SIP-0088 Emergency Revert FeeSharingCollector Changes and Set New Proxy Contract Ownership to Bitocracy

Bitocracy
41

Hi Tyrone, the SIP understands there are two versions of FeeSharingCollector. That is the point of the SIP. The SIP also understands that once passed, updates to the frontend dapp will need to be made to facilitate users interacting with both Proxy addresses of the contract so they can withdraw any remaining fees from the old proxy that is no longer in control of Bitocracy.

42

Oh while we arre at “leadership with legal responsibility” do tell. do we have that currently? An adress were we can send a letter, where a real person with legal responsibility for this mess sits? I would really want to hear about that.

1 Like
44

So, the address that you have to charge can’t be changed via Bitocracy because it’s controlled by team. So you are doing a proclamation SIP to tell team to give the contract address to Bitocracy (which is where it was supposed to be anyway) correct?

Do I have this right?

1 Like
45

Yup the proclamation is currently being voted on. Hard to know if they’ll allow that either. I realize now the entire reason for the reason FeeSharingCollector never was correctly transferred..

Refactoring/feesharing to fee sharing collector by cwsnt · Pull Request #482 · DistributedCollective/Sovryn-smart-contracts · GitHub This pull request states FeeSharingProxy was actually a real contract that existed before FeeSharingCollector. That pull request also created FeeSharingCollector in February 2023. FeeSharingProxy was 0x12B1B0C67d9A771EB5Db7726d23fdc6848fd93ef and the mainnet contract list states it was not upgradeable. That’s why it was listed as an exception in SIP-0046. SIP-0046 was also written in 2022 SIP-0046: Transferring ownership of Sovryn contracts by john-light · Pull Request #46 · DistributedCollective/SIPS · GitHub , before FeeSharingCollector even existed, yet it was voted on in October 2023 after FeeSharingProxy was removed and FeeSharingCollector was created. So essentially they forgot about transferring FeeSharingCollector or even talking about it in the SIP.

The intention of SIP-0046 was very clearly to transfer all contracts holding user funds to bitocracy. It’s very obviously clear, yet it didn’t happen and now we’re dealing with it.

4 Likes
46
3 Likes
47

Nice. Congrats.

Hopefully team doesn’t do anything shiesty, though I don’t see why they would. This is the Sovryn ethos that has been promoted by this project. If they want fee share for exchequer, that’s fine… but at least allow a vote so it’s not just stealing from Bitocracy. Never going to have a Bitcoin project if we play the shady defi games of others.

2 Likes
48

First, I want to express my respect and appreciation for what Brianna has done here. She saw an issue, took the initiative, and tried to propose a solution. I think that deserves recognition, and I think she has done it in a mostly thoughtful and respectful way.

That said, I clearly disagree with her conclusions and with the actions she is advocating for. In my view, they rest on faulty assumptions, including the idea that we can simply rely on off-the-shelf RSK nodes without properly reckoning with the actual costs and risks involved, or that the Sovryn team hasn’t already been streamlined to address the bear market. The team is made up of the minimum number of people needed to run the protocol. Perhaps the most important error I have seen repeated is that the fee-sharing contract was exploited or changed to no longer be controlled by Bitocracy. This contract has never been, and was never intended to be controlled by Bitocracy, and if it were controlled by Bitocracy, only Bitocracy would be able to change it.

I also want to be clear about one important procedural point: the last two SIPs were explicitly designed as proclamations. Proclamations are expressions of sentiment or position; they are not executable proposals. For that reason, they cannot be treated as binding instructions for operational action, and no action will be taken on that basis.

Let me also be clear about what is at stake here. If we are not able to reliably support infrastructure and team costs, then the protocol becomes insecure. And if the protocol is insecure, then everything else becomes secondary. There are very large amounts of other people’s money at stake.

My number one priority is simple: maintain the security, integrity, and availability of the protocol and the funds held within it.

Generating value for SOV holders and stakers, of which I am one, is the second priority. But it cannot come ahead of the first. If the protocol fails, SOV fails with it.

So while I understand, and to some extent share, the frustration some SOV stakers feel, that frustration does not change the underlying reality. Income must exceed expenses. Exchequer needs to maintain a deeper balance, both to absorb the natural variability in protocol income and to provide a cushion for unexpected costs.

