Draft SIPs - Gimp's Big Package

Greetings Sovryns, Gimp here.

What’s this then?

There has been a lot of activity around tokenomics and token emissions lately, primarily resulting from feedback from BlockChainWhispers (BCW), but also from the wider community. Many people have weighed in and many solutions have been discussed, so far there have been some amazing ideas. However, I do not see any tangible SIPs being brought forward to the forum. Maybe some are still in the works, maybe not, but I thought I would put some together so that we as a community may be able to refine and action them.

If we (the community) are going to make big changes, they must be specific, transparent, effective and measured - meaning multiple specific SIPs to target multiple ‘problems’ as you see it. I see BCW in particular was in favor of writing one large piece with many proposed changes and putting that to a vote - but I believe separating the issues to gather more specific and informed feedback to be the way forward.

Therefore I wrote 4 SIPs as a package, with the hope that they are achievable, and will consume the least amount of ‘dev’ time possible among many possible options. This is important as I have heard many ideas that look to completely overhaul the governance system and would severely delay other endeavors. I do not believe these types of drastic changes to be worth the investment. To those within or aligned with BCW, these SIPs do not fulfill all of the ideas that you as a community have brought forward recently, and I recognize that. But in the interest of progress as one collective I thought it best to make a start. These SIPs propose to lock over 30% of total SOV supply in one way or another for 10 years, and make improvements to the staking system.


I have not consulted many in the team about these SIPs. So far, just the Community Managers, since they had similar ideas down a while ago. I do not know if this is the best way forward.

There is potential that these SIPs may be impractical from a spending perspective. Perhaps the terms in this SIP would have implications such as LP rewards not being able to be paid for a period of time. Perhaps it could have implications on the current funding round. I do not know where the SOV for this round is planned to come from, and maybe some of this SOV is already spoken for. Perhaps, instead of initiating separate vesting contract events every month as suggested in these SIPs, there is a different technical solution that is simpler and would achieve the same results. This is precisely the feedback I am looking for here.

The numbers used for calculating available SOV from Adoption & Development Fund Vesting Contracts are based only on their respective single Vesting Contracts. There is some other SOV for example attributed to the Development Fund in the Tokenomics, but this is split between many smaller Vesting and Staking Contracts and will be treated as spoken for.

I don’t know the full extent as to what is achievable so I will not pretend that I do. This is why it is important that these SIPs receive feedback from as many people as possible so that they may be refined - including those from the team, especially Exchequer members and Founders.

So what now?

If it does turn out that these SIPs result in a way forward and looks like one or more could pass a vote, I can provide an address for us all to delegate to in order to accumulate enough Voting Power to begin a vote. I can own that address and ensure a ‘FOR’ vote, should we reach voting. Other ideas are welcome - this delegate does not have to be me if for whatever reason the community disagrees with my candidacy - although I hope I am someone with a high degree of community trust, judged not only from my words but actions in past and present. These SIPs may go nowhere so we can arrange those logistics later after some feedback - although I would love the honor of being the first Sovryn to gather community Voting Power through delegation to action a Community-powered SIP!

Please find the SIP texts below. I would appreciate any and all feedback:

Gimp’s Package - SIP 1: Lock 10% of Total SOV Supply

Gimp’s Package - SIP 2: Locking Future SOV Emissions

Gimp’s Package - SIP 3: Locking Founder Tokens

Gimp’s Package - SIP 4: Incentivize Governance Participation

Gimp’s Package - SIP 5: Staking & Reward System Renovation (#soon)

I have begun a Staking/Rewards system SIP, but it is far more complex and will take some time to shore up separately to those in this post. Perhaps it would make sense to allow time for feedback on the first four and for the fifth to be completed before putting anything to a vote. When (if) we all find common ground for all SIPs, we can put them forward at the same time as a complete package. Just a thought.

Please note that other ideas such as burning tokens, new products and new tokens are separate issues and should be discussed outside of these SIPs in their own dedicated posts.


Great work! Looks like a lot of thinking and typing.

When speaking of adoption fund (6mil), is this all that is left out of 38mil? Or is this just what is left to be issued?

If so could we get the exchequer to comment on this? I dont want to vote to lock 6mil adoption fund if thats all we have left (though I dont see how we would have burned theough 32mil SOV, so im probably confused).

