Origins should be about? Seems to me like Origins wants to take advantage of Sovryns success to launch itself separately. Origins was and is a major part of Sovryn, from the start. It simply cannot be that it separates itself from Sovryn. It is Sovryn. If the launch is not possible using the bonding curve, it should not become separate at all.

  5. Simplifying our go-to-market and making it more efficient and easy to understand will significantly improve points 1 and 2, which will enhance the launch success of Origins itself and subsequent launchpad projects. - I am curious how are you gonna market Origins. Are you even gonna mention Sovryn? How will you tie Origins to Sovryn? If its not fully dependant why would any user bother buying SOV and being a staker? They can just buy the OG token and this would have no impact on SOV or direct significant benefit for SOV stakers. Using the bonding curve, if a user would buy the OG token, even if he would not use other parts of Sovryn ecosystem, by buying OG, he directly impacted SOV because of the Bonding-Curve, and this would be the best benefit for SOV stakers and for Sovryn as a whole, even if that user is only interested in Origins. This way the SOV holders as well as OG holders would be directly rewarded by EVERY investment in Origins, as it should be, as all the hard effort put into making Origins what it would be was made by the Sovryn community and stakers.

6.** The UI to make using bonding curve + sov-bonded governance is still immature, and this can lead to a bad user experience - so while sov-bonded tokens could use this methodology for the future, it may be too soon to risk it for OG - given the short time period, we have before launching.** - So now we are in a rush? We waited patiently even after the launches have been postponed time and time again, but hey, we’re here for the long term, so no offence there. So why rush now? Do you need more time? Just say so and I believe the community will give it to you. But cancel the very thing that gave you the opportunity to concentrate your work as a team on a certain part of Sovryn ecosystem and be rewarded for it directly proportional with your success? How is that acceptable? Need testing? Allow users to test it. Launch Mint UI and improve upon use. But don’t cancel the basis upon which you were allowed to function as a sub-protocol. If this is too hard for this team maybe is a good idea for the initial/whole team to handle it. We overcome obstacles by working together not avoiding them and go our separate ways.

These are some of the main arguments that were given in support to this change. I believe we should review them carefully and thinking for the LONG term success of SOVRYN not Origins. This is why we are here for.

Cancelling the bonding curve is cancelling the technology which was the basis of the vote to have sub-protocols. IF that basis is removed, so should be the option of having sub-protocols in any other way, at least this particular way presented here.

I believe that if we go forward with this vote and will somehow pass, it will indeed be good for the short-term of Origins, of the Origins team, maybe for their long term as well, but NOT FOR SOVRYN’s. I believe that deviating this way will be a major blow to Sovryn and to everything that was built so far. We should tread carefully.

If this is going for a vote anyway, I urge the core team, the major holders of voting power to allow for the community to vote first, and for them to vote towards the end. This way they will see the true opinion of the community/SOV stakers, and then decide how they vote based on that. I believe that this way, a bit more of decentralisation will be demonstrated, and the will of the SOV stakers from the community will matter, and not be lost in the huge percentage of voting power that the team holds.

I know that this opinion may come across as harsh, but sometimes you have to step on the edge to see the danger that lies ahead! I am not aiming this at anyone personally. I believe that if we ALL have Sovryn interest in mind, we will all agree on most of the points made above. Opinions may differ but the core principal should be the same. Conflict may arise where personal benefit is above Sovryn’s benefit. This is my opinion. Please take the time to state yours!

We are Sovryn! Let’s STAY Sovryn!


Very well said.
Couldn’t agree more.


Also, why should Sovryn hand away an integral (we all bought our tokens there since Genesis, Origin, Fish) part of the protocol?

With bonding curve the tradeoffs would have been outweighed by a (supposedly) positive outcome.

Without bonding, we just give away core parts off the protocol for some measly airdrops and rev share.

In addition, to have a say, we shall buy again what we already had.


I think I come at this from a difference perspective as I was not around during $OG token launch and hold 0 $OG. I have nothing to gain/lose from this SIP in that regards, however, I am staking and yield farming $SOV so my priority lies in SOVs value.

