I think your comment encompasses a lot of what the community has in mind.
1 Like
Without the bonding curve the tokenomics dont seem to be “Sovryn Community” centric, the community gets table scraps and the seed investors a much larger share and a cheaper price with only a 2 month longer lockup (14 vs 16 months).
No one expects the Origins team to work for free, but Origins is being taken away from SOV without providing adequate compensation.
Agreed, and not to be harsh but business deals can be made with other parties so we dont have to be stuck with a “crappy” launchpad.
P.S.: I would also like to know about the valuation model as mentioned in my other post, I give exmaples of two other projects with about 90% less FDV at launch.
1 Like
This is not a good argument. You can think of the bonding curve as mainly being a specialist tool for arbitrage traders. They’ll deal with whatever peculiarities of the protocol they have to in order to make their profit (look at the complexities of flashbots trading for example). Retail traders who just want to make a quick trade to get in and out of subtokens can use the Sovryn AMM like they do for every other asset they trade. They don’t ever need to interact directly with the bonding curve if they don’t want to.
I think your strongest argument is about the additional capital requirements of the bonding curve to end up with both the reserve ratio and the cash in hand that you want. This is true, and for anyone wondering, this wasn’t an issue for Mynt because that project did not have the same capital requirements.
3 Likes
I see a lot of comments raising concerns about the proliferating number of tokens and Sovryn turning into a “shitcoin casino” etc. I think it’s good to be wary of superfluous tokens. But I also don’t think we should be knee-jerk against new tokens simply because they aren’t backed by RBTC or SOV. The question of whether or not a new token is “necessary” or “has value” is more nuanced than that.
I wrote a post on a separate thread about this, since I think this topic goes beyond the debate about this SIP. Happy to discuss this over here if anyone would like to join and share their thoughts.
1 Like
Do you think Sovryns launchpad should have its own non-bonded token?
To me, Launchpad seems like it is a main, integral part of the sovryn ecosystem, and as such, should be at minimal, bonded to the sovryn governance token.
I think it is unfair that I have to buy yet another token if I want to have any voting power for launchpad, because it seems like it’s a part of sovryn. At least when it was going to be bonded, my SOV would benefit as well. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I would argue the “update” benefits the devs more than the sovryn community, but its being marketed like it’s in our best interest.
Also,what do you think of the ethics of selling the idea of the launchpad token as a bonded token, then at the finish line pushing for an “update” to the tokenomics?
Your opinion really does matter to me, and I’m sure other community members would agree.
It seems most of us that have been here since early last year have been pretty loyal to the project.
7 Likes
Good to hear your take on this @light
I’d like to better understand the capital requirement for Origins, given that a rudimentary Origins launchpad already exists in the dApp (which has launched Babelfish etc). Is the capital needed mainly for development or marketing or what? As others have said the launchpad should quickly become a revenue generator so is this mainly about cash flow?
Thanks
1 Like
I must admit I was upset at first with this new proposal… BUT I would much rather earn more rewards passively with no bonding curve, than just for the price of SOV to go up and earn less passively.
I think it’s important to realize there needs to be separation between sovryn and other protocols for our protection and scalability. It appears these are two things SOV devs are focused on and I can personally agree with.
With that being said I think the higher the rewards that go to SOV stakers the better this new proposal is for everyone and more likely we can agree this is actually better than just to make SOV a “up only” coin or “the coin to rule them all”
But stakers earn 20% of the revenue either way, what extra rewards are you talking about? The 2m amm? How much “passive revenue” will that earn you? Or are you talking the extra 2% drop to passive stakers?
We (users/stakers/community members) don’t even need the og token, it’s only there for OG devs to generate more money, (which are also sovryn devs because OG is supposed to be inclusive).
The community didn’t resist much because the Bonding curve meant OG token couldn’t become more successful than SOV token. Now that’s being scrapped.
“Defi on Bitcoin”
2 Likes
the next SIP that then is only presented to OG holders is cut all ties to sovryn. we can´t do jack shit about it and seeing the whole individual branding that is already taking place with own discord and all is just a matter of time. OG holders will all be in favor because they get more revenue that way. Bonding curve completely would prevent that from happening ever… Even better not to have a seperate token at all…
Now that we are in bear market there is no ruch to launch a launchpad anyways. Liquidity is likely not there to launch anything. So why not build out Sovryns core functions integrate Zero and Mynt and then when all that is fine and dandy and devs are have more free time then concentrate on the launchpad without further funding needed. Maybe SOV price has appreciated by then and we are all golden without any further shitcoins.
2 Likes
That is wrong!
SOV Stakers keep VETO power over Origins with or without the bonding curve.
If You carefully analyse what this SIP proposes is the omission of the bonding curve as it is an experimental formula and not very battle tested and it a risk to the protocol, Sovryn and sub-protocols.
I actually like the ideea.
As a staker I get Origins rewards but I do not get price exposure(could be good, also bad).
The downside would be that you do not have access anymore to the arbitraging tool that you could use to take advantage of AMM vs Bonding Curve price discrepancies, and in consequence you will not be able to lock SOV in the bonding curve anymore.
What I don’t like if we give up on the bonding curve and let Origins be a sub-protocol still is the fact that we will be missing out on locking SOV out of circulation.
The good thing about keeping Origins unde Sovryn is that you get the chance to lock SOV in staking contracts with every token launch you make, same with the bonding curve( if demand for OG grows so does the amount of SOV locked in the bonding curve).
