Why post an sip in the forum and not discuss it?
3 Likes
plausible deniability of dgaf
1 Like
I feel there are too few decision-makers, too many projects running in parallel, and too little time. People are out sick, and this period always slows things down—holidays, newborns, and the New Year all add to it.
Maybe we should focus on sharing our thoughts on the SIP and improving what’s already there. That way, we can at least be better prepared for the next CC.
Or maybe I’m just being naïve.
1 Like
There is no discussion. I asked a question to the SIP poster, directly about clarification on a obviously ambiguous part of the SIP, and haven’t received a response in almost a month.
There is nobody to ask anything. Nobody knows anything. And trying to get answers is like bleeding a rock.
Sovryn as a project has turned into a beat up vehicle on a donut that your worried won’t make it to the store. Needed an oil change 10k miles ago.
“The most important SIP” 
Sorry it took me so long to get back to everyone — quick development update first.
The sovereign layer is progressing well. As some of you may know, its architecture is based on the same architecture being developed for LitVM (Litecoin’s prospective L2). Because Litecoin and Bitcoin are extremely similar at the protocol level, that work translates very directly, and should let us ship the sovereign layer on a comparable timeline. We expect testnet within ~1 month, and mainnet not long after. Thank you all for the patience — here are the answers.**
Q1 — @Hyde (hybrid vs buy-and-burn only)**
@Hyde — A hybrid approach could work. A pure buy-and-burn model can leave an incentive gap because burns benefit all holders equally while stakers take the governance/lock-up burden. We’ve also seen recently with Hyperliquid that even heavy fee-funded buybacks can be underappreciated by the market unless the value accrual is made explicit and paired with direct stakeholder incentives, which is exactly the kind of issue “buyback-only” tokenomics can run into. The right structure here is: majority to buy-and-burn, a portion to treasury for integrity/longevity, and a portion to stakers (ideally weighted by lock duration) so staking remains rational long-term. This is how RW companies work, perhaps we can learn something from the old world.
Q2 — @666SOV (“what’s the point of staking after BOS ends?”)
@666SOV — staking still matters post-BOS because it’s how you participate in Bitocracy governance. Your existing stake is mirrored 1:1 into canonical SOV (cSOV) on the Sovryn Layer, so your position carries into the canonical system. You also keep accruing OSSOV in the meantime, and once the Sovryn Layer launches, users will be able to enjoy revenue incentives on the new layer.
Q3 — @666SOV (“why not focus on new products/new revenue?”)
@666SOV — agreed: the long-term solution is new products and new revenue on the Sovryn Layer. Once the layer is live, we can repeat the playbook that worked when Sovryn launched: take proven primitives from other ecosystems (e.g., prediction markets) and ship them on the L2, tuned for Bitcoin users. The key difference vs most “new Bitcoin L2s” is Sovryn already has a real user base and meaningful capital committed — and it’s plausible that liquidity/TVL can move into the new layer, giving it instant activity from day one.
Q4 — @Brianna (buybacks vs staking incentive + ZUSD pressure)
@Brianna — On the buyback question, please see my reply to @Hyde above: I agree a hybrid is likely best (majority buy-and-burn, a portion to treasury, and a portion to stakers) so staking stays compelling long-term. On Zero/ZUSD specifically: we can explore a Zero redesign where origination fee revenue is taken from the BTC collateral instead of being added to ZUSD debt, so we don’t create redemption pressure on existing loans via fee-driven ZUSD selling. That kind of change would need serious modeling, vetting, and a full audit before it could go live, since Zero is a core part of the system.
Q5 — @Brianna follow-up (burn + mint new rewards concern)
@Brianna — I agree with the core concern: “burn + mint new SOV as rewards” muddies tokenomics and can reintroduce sell pressure. A cleaner pattern is what Hyperliquid does: fees drive buybacks/burn, while staking incentives are handled separately (and they also add non-yield staking utility like fee discounts). For Sovryn Layer, the hybrid I’m advocating avoids the “burn + re-mint” loop: majority of revenue to buy-and-burn, a portion to treasury, and any staker distribution should come from real revenue (not newly minted SOV). That keeps supply discipline while still making staking economically rational.
Q8 — @Phrygian12 (Zero Revenue)
@Phrygian12 — Zero revenue is definitely part of the “Protocol Fees” bucket.
Q9 — @Travis_trades (eSOV migration) Context: Asked if eSOV holders on Ethereum/BOB have to bridge back to Rootstock to stake for cSOV.
@Travis_trades — eSOV and BOB staking will be included in the cSOV plan. Thanks for calling it out.
4 Likes