The last two SIPs do nothing to address that reality. They do not discuss it, and they do not even acknowledge it. Sovryn was built around the principle that security comes first. Bitocracy exists first and foremost as a vetocracy, to make it difficult for any actor to arbitrarily interfere with contracts and user funds. The Guardian multisig exists to veto dangerous SIPs that somehow still make it through. Exchequer exists to directly manage protocol-owned funds - among other reasons, to be able to act in a timely fashion without the delays and uncertainty of a SIP process. This separation of powers is not just some abstract design principle. It is part of the practical structure that has helped keep user funds safe in a highly adversarial environment for more than five years.

Bitocracy can, of course, evolve this setup over time. But that would require a much more serious discussion about protocol longevity, safety, and trade-offs, and a much clearer articulation of the alternative.

In the meantime, the priority has to remain the same: ensuring the security and continuity of the protocol and the safety of user funds. No rushed governance-driven action should be allowed to compromise that.

An updated Exchequer report is in progress and will be shared when it is ready.

All efforts should remain focused on the central priority: preserving the security and longevity of the protocol and protecting the funds entrusted to it. Anything that does not address that is, at minimum, not sufficient to deal with the actual issue in front of us.

49

‘Has never been‘ is probably true.

‘Never intended’ is directly opposite of SIP 46 description.

It already should be under bitocrazy control for quite some time.

But at least the point is clear. Proclamation SIPs are mostly for entertainment purpose it seems.

3 Likes
50

Thanks for the response Yago and I appreciate you recognizing my effort. I really am trying to do what’s best for the community and you guys on the team. There is some extremely concerning things going on as of late. I am a significant owner of SOV and I am concerned. Everyone is concerned. I have shared my public address with the community so they all can see I have a vested interest in protecting Sovryn.

It’s important you refresh yourself on the latest security audit by CertiK in 2021: Audits | SOVRYN . They raised the centralization risks of a single address as contract owner as a Major vulnerability to which every instance sovryn replied: “Will be solved once protocol ownership is transferred to Bitocracy”.

SIP-0046 explicitly moved to transfer all contracts to Bitocracy. Sovryn’s own wiki about Sovryn governance states “With the approval of SIP-0046, all ownable contracts holding user funds are currently owned by Bitocracy.” Everyone can read SIP-0046 and clearly understand what the intentions were and what exchequer was supposed to do. It makes no sense for Bitocracy to control every single other contract except for 1 when we can simply update all of them to replace that 1, which is what this SIP-0088 intends to do and will go forward regardless of Tyrone’s complexity objections if you do not follow through with the proclamation that passed on Friday.

FeeSharingCollector was simply left out of the transfer because it was created after SIP-0046 was authored April 21 2022 SIP-0046: Transferring ownership of Sovryn contracts by john-light · Pull Request #46 · DistributedCollective/SIPS · GitHub , but before it was voted on (October 2023). SIP-0046 talks about a contract “FeeSharingProxy”, that used to exist but was replaced before SIP-0046 was implemented https://github.com/DistributedCollective/Sovryn-smart-contracts/pull/482 in February 2023.

I hope you can please not distract the conversation with my personal cost analysis of running sovryn’s infrastructure. It was merely to point out my concerns with the official explanation you have given of Sovryn’s overhead. There are many concerns with everything you have told us thus far. But a cost analysis is a distraction from the most important concerns.

It’s important you understand transferring FeeSharingCollector under the ownership of Bitocracy is intended to be followed up with a SIP to update the implementation contract to divert the fees to GovernorVault so that Bitocracy can vote to release them to exchequer once you provide the financial reports the community is asking for and that you’re telling us you are generating. Every single person I’ve talked with is fully on board with funding the treasury with all the fees to help Sovryn stay afloat during this time. We are simply concerned you are not learning from your mistakes of mismanagement of the treasury the last few months and we do not want to let you continue to repeat them.

In the meantime, the priority has to remain the same: ensuring the security and continuity of the protocol and the safety of user funds.

Over $4 million USD has been lost from exchequer since the last financial report provided in last quarter of 2024. Financial Reports | SOVRYN

Screenshot 2026-03-08 at 7.00.09 PM
Screenshot 2026-03-08 at 7.00.09 PM1894×1046 145 KB

It’s important you acknowledge this and be honest with the community. I have further information to disclose and will continue to do so including eventually going to news outlets if you do not start doing the right things to actually secure user funds and protect the protocol. The final action is I will pursue legal action. I don’t want to be spending every waking hour working on this. This is absolutely not where I want my efforts going today. Yago I promise I have at every instance tried to argue good intentions on your behalf. I don’t honestly want to believe bad intentions. I just invested over $350k in sovryn in the last 6 months. That’s on top of over half a million in the past. I am fully committed to helping Sovryn in anyway possible including diverting 100% of the fees from to a bitocracy controlled treasury vault to be dispersed to exchequer for your overhead needs. I did not believe you or anyone had bad intentions with Sovryn. The problem is the evidence keeps building up and your actions are not helping, they’re hurting your case and hurting everyone involved.

