So i do agree that bob is the next step going forward.
But i think for the the safety of stakers on rootstock we should share the fees equally among all stakers on both chains.
In this way we will bring a lot of attention for Sovryn on bob right off the bat, Yes stakers on rootstock will lose some revenue from start but as Sovryn on bob outgrows Sovryn on rootstock it will come back to stakers on rootstock.
I did a post on X and telegram where a lot of people agreed with me that this would be the best thing going forward.
I’ll say the same thing I said on X agree 100%. Also add that there should not be two bitocracies. Any changes should be decided as the larger Sovryn as a whole, no matter what chain we’re on, we’re all on the same big team. I see no reason why fees can’t be collected on both chains total added together and distributed to all, fees to transfer the difference to other chains for distribution can be subtracted out. And no need to dilute the token more by increasing rewards. Unfortunately I think the powers that be are already decided and my opinion won’t matter in the big picture.
I completely agree with Kingpin and D2Man. I believe deploying to BOB is worth the all of the potential risks EXCEPT the risk of fragmenting Bitocracy. Stakers must be wary of the risks of becoming trapped in silos, be it in the RSK silo, or the potential BOB silo, therefore there must be a clear path of how revenue will be created and shared between RSK, BOB, and eventually Bitcoin-OS ahead of Mondays SIP, unfortunately at this time there is far too much uncertainty.
Yago has stated in the past, (and I paraphrase) “That Bitocracy is the heart and soul of Sovryn” . During a community call I vaguely remember him accusing us of being “beautiful mf’ers”, so it is difficult for me to understand his thinking about the need for Bitocracy inflation. The argument seems to be that it’s not technically possible for one governance structure to govern across multiple chains, but I’m suspicious of this because it is far too convenient for a team that has boasted about building all throughout a bear market with aspirations as large as Bitcoin-OS to suddenly hide behind claims of “too much technical debt” or “not technically possible”. Perhaps this is used when the team is faced with a development direction that they don’t want to go? I implore the core team to build it, to make it happen, to will into existence the ability to share revenues across chains with one unified Bitocracy.
If it is determined by consensus amongst participants that this is not possible, then I propose that we maintain a unified Bitocracy on RSK until such time that we can move entirely to Bitcoin-OS through some sort of one way bridge or burn and mint mechanism.
Consider me a Sovryn Zionist, and Bitcoin-OS is the Crypto Holy Land. Let’s take a single unified Bitocracy to its rightful home! Revenue will follow, and we the Bitocracy can be both multichain and chain agnostic at the same time! This is my ideal vision.
We can definitely debate how to distribute the revenue. Initially all revenue and governance of BOB will be held by a multi-sig. That gives us an opportunity to collect data and have a well considered debate.