Drafting a SIP for BabelFish

Hey Sovryns,

I’m Dark Knight, a fellow Sovryn community member like you. Passionate about the first decentralized finance platform on Bitcoin Layer 2, I’ve been eagerly participating in Sovryn’s trading, lending and Bitocracy (recently posted an entry to become a Delegate).

If you participate in Sovryn’s bi-weekly calls, you may have heard about a project called “BabelFish” to aggregate stablecoins, there is also buzz about it in the twitter-sphere. Indeed, me and other Sovryns have been collaborating on a stablecoin aggregator, which we would like to launch on Sovryn first because we love this platform and community.

Given the unexpected organic growth and interest in BabelFish, and given our intention to launch a decentralized protocol with a committed community, we’ve shared the draft with the BabelFish community on Discord, and are asking everyone to leave comments so that we have a solid and crowd-sourced SIP.

As a fellow Sovryn, I invite you to share your feedback on the SIP we will soon be posting here, so we can provide a solid proposal aligned with the goals of this community. We believe BabelFish will be a net positive for Sovryn and the crypto community as a whole, and are looking forward to receive constructive feedback to make this a reality, together.

Thank you,

BabelFish Discord
SIP Draft - Open For Comments


I saw the SIP was changed to answer some of the issues raised to date, but I still do not like at all the fact that you are basically locking out of the sale anyone who is not a BCW member (as non members will have to compete with them on the second day for not enough spots).
I have heard that the origin sale was only for BCW members, but whether that is true or not, things are different now: there are many stakers (myself included) who were not present at presales, and are paying a big price for the SOV token only because I believe in its potential, since in terms of returns from staking, the current price makes no sense.
But if staking SOV is not enough to access the best project in the platform, the value of holding SOV drops substantially.


It seems to me, that You are in SOV for a very short period of time. What You have heard is wrong. Origin or Genesis sale - were not only for BCW.

You say that things are different now - how is that?

What You pay for SOV - it that what You want to pay. If You don’t want to pay current prices - don’t buy. That is how the market works. But keep in mind, that SOV is still at very early stage, and it has so big potential… it will surprise us all.

If staking SOV due to current price makes no sense for You - that means only that You are interested in short term gains…



I was not sure about BCW partecipation in early sales, that’s why I put it as hypotethical - thank you for clarifying that.
I’m sorry if the post comes out as overly critical - that is not my intention. I think Sovryn is a great project with a skilled team and huge potential, otherwise I wouldn’t have put my money in it, nor would I have staked part of my SOV for the maximum duration allowed.
What I meant is that the current price of the coin is higher than what can be returned from staking, and the risks are not insignificant. A big reason for it’s price, at least for me, is also for the chance to be a part of it’s ecosystem from the ground up and share in the profits, but if that chance is taken away, or someone gets priority over others for reasons that have nothing to do with Sovryn and get the bigger share of the profits, I do not think that is good, it would feel (to me) like we are establishing class A and class B Sovryns.
But as you say, I am new to Sovryn - and to cryptos in general. Perhaps I am naive and I will change my mind later on, but this is how I see it right now.
P.S. Why did you edit out the part about BCW supporting Sovryn? Is it wrong or what? I am genuinely curious, I have nothing against BCW, never even heard of them before this SIP.
P.P.S. Nothing to say about the rest of the SIP, great stuff!


My only issue with this SIP is it fails to acknowledge the contributions of LPs in the Sovryn community. Many people have recently been participating in loot drops on the Sovryn platform—the rewards of which will be autostaked for 10 months. So while they may not be staked by the time specified in the SIP, they will be staked for nearly the first year of its implementation.

I think including these LPs in any presale should be a priority.


Hey Wolverine,

I’ve red some things about the Sovryn stakers who have the opportunity to get whitelisted for the second FISH private sale. Now I was thinking. Can we give the same opportunity to everyone who provides liq. to the RBTC/USDT and SOV/RBTC pools? Because I think they give the same amount of support to the project compared the SOV stakers. I’m looking forward to your answer.

With kind regards,

Earning Haaland


It was marked as SPAM by someone, so that is why I have edited it. It doesn’t change a sense of that what I have written.

Anyway - there are different perspectives. It all depends from which place You look at it.

You have written:

“What I meant is that the current price of the coin is higher than what can be returned from staking, and the risks are not insignificant.”

Staking and current price - it is not about biger return that that what You initially pay for the token.
Do not mix things up.
There is no priority over others in SOVRYN. Every holder of SOV has the same rights - only amount of SOV and STAKING period determine one thing - Voting Power.