I’m pleading with you to start being honest with the community or if you are truly unaware of the actual circumstances please dig into further what’s going on so that we can start to trust you again and stop with the speculations of bad intent.

Sovryn is a decentralized protocol first and foremost. Arguing for more centralization is extremely concerning not just for stakers, but for anyone who would use the products to generate the fees you’re hoping will fund operations.

So many of us believed in you Yago, please don’t let us down. We want to be your allies.

7 Likes
51

I guess team decides to do something shiesty.

If you want feeshare for the budget, just put it up for an SIP, this is how Sovryn was supposed to be, why do you guys have to make everything shady?

Let Bitocracy do what it was designed for. I highly doubt anybody is going to vote against funding Sovryn. None of us want it to fail…

But even so, being a coward and strong arming because you are worried voters decide to let Sovryn die, is a terrible thing. And shit like this is why Sovrn is in the condition it is in, because you guys make it look like just another shitcoin dex project that you can’t trust. You could always stop being a shit coiner and start having the honor of a Bitcoiner.

You wanted Bitcoiners liquidity, but want to run the project like a shitcoiner. That doesn’t work, and I would think you would have learned at this point that the scammy dex look isn’t working, and there are already a million pretend Bitcoin projects. Either be a honorable project, or stop pretending you are. You sold us an honorable project, and ran it like a scammy ass rugpull token launch. Hopefully someday you will understand, if you want a successful project, you have to treat it like one.

6 Likes
52

For some context of why this SIP is (or say should be) considered highly important:

And further:

4 Likes
53

Please refresh yourself on SIP-0015, that you wrote:

From SIP-15:

  • Funds will be held in Bitocracy approved multi-sigs
  • A high degree of transparency will keep the community informed
  • At all times the committee, its decision and membership remain subservient to Bitocracy and its decisions may be changed or reversed by Bitocracy.
  • Bitocracy delegates to the Exchequer Committee the authority to direct the use of treasury funds held in all multisig wallets approved by Bitocracy under the following conditions:

    • Up to 10% of the treasury balance may be transferred to external systems as needed for liquidity provision and price balancing.

    • All other transfers can only be made between Sovryn protocol smart contracts and multisig wallets approved by Bitocracy.

    • Bitocracy reserves the right to revoke this authority at any time.

  • An operations budget of 5,639,130.56 SOV shall be available to the Exchequer Committee subject to the vesting outlined in Schedule A, for a period of three months from the date of the approval of the SIP.
  • The Exchequer Committee shall present a 12 month budget to Bitocracy within one month from the passing of this SIP. The Exchequer Committee may expend up to 10 BTC until the budget is approved by Bitocracy.
  • The Exchequer Committee will publish high level monthly and detailed quarterly reports detailing the use of funds.
  • The Exchequer Committee will publish transcripts from its meetings at the end of each quarter. These transcripts may be redacted to protect sensitive information.

Yago not a single one of exchequer requirements have been met or followed. Please follow the proclamation passed through Bitocracy Sovryn - DeFi for bitcoin

6 Likes
54

It is obvious by now that this sovryn project was only for the founders get more and more btc for them selves. They are not even bother to hide it. Everything is game for them when dealing with other people money.

4 Likes
55

In short… everything you suggested in the Discord a while back had already been agreed upon years ago. It makes my skin crawl that I walked into a crypto trap on my first attempt at anything outside of BTC. Literally the only project outside of BTC that I thought was well built, and then we find out that humans will always be human. BTC is math, better to trust math. Glad I learned the hard way on my first try.

2 Likes
56

It’s absolutely been a learning experience for many, myself included. I’m sorry for everyone, but fortunately the community seems to be rallying and I have hope positive things will come from this.

2 Likes
57

Everyone vote for SIP-0088 on Friday March 20, 2026 :pink_heart:

3 Likes
58

Vote is live in Bitocracy! Please vote on both part 1 and part 2!

1 Like