Since OG is bonded to SOV, if the demand for OG goes up, the demand for SOV also goes up, if that bond is cut, then where is the incentive to SOV stakers? It’s also my understanding that 20% of OG revenue generated goes to SOV stakers and 10% to the bonding curve contract, this proposal seems like a significant cut to the value of SOV should OG prosper, even more so if OG were to prosper whilst cut from the bonding curve, with little in return to SOV stakers.

I’m fairly new to the Sovryn dapp, its taken a fair bit of time to understand and learn how things operate here and to me at least, any SIPs that are looking to remove value from the SOV token will need a lot of evidence to show a good reason to do so, I don’t believe that this proposal has successfully demonstrated that evidence.

@yago mentioned in the previous draft that with the OG subprotocol removed from the bonding curve, it might be more beneficial in the long run to the Sovryn protocol, which makes sense to me, however, from a purely selfish point of view, I don’t wish to be the one to pay with a reduction in the generated revenue from OG to find out.


you have my NO vote! but unfortunately the team voting power outweighs the hole community voting power, to me this is not Bitocracy. We will see how the voting goes.


I could not agree more. The entire sell of sov to people was it is not an alt coin. It is a GOVERNANCE TOKEN. and now instead of governing its own launch pad we are launching yet another shitcoin. To say i am beyond dissapointed with investing in a governance token that does not govern its own launchpad as some other shitcoin does doesnt quite cover jt.


As for all the talk of 24.65% of rewards go to sov stakers. And og demand boosts sov demand etc. What a load of nonsense. 100% should go to sovryns governance token which is $SOV. There is no need for og to boost sov demand. Because there is no need for og. I cannot see it as anything other than a bit of a money grab and a total shitcoin. SOV IS THE GOVERNANCE TOKEN LET IT GOVERN


No Bonding Curve = No OG token !


I am not impressed by this update… As mentioned above in quite clear words by other community members, there should be a bonding curve, or no need for a separate token. We all voted for something that would strengthen SOV, and here we are clearly going the opposite direction. My vote is a clear NO, and i am worried that the core team votes will drown our voice in the matter. Sovryn should not be centralized governed, and with the weight from the core teams vote, I would say we are a bit too centralized in my opinion…

Why the rush?, if need time… then let us know how much extra time is needed to do this the right way. I totally agree with @Yago when he say its better to deliver a polished project than a hurried one. This seems hurried to me…

In it for the long run was my view on Sovryn, but this suggestion makes me think again….
My 2 SOVs worth … if that counts for anything…

And Devs/Core Team, please drop by in the Dojo and have a look at the reaction to this suggestion… It should be an eye opener…


First of all if all it was was a bad UI that didn´t make sense please team HIRE A GOOD EXPERIENCED UX TEAM. This is no rocket science. It seems current design team is absolutely not up to the task (and I have raised this before - it shows everywhere on sovryn currently - UX/UI is - lets see how I put it politely - not professional looking)

Second I do still believe Origins needs to stay inside Sovryn fully. What SOV staker in their right mind votes “YES” on this. I mean currently we would get 100% of the rewards - this SIP proposes that we need to byu a total unneeded shitcoin so we can get the same benefits. Or if we don´t do casino shitcoins we only get 20%…

I also do not think that trading fees are even noteworthy looking at the trading fees stakers currently get (thats amount is not even worth withdrawing). So at least the bonding curve made it feel like this is part of SOV somehow and at least in the long run it wouldn´t dilute SOV as a token.

So “no” to a diluting shitcoin moneygrab proposal from me and no politeness at all for even attempting this…


i will vote NO on this proposal if we would go to a vote.

  1. SOV is a government token, if OG token sale will happen as proposed. what will be governed?
    there is no connection between OG and SOV in this way. as SOV staker we will only get a small % but there is no correlation.

  2. i dont like the idea of passive and active stakers. I’m staking SOV for max time, and i want to be rewarded by doing so. i dont want to buy every single token that is being launced probably. meaning i will not get fully rewarded because i’m not active… this will be a big NO to me, SOV stakers should get a piece of the cake, do not devide this by some rule of being active or not. i’m sure i will not be interested in all tokens launched. and i’m sure many with have the same thoughts.

dont rush this sale because of whatever reasons.
if there is more testing needed for the bunding curve, please do this.
it was delayed already, i dont mind waiting longer to be sure its good enough.

bonding curve or no OG token at all.