If exchequer is sitting on 15-20mil or something for adoption, and the 6mil in question is just what has yet to be issued, then that changes my mind on how I feel about it, and im sure others as well. Locking tokens will give people more confidence in value of token, but at the expense of staking, and LP rewards (big feature of sovryn platform) it probably wouldnt be worth it.

Awesome right up!

Great work! Before we dive in, I’d like to point out this thread

where @bananas_in_the_sky and i currently try to shed some light into tokenomics and available supply that’s already fully vested. It might be worth a read because it relates to this topic.


Great Proposal Gimp !

However, from what I’ve gathered from the BCW community from reading; which started all this controversy.

SIP 1: User Interface/Responsiveness Upgrade
SIP 2: On Boarding/Off Boarding (Easy to use for new users)
SIP 3: Tokenomics (:closed_lock_with_key: 10 Years) Fees Distributed to Liquid SOV holders. Preferably a token burn :fire: of the supply.

Done. :white_check_mark:

Accomplishing the above three SIP’s shouldn’t take longer than four weeks to complete.

I believe the issue at hand. These changes don’t want to be implemented by the person(s) in charge. As a result, tensions still exisit, till this day.

The best person(s) who should be speak directly to each other; to reslove this on-going issue, should be D Man & Yago. The rest of us, including myself are just adding confusion to the situation.

1 Like

I disagree with this sip. It’s too mild to do any real change. It’s eye-masking on behalf of Yago’s insider.

This sip is like that 308 pound jockey saying, okay, I’ll not wear a hat on during the race… instead of losing fucking 100 pounds


What would you do to change it? It looks like it is what you proposed in ama… 50% lock for 10 years.
I would have to dig through the Telegram and BCW AMA, but please correct me if im wrong.

1 Like

Next step… ‘I would like to see x, y, z changed… because…’

I haven’t spoken with Yago since he left for Miami. I am most definitely not an ‘insider’


I fully support all 4 - willing to delegate 100% of my voting power to you, so we can officially propose and pass! This is a giant leap forward for Sovryn


How did you come up with your four week estimate? Did you read my concerns mentioned here: A reply to d-man's SIP



If I say I’m on the phone. Give me one second.
Do you think I’m speaking literally, or figuratively?

If you can answer that question. Then you can answer your own question.

This is the problem with men who are toxic.

Rather than trying to understand the points people are making here in the fourm, and in the Dojo chat. We choose to drill down on the silliest things.

Examples: D Man’s SIP could never be passed. It was horribly written. How’d you come up with four weeks ? Etc etc.

It just never ends. Stop this madness.

We’re all intelligent people. Learn to read inbetween the lines. Pull what we all innately know is best for Sovryn, and lets do away with being selfish, and just looking after ourselves.

This is how we win. Together. As one.

(I was not going to respond to you, but I felt it was necessary, so that the next man who decides to be destructive, instead of constructive, thinks twice before doing so)

Have a pleasant day

1 Like

Point 1.

This thread is a discussion on Gimp’s draft SIPs. Let’s keep it that way.

DMans SIP has its thread. If you still have hope for it continue the discussion there.

Point 2

I support the first 3 SIPs, and will continue following up on the details as more feedback is added.

I disagree with SIP 4 on incentivising governance participation. In the short term it makes sense, but over time as the community grows, we won’t need to have permanent incentives.

I would suggest having a ‘bonus’ from exchequer to reward wallets that will participate in a particular vote if there is ever an issue of raising quorum. A one-tip SOV reward. Quick and simple to implement.


Great job. Thanks to that, we can start building, and taking some distances with the existing incantations field, as well as, hopefuly, “not going nowhere” susceptibilities.
Sovryners let’s work !

Tnx for your post. Will read and reply asap.


I have a question related to Gimp’s Package SIP 3. The SIP draft lists transfer donors as follows:

Transfer Donors

  • Founder addresses - (TBC)
  • Founder Vesting Contract

And also mentions that

This SIP further stipulates that 50% of all future Founder SOV emissions from the original Vesting Contract must be relocked into new Vesting Contracts

Unlike for the adoption and development funds, I couldn’t figure out an address of a specific founders fund vesting contract. My guess was that the founders fund is contained in the 45mio staking reward contract (0x5684A06CaB22Db16D901FEe2a5c081b4C91eA40e), but I didn’t find any detailed information and couldn’t confirm this guess.

It would be interesting to get clarity around how exactly the vesting schedule of the founders fund is implemented, does anybody know?