I will be voting having the good of Sovryn in mind (I do not like the 100m SOV tokens that are to be emitted over the next 7 years. I would lock/burn as manny as I could because I think that 100m tokens in 7 years is a limitation for the growth of Sovryn)
1 Like
The original SIP I believe was 10% or less in weekly rewards. With the bonding of the tokens there is slower block time or something dev mentioned that would make harder for development and scalability. (If this is true idk) but my point is…
There needs to be a point where we can separate future coins and projects from sovryn. While bonding every coin to sovryn would nice, it’s not practical. I would rather earn more rewards and better scalability, than tie everything together that becomes slower, less scalable, congested, etc.
According to another dev (light), Bonding curve only makes it slower for arb traders, every other user can use swap like they do with current assets.
Mynt is bonded, is it any slower to swap than anything else? Not to my knowledge…
I agree, maybe not every token should be bonded, but origins is supposed to be a part of sovryn. We are already using it for Mynt/Babel fish, which we used SOV to vote on. Seemed to work fine 
.
If you don’t have any skin in SOV, I guess I can see your point. Those of us that dumped substantial amounts of our hodled Bitcoin into a project, kind of hope our investment succeeds, because that’s what devs sold on.
There will be plenty of tokens launched on origin in the future, voting rights on those new tokens/projects will be given to Origins stakers, with no Bonding curve, Origins is a separate project that Sovryn hosts. A sovryn product, in name only, and for whos benefit? Certainly not the Sovryn community/stake holders.
The Only token that is bonded to SOV is Mynt.
Babelfish has no ties to the SOV token nor to the Bitocracy.
It is a standalone project that launched on Sovryn.
On the flip according to the latest Origins SIP the OG token is subject to VETO Power and it is being vetted by the Bitocracy. That means that any token launch approved by the OG token stakers or any decision they make can be overturned by the SOV Bitocracy.
The only thing that the Bonding Curve provides is OG(or any other bonded token) - SOV price correlation.
I think this is an important factor to take into consideration when looking at this SIP.
Sure, Babelfish is a stand alone token, but as I said, we DID use origins to launch the fish token, and there was an SIP that was voted on for it (using SOV voting power).
My point was, origins already exists on Sovryn, and is being used. One token is bonded (Mynt), and I can swap other tokens for it easily. With this in mind, creating a token for OG seems unnecessary, but if it is needed for funding (unsure of this), at least it’s bonded.
In this way, since we obviously already have a launchpad (launched mynt, and babelfish) it would seem like the OG token is actually removing functions we already have. At least if it’s bonded, my SOV should share value as well. Which was promised by the devs in the first SIP anyways, which is why I voted in favor of the OG token in the first place.
Also, was “Veto power” not in the first SIP? I’m almost certain it was.
This is a quote from the original SIP:
The advantage for SOV token holders & stakers
- Origins is part of the Sovryn protocol. And will always be linked to it through a Bonding Curve, thus having everlasting economic incentive. SOV is the coordination token of the Sovryn community, and as more projects are launched, the use of SOV to coordinate them will grow.
- Veto Governance power over the Origins Governance.
- Staking Reward from Origins Revenue
- The fee collected on sell transactions in the Bonding Curve.
- Opportunity for allocations from token launches on the Origins platform.
2 Likes
This is how I see it as well,
While price correlation is nice for SOV holders (including myself )
We’re comparing previous SIP to the present SIP for OG.
This new proposal actually benefits SOV stakers more because we will be earning roughly twice as much passively as compared to before.
I prefer to earn more passively than for coins to be bonded and earn less just to have the value of my SOV go up.
And for those who are calling this SOV dilution, it is not. OG is it’s own project, team, devs, with a branch off of SOV. The token has a different purpose than SOV and does not have the same rights as SOV.
Before replying to this anymore, please listen to the Town Hall that happened on 24th January 2022: Town Hall Call #1, January 24th, 2022 - YouTube
6 Likes
Mynt’s bonding curve UI has not been deployed yet. What you are doing now is just trading it with AMM. You can test the SOV/MYNT swap with bonding curve on testnet to see how it works, it needs 5 transactions to swap SOV to MYNT and 3 transaction to swap MYNT t SOV
Sure, but as light said:
Not that it matters much now anyway.
Hello @remedcu !
I have listened to the community call and I personally feel like your proposal of launching the launchpad without the token for the moment makes a lot of sense.
Whith regards to the fund raise, have you made any progress in the negotiations with the Exchequer?
I was thinking and If the Exchequer is not able to provide the full sum you guys need there might be a way where the Community could raise funds based on a claim to future revenue by using NFTs.
So you would offer different tiers(3-5 -10, as many you would consider necessary )and then whitelist addresses based on the interest generated. You then distribute the NFT’s(each nft represents a x% of the revenue share) to the whitelisted adresses and the possessor of the NFT gets a pro-rata share of the revenue.
So you would have 3 actors with claim to the revenue of the Origins Platform: OG TEAM, SOV STAKERS, ORIGINS EARLY Suporters, you set the parameters.
So the NFTs will be a play on the revenue share only and maybe subject to a future OG token airdrop if there will ever be a token.
The airdrop would go to all three parts.
It might be a really stupid idea though but thought ,why not share it!?
I am not sure how this would be different from the proposal for OG to have its own token separate from SOV.
For myself, I think that overly complex governance structures are not a good idea. I like the way SOV governance works: your voting power depends simply on the size of your stake and how long it is staked for. Anyone who wishes can gain as much voting as they wish by just buying SOV and staking it.