I’m sympathetic to both sides. I’ll try to recap where my head is at and my proposed solution:
For me, it’s hard to tell if this proposal is being pushed because the bonding curve truly is an in-effective fundraising tool, has weak UX and is too complicated for the average user. Or, if Origins is getting pressure from early investors to create a token outside of Sovryn due to the ease of implementation and significant profit incentive of those closest to the project. My gut tells me the reality is somewhere in-between.
Where this ultimately comes to a head is if Origins team says “Either we get a token, or we’re taking our services elsewhere.”
With that said, up until now we have two proposals:
- Create Origins as a sub-protocol using bonding curve (original proposal):
- Pros: Creates the economic incentives that come with a token, yet keeps Origins ‘linked’ and under the umbrella of Sovryn.
- Cons: Very capital in-efficient for fundraising, UX experience is not ideal and likely requires some additional technical debt to build out.
- Create Origins as independent token (new and current proposal):
- Pros: Very effective for fundraising and much simpler to implement.
- Cons: Community clearly does not want this. Fractures revenue between Sovryn and Origins and makes Origins not truly apart of Sovryn.
Proposed Solution: I feel Origins should present a new proposal with no token whatsoever, but instead with an outline budget of how much $SOV and $rBTC or $xUSD they need to be satisfied without a token. This may be a significant request. But then Bitocracy and Exchequer will have to vote if we find these reasonable costs and if we accept. If yes, then those funds will come from Sovryn Treasury and Origins is built under the umbrella of Sovryn. The reality is we cannot expect strong resources such as the Origins team to work for free or with minimal incentive. So it’s totally un-reasonable to say sorry you cannot launch a token, but build this for us anyways. So instead, treat it as a normal business deal; Origins tells us the offer and either we accept or not.
I think this will really be telling in where the motivations lie. Is Origins more concerned with creating a new token or with getting the resources they need at a fair price and maximizing value to Sovryn?
- Pros: No token, which the community clearly favors and would make the masses happy. No hassle with bonding curve (for now). All revenue and value accrues to Sovryn stakeholders. Far more simple for average understand or not need to interact with.
- Cons: Origins may have far too big of an ask that Sovryn Treasury either cannot afford or is un-willing to pay out and we risk having a crappy launch-pad because of bad incentives or worse the Origins team just walks away completely.
If we cannot find a compromise then a sad reality is we move on, but we cannot stay in a perpetual stalemate.