Sovryn is a long-term project. This has been expressed by team and community members on many occasions. For a long-term project, tokenomics should also be set up in this way - with token issuance over a long period of time.

These SIP’s are a very good step in the right direction. Overall, many currently liquid but unused tokens will be locked up for a long period of time and saved for later. I believe this will lead to a stabilization of investor confidence and with that, token price.

However, I would also note that these SIP’s will not necessarily change the ongoing selling pressure from early investor token unlocks and liquidity mining, as these issues remain the same (and are also impossible to change in the short term).

The elephant in the room for selling pressure in 2022 is Early Funders: 731,121 tokens per month until month 24 (02/2023)
as well as the continuing LM/staking rewards of about ~540,000 SOV per month.

Basically I support each of the 4 Sips and I am also willing to delegate my voting power to bring these SIP’s to a vote.

Last but not least, regarding GimpSIP3, I would like to have a statement from the founders, what they think about it and if they would be willing to take this step. It is important that founders and bitocracy work together to set Sovryn up well for the future.

Thank you for working this out, Gimp!


These aren’t sips, they are bullets points.


Great work! Im going to read them and will leave my 2 cents on the topics.

Ugh. Asking “How did you come up with your four week estimate?” makes me a toxic male? Well, ok then.

Anyways, if you find me toxic that’s not my intent. You can search my handle in both the forums and the Dojo and I think you’ll discover I’ve made significant efforts to reply in detail about this topic and more, to the point of ad-nauseum. It feels like you haven’t read many of my comments in either the forum nor the Dojo. If you have further questions after reading my post, I’d be happy to reply and answer any questions for you as to why d-mans proposals is not viable. It’s also why I asked how you came up with your four week timeframe to see if there was something I was missing, like perhaps added resources or more effective methods to build changes.


I stand corrected on you being toxic.
Thank you for this explanation.

I do have a question:
In short, bulletins, could you explain to the community how D Man’s proposal in not viable.

The only reason we’re discussing his points, it’s not because he’s right. But rather, it caught the community’s eyes, and recieved a massive response within the Sovryn community.

Therefore, there must be some truth/substance to it. Furthermore, we must do what’s right for the community and not specific individuals.

So once again, in a short form, clear, and direct manner. Could you explain to everyone reading this how and why D Man’s three recommendations:

  1. User Interface/UX Responsiveness Upgrade
  2. On Boarding/Off Boarding Simplicity (Noobs)
  3. Fair Tokenomics/Not Greedy

Cannot work in your opinion ?

Thank you

Thank you. For clarity, I explained in detail here: A reply to d-man's SIP - #6 by dseroy or here: SIP-00XX The 3 Critical Price Impacting Changes Requested By The Community - #248 by dseroy

I’d prefer everyone reads the detailed post, otherwise it misses the context, but I’ll try to summarize. To start, I mean this respectfully, very little in d-mans proposal is actionable; it was mostly just a rant. While some of it is justified and valid concerns, we need SIP’s to be actionable, clear changes. Otherwise, we really don’t know what exactly we’re modifying

  1. UI/UX: We don’t have the internal resources to work on this at the moment. We hired a third party agency which has started a re-brand, but that process may take 12-16 weeks (possibly more) and it doesn’t even include UI/UX in it’s scope which could be several months beyond that. We all want better UI/UX but we can’t just snap our fingers and it happens. We’re at the mercy of our internal scarce resources or the timeline of third parties.

  2. Staking: Changing the staking mechanism based on what d-man proposed would likely introduce new governance attack vectors. His proposal generally did not consider adversarial attacks and in my opinion would shift the incentives of $SOV to short term holders as opposed to long term investors.

  3. Tokenomics: I will reply to this one in more detail sometime today on this thread, so stay tuned! I generally am open to making Tokenomics changes, but there will be limitations on what exactly can be done. The main issue here is we don’t currently have the tooling (the Graph) to properly analyze tokenomics. We need the ability to query data from the chain and analyze exactly where $SOV is leaking into the market. Is it from Exchequer, is it from BCW, is it from LP rewards, is it from SOV staking etc. Right now we have a generalized overview but we need detailed on-chain data and we just don’t have that (yet). The team is working to implement the Graph this quarter which will be a god-send for data analysis. Making significant Tokenomics changes without first having this data is a pretty brash thing to do.