Maybe your cost basis is 0 for $SOV tokens, but our conmunity has paid very high prices for it & did so earlier this year when $BOS promises were high.
I find it distasteful to call the cost basis 0 for $SOV, maybe you should lead by example and send your $BOS tokens to a locked vesting contract to show good faith (maybe more will follow?)
Thereâs maybe no cost basis for YOU (because you are on a quadrupled benefit basis), but for every other non-team member and staker, as well as the Sovryn treasury, the cost basis already IS quite substantial.
I see the outcome of this SIP with mixed feelings.
On the one hand side Iâm sad it failed, because I would have loved to see how this scenario would have played out. Would the Sovryn community have acted responsibly and with a long-term vision or would greed and the wish for a quick profit have taken over?
On the other side, Iâm relieved it failed, because
A) the risk of a huge early dump of BOS tokens was there and this would have the potential to seriously harm the success of BOS, because the success of a project does often depend on its token valuation.
B) while an early liquid distribution to SOV stakers might have driven up the SOV price quite a bit in the short term, I think that a continuous distribution of BOS over a stretch of time would be better suited to incentivize staking and the purchase of SOV over a longer time-frame, especially if the value of BOS is rising.
I agree with Sacro that SOV stakers should have access to liquid BOS tokens pretty much from the beginning for all of the reasons that were stated here before, but I donât think itâs wise to distribute that much of it at once. Also, I think that not all of it should go exclusively to the stakers at the time of token creation, but that later stakers should also receive a share - to keep incentivizing people to buy and stake SOV. This way we (the current set of stakers) might end up with less BOS tokens, but would benefit from a higher SOV valuation over a longer period of time.
Maybe we could discuss vesting without cliff as an option and use the fee sharing contract for regular distributions?
the value proposal of being an incubator relies on gaining market value for Sovryn & to do that we need liquid tokens distributed to our decentralized DAO for the marketing effect it does for us, and set up future project launches to do the same.
anyone can come and purchase SOV and stake it if they wants for 3 years at low market cap prices, its already very fair
the average community member of Sovryn has got nothing from this after 4 years staked, its in our interests to give back to community & at the same time making sure we get a good value proposition for $SOV token the same way $BOS tries to do for them, our descision should be understandable & respected.
a free market is healthy & if someone wish to sell let them , no vesting is vital for our future value to SOV if your not just trying to enrich wealth SOV whales
A pleasant surprise to see you on the forum. Thereâs no one in Sovryn who doesnât admire what youâve accomplished. Iâm the first.
I largely agree with your observations regarding the potential effects on the price of SOV and BOS based on the circumstances you mentioned. However, I must confess that Iâm far more concerned about Sovryn defining its future.
I take the liberty of asking you the following questions, should you be willing to answer them. Perhaps they could help shed light on this moment shrouded in uncertainty. Here they are:
How would you like Sovryn to evolve? Have you given this some thought? Could you share it with us? I would love for you to go into great detail, even dedicating an exclusive post to it, taking all the time you need.
Are you involved in BOS in any way, whether as a founder or a developer?
Could you propose a concrete distribution model for the BOS token? Feel free to be as thorough as necessary. Iâm sure it will be received with great respect by everyone.
I mentioned this idea in the Dojo before SIP went live. 2 seperate vesting schedules depending upon development success.
8% to SOV Stakers: 2% to Treasury.
Distributed to stakers based on VP at token launch.
2% liquid upon $BOS TGE/Sale.
1.5% liquid after a 6-month cliff.
1.5% liquid after a 12-month cliff.
3% with a 12-month cliff and a linear 3-year vesting schedule.
2% to the Sovryn Treasury:
1% liquid at the Exchequerâs disposal:
To maintain agility in the decision-making process and address potential incentives or immediate needs.
1% with 12 month cliff and 3-year vesting:
To extend Sovrynâs funding runway and meet SIP-0083 goals.
To support long-term incentives post-transition to BitcoinOS
[OR] if team successfully launches Sovryn Layer and launchpad by end of Q1 2025:
7% to SOV Stakers: 3% to Treasury
Distributed to stakers based on VP at token launch.
2% liquid upon $BOS TGE/Sale.
1% liquid after a 6-month cliff.
1% liquid after a 12-month cliff.
3% with a 12-month cliff and a linear 3-year vesting schedule.
3% to the Sovryn Treasury:
1.5% liquid at the Exchequerâs disposal:
To maintain agility in the decision-making process and address potential incentives or immediate needs.
1.5% with 12 month cliff and 3-year vesting:
To extend Sovrynâs funding runway and meet SIP-0083 goals.
To support long-term incentives post-transition to BitcoinOS
This idea has a few seperate angles.
If Sovryn Layer is complete, treasury will need more funds for operation. So giving more BOS to treasury makes sense.
It would show team is still commited. Sovryn Community currently feels like Sovryn is being abandoned, and narratives change month to month.
Community may feel better vesting if we have something bullish to look forward to.