Mixing SOV and FISH is not a good way to go. It is not up to SOV - SOVRYN will be the launch platform. BABELFISH creators have to determine how it is going to be - presale details and etc… Sovryn can give their opinion on some things as a Launchpad. That is at least how I see it works on other platforms. Babelfish Team has more inside info and they decide according to it. Other aspects are discussed with community - just to find best way possible for this project to succeed. All participants want that… unless there are some people for short term gains only. They do not care about community, project etc.

But about the SIP and Babelfish - this proposal looks very good. I like the Tokenomics … 42!

I see that vesting is changed - I find it good although longer vesting was not disturbing me at all.


Valid point, imho stakers are more vested in governance, but LPs are also valuable participants.


-Bring wallet limit for both sales back to 5k.
-Leave vesting period the same but remove the Cliff or make it 4 weeks.
-Sale Day Two stakers eligible for those who are staking SOV before 1st of May 2021. No minimum amount.
-Include SOV/BTC liquidity providers in the proposal for Sale Day Two.
-Increase the amount of Token sale by 1.5% of total circulation for both sales.
-Avoid having any other sale in the future. After those 2 sales are done, continue with normal listing on SOVRYN platform and maybe consider Uniswap listing.


Colors of the Token Allocation do not correspond to the Tokens on the chart and it is hard to find out details. Please provide better graphical presentation and description.



Support the principles of distributed governance by prioritising individuals vs coordinated paid groups by:

  • Prioritising those who have engaged with SOV (staking / liquidity) above all else - day 1 sale, higher wallet limit, highest total allocation

  • Open up to broader BCW members for day 2 sale with lower wallet limit, lower total allocation

  • Set wallet limit from day 1 as a total limit, meaning if you max out on day 1 you cant buy on day 2

  • Treat SOV liquidity providers the same as stakers as fair reward for supporting the parent chain


“Coordinated paid groups” is a false assumption in relation to the distributed governance principle. If there is no centralised decision making this is just a community of individuals.


How will the price be set for the sales? Fixed price/token or auction style price setting?


It’s not a false assumption, it’s an inherent risk which can be mitigated via equitable distribution.

Could someone please explain to me how Ecosystem Fund is going to be used?

1 Like

Limiting SOV stakers to day 2 is a big nono for me. SOV stakers are number one, that is non-negotiable. If there are to be launches on Sovryn, then Sovryn stakers (THE definition of committed individuals) should get the best options/opportunities, if any, during token sale allocations. Both BCW and stakers should be at least treated equally or I would be against i’m afraid.


Thanks Wolverine. I’ll try to provide more specific feedback soon. But as of right now I just want to say that I’m stoked about Babelfish. I think it’s going to be of very significant utility to the whole crypto community.

Thanks Gimp. I appreciate you sharing that perspective. I totally agree. I staked the SOV/rBTC pair pretty heavy because I love this project and I want to help make a market early and hopefully continue to reap some rewards for serving the community in this way. The 75k $SOV loot drop helps offset some IL but probably not all since there was so much liquidity staked the rewards will be a little diluted I’m afraid. So, I agree that it is imperative that we continue to provide top tier incentives and early opportunities to the SOV/rBTC liquidity providers. I want first dibs on $FISH and other launches. It would be ideal if we could simply mint NFTs with some utility on the Sovryn platform. Then the NFT reward for SOV LP wallets could be transferable which would increase its value.

The Sovryn dApp could query RSK wallet for a special issue V1 SOV/rBTC NFT. If the wallet is holding the NFT, then it would grant access to pre-sales and other benefits on the platform. Perhaps a small trade fee reduction as well. We can issue NFTs with transferable utility in order to grow value on the platform and keep rewarding early adopters and newcomers alike. Scarcity is critical with Sovryn tokens and NFTs as well. I’m going to start a new thread on the topic of NFTs with utility because it could be an awesome way to grow this platform.


Where can I find the whitepaper?

Well, you either

A) made the comment specifically about BCW, a group you’ve said you hadn’t heard about until now, in which case it’s a false assumption that they’re a threat to the distributed governance principle as they’re a community where each individual still can make an individual choice, including when it comes to these governance principles. Because the tokens would belong to many individual wallets. There’s a big difference between this and 1 wallet/whale getting a big allocation. That would be a possible threat to the decentralized governance.


B) you believe this risk is inherent in all communities that would be participating. So also about the SOV community. I don’t think there’s a risk there.