the points we raised in the SIP were that users wanting to transact OG/SOV would need to commit 3 transactions - including a 10 block wait time, rather than the 2 transactions usually required in a
what the problem? really? explain this and its a go - origin is not a trading platform - its an investing platform. there is no rush. make a clock in the interface showing the blocks it still needs. make a tooltip explaining whats happening. Explain in the interface the three transactions with tooltips that go into more detail showing the transaction IDs. People investing in early stage experimental crypto is your target group and I do not think that this is a hurdle to consider in that group.
Origins being independent of Sovryn
I hardly agree on these points. Why would you need a whole new team - with a new adoption team, new management etc. This creates so much overhead and its redundant. Work inside the SOV team - give the OG team members a little bit more autonomy - please exactly tell us why you need a whole new structure with a whole independend funding etc. This has not been clear at all.
How does Origins INSIDE Sovryn not bring in new users and new projects. Why does that only work if Origins is getting its own token (which this SIP is about).
roughly around $7M USD in order to maintain a proper reserve ratio
also the 4 Mio. number was raised in the SIP - Can the community have a cost breakdown - like a truly detailed bussiness plan. This seems an aweful lot of money. Since Origins brings in more money with projects launched it has an ongoing business case that will kick in pretty soon to boot which can then fund further adoption and development. So what in the world you need 4 Mio. for? Origins is already there as well (funded by SOV stakes and seed investors) just needs improvements. MYNT has shown that even the launchpad actually works… 4 Mio for a fancy website or what?
I think community spent a good amount of time being distracted with subprotocol topics. I believe everyone will agree that RSK needs more attention out there, and in my eyes this will not happen with any other token other than SOV. Sovryn must get the attention that it deserves for everything that created so far and all other things that will come in the future. We are close to BETA phase, and with whatever comes with it.
Sovryn community voted for the creation of those subprotocols, agreeing to give away power from SOV token with the impression there will be bonding curves in place - which is something that will help the circulation. As I see it there are 2 ways: a) Bonding curve just like what happened with MYNT or b) community to have a vote to bring Origins back to Sovryn - we had many successful launches so far as people mentioned previously, so this will not be an issue.
In any case it is not time to disagree for things that the community already voted in the past on how they should be implemented. In the end of the day, SOV is a community driven project. It is time to stop taking attention away from SOV, SOV is still in baby levels and we must focus to grow it up. I want to see Sovryn itself growing first and become a strong kickass individual before I consider any chance for subprotocols to go independent.
SOV is still in baby levels and we must focus to grow it up. I want to see Sovryn itself growing first and become a strong kickass individual before I consider any chance for subprotocols to go independent.
I think we are all aware of the purpose of Origins. I’ve read this a couple times and I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out how this post has helped address the major concerns raised by the community. This in no way convinces me to think any different about what others have stated in regards to the OG token. Would the amount of $ needed to be contributed by the SOV stakers and public participants be less massive if SOV price was at $100 instead of $7? Who are the Strategic Investors? (how can I become one)? Any reason why they can’t become part of the Sovryn community and purchase SOV? Sounds like another shitcoin.
Is there a reason why this ongoing revenue (paragraph 3) can’t be used to help fund the team?
The user experience you mention is that experience to obtain OG/SOV token? Doesn’t seem like a big deal. The only user experience you need to worry about is the ease of launching a new project and people participating to get their token.
I still don’t think we need two separate marketing strategies. We need new users and people flowing to sovryn itself. Come to Sovryn to find the token launch!
“while the long-term tethering to SOV may yield benefits (there is no argument there)” This statement makes me think we are not thinking “long-term”? I thought Sovryn was moving to SlowFi?
Bottom line I think this will distract and keep new users from discovering Sovryn first unless they are more intertwined with use of bonding curve.
I understand fully the reasons from the perspective of the origin core team and these so called sees strategic investors, but it goes directly against je community who hold and staked sov.
These few extra incentive for stakers is laughable considering we give up origin control and benefits to other investors.
also why propose this at this stage ? The community already discussed and voted on this and I thought we were about to launch
we should never give up the bonding curve IMO , since this is the only way sov is still at the centre of this sub. This was the only way the community allowed a new token to be created . It feels a bit scammy to bring this back to debate
This is very concerning. Back in the fall of 2020 when I first heard about Sovryn there was only going to be rBTC. Then we needed SOV, just for governance. I figured, okay, that makes sense to make decisions. Not sure what happened that we have turned into a shitcoin creating site… We only need one native Sovryn coin in my opinion, SOV. We also only need one other that “can be native or not”, a stable coin (could be more than one stable but for now the dollar rules). For the zero loans, use this coin. I don’t understand why these three coins isn’t enough. We could use XUSD or other stable coins, wrapped or have our own, not sure I care on that one as long as it gets a far reach.
The bridges and allowing purchases and AMM with tokens on other chains is great as a convenience but we shouldn’t create more coins. We all bought into SOV for all these great things like a launchpad, staking, AMM, lending/borrowing, etc. To create a situation where we have to pay to keep these features is horrible and feels scammy.
Other concerns - Changing Origins after all the discussions and “bonding curve” sell. Then we hear things being launched before an audit can be completed. We are losing focus and it is sad. Let’s reset and get back tot he basics and do things as this launched when SOV soared to 143k SATs instead of the 17k SATs it is now with all the confusion and red flags.
We’ve only had 4 origin launches. I don’t think any went smoothly. Focus on that instead of creating a complex shitcoin ecosystem. Did I pick the wrong BTC extension to get behind? Starting to feel that way.
To give us a better understanding of your position could you answer the following questions please:
Is there any significant information you have not yet shared that would help us understand your proposal; for example has there been lobbying from big investors or developers for a different tokenomics model?
Was the option of not having a OG token at all considered and given a cost - benefit analysis? I note that there have been signals that there may be an ongoing rethink about whether a new governance coin is actually required for ZERO.
As a proposed sub-protocol of Sovryn, is it appropriate for Origins to be challenging the existing Sovryn strategy of launching sub-protocols with governance tokens locked to SOV in a bonding curve (precedent = MYNT)? Or has this change of direction been approved by the Sovryn core team and they are happy with this setting a new precedent?
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.
Hey Shebin, at the token price of $0.4 and total supply of 75 million, the starting FDV would be USD 30 million. How is this “valuation” for a launchpad decided? Just doing a quick comaprison to other launchpads it seems excessive.
Sovryn is still sitting at about the same FDV as when it publically launched close to a year ago and with less than 100 million in TVL (if you exclude the SOV token), so to me this Origins valuation doesnt make much sense. I could be wrong as I dont know how you have decided to value it.
These are current FDV, I am talking about the valuation at launch price.
Avalaunch (for Avax) launched with FDV of USD 3.5 million, some other older launchpads on BSC also launched at much lower valuations.