The heavier vesting, and less liquid BOS incentivizes BitcoinOS to fulfill their commitment to help Sovryn develop Sovryn Layer.
This would be easy to implement, as the initial liquid tokens for stakers are the same in either case. So at the end of Q1 2025 if Sovryn layer and launchpad is released, Treasury receives the remaining 0.5%.
Just to clear things up. Can someone explain why this PROCLAMATION 50/5 SIP that was put to vote as a 70/20 because of an interface bug and clearly succeeded as a 50/5 SIP has not been retroactively declared as âpassedâ?
This SIP does not change any code and by definition should just have been a proclamation SIP. There is even precedence that a SIP has retroactively been deemed successful even though it failed because it should have been a proclamation SIP. This is not in line with Sovryns stated intend and seems arbitrary that sometimes we have it this way and sometimes the other. Either all Proclamation SIPs are 50/5 or not. That this relatively small interface bug in the Bitocracy submit page has not been fixed in over a year (was a problem with SIP 67 for example in November 23) and makes these devastating mistakes possible is ⌠well I leave that for the reader to decide.
This has already not worked out for SOV - the constant selling pressure of SOV being put on the market every two weeks to stakers and liquidity providers has turned this token in constant dump mode without relief. Why would that be different with BOS? But I mean sure it could artificially inflate SOV price⌠I for one would rather have the market decide and the team get rocking and create a product out the gate that you donât want to dump. Cushoning team from direct consequences is well - we have seen what happens with that with SOVâŚ
Proclamation SIPs are indeed 50/5 SIPs. Thereâs a bug in D2 that doesnât currently allow for 50/5 SIPs to be posted, but this bug doesnât appear in D1. @Sacro was immediately offered to veto the 70/20 SIP and post a new 50/5 one via D1 but declined.
The D2 bus is due to be fixed on the next release.
I am just a. dojo mathlete but to me it looks like this has passed a basic proclamation SIP percentage. So I would say letâs run it again as 50/5 and have community approve it. It seems simple majority is easily there for it to pass.
Mathlete here as well, so maybe Iâm wrong or just donât understand it correctly;
If Sovryn team worries so much about bos token eventually getting dumped (as much as proposing 1yr cliff + 5 years vesting)
âŚwhat specifically is the team afraid of even?
And why seems there to be such a huge conflict of interest from the dual-founders of Sovryn-BOS?
Because:
Sovryn gets 10% of total
SIP had given 2% to treasury
= 8% would be left for dumping
But⌠like donât knowâŚ
50-60% of VP is in founders hands.
So 10-2 = 8
50% of 8
= 4% of supply spread over hundreds or even thousands of proven long term holders where surely many will hold and yes, some will sell⌠is that really worrying?
Or are you more worried about the dump of that additional 4% in the hands of a few founders? (additional= on top of regular founders fund)
If the latter, Iâd say just lock em as long as you see fit, and give a clear signal, which some will even follow.
Community has shown (voted in this SIP) to be strongly opposed to be locked up on top of already locked up SOV in staking (where without it, you arenât eligible anyways).
On another note:
How will the 10% supposed to be in presale handled? Arenât they as well liquid and âdumpableâ ?
I guess, say believe, team should have some value proposition anyways that will make people *want * to hold their tokens instead of just selling them quickly.
One of the considerations for me is that having an 8% overhang of liquid tokens for a community that does not have a floor price, could be a red flag for other stakeholders. Sovryn has taken upon itself to perform a sale of BOS tokens. Lets say that participants in the sale purchase the token at a price of $100M FDV. That is their floor price at TGE. 8% of the tokens held by Sovryn does not have that floor price and might have incentive to sell all the way down to $20M for instance. Taking a longer term view on the success of BOS, through the introduction of vesting for the Sovryn allocation, will give more confidence to the market, and will assist with the broader distribution of the BOS token.
Why are we still speaking in hypotheticals? The concern about being rejected by stakeholders or that Sovrynâs will dump BOS has come mainly from you and 2 other team members who have confirmed they are not on BOS team, Hyde and Ororo.
How is it that BOS would delegate their token launch/distribution without sharing such vital information?
Token launch was not delegated to Sovryn - this is a Sovryn initiative. If we want to other teams that are working on BOS to adopt it, then we need to do the launch well, taking into account these other stakeholders.
âSovryn will contribute to the issuance and distribution of the $BOS tokensâ
âto perform the decentralized launch of BOS and its $BOS tokenâ
âLaunching the BOS protocol and distributing the $BOS token through Sovryn Bitocracy and Sovrynâs core teamâ
âToken Launch: Sovryn will issue the $BOS tokens and facilitate the initial distribution, including the portion designated for the Sovryn community.â
âDevelopment of a Bitcoin-native token standardâ
âSovryn will issue the $BOS tokens and distribute them to the different stakeholders.â
âWe want to propose that Sovryn launch BOSâ
âThis proposal seeks to launch BitcoinOS (BOS) through the decentralized Bitcocracy of Sovryn.â
âhave the project launched by a decentralized community.â