SIP-00XX The 3 Critical Price Impacting Changes Requested By The Community

thank you for the reply.

  1. so all the current stakers will still get their SOV rewards?
    i would propose to give all the stakers all their SOV in 1 go, but put them under a vested contract.
    so if someone was staked for 3 years and should recieve a 1000 SOV if he will not extend in those 3 years. the 1000 SOV should be sent to the staker, make them vested for 3 years, unlock every month 1/36th of the 1000SOV
    if a staker locked his tokens for a year, and should recieve 100SOV if he would not extend. give him 100SOV, vested for 1 year, unlock every month 1/12th

sounds fair?

  1. will my staked SOV become liquid after your SIP is approved?

  2. i still would like to see a higher tier for current stakers on your loyalty program.
    stakers took a risk, that should be rewarded.


I am very opposed to the SIP.

It is basically a “give up the SOV token use case and governance security to appeal to the broader marked to make 10x - 150x”. The SOV token is not designed to be the centralized asset as all the other L1 systems or L2 platforms. There was thought put into the differential between the central part of the Protocol (RBTC/BTC) and the utility/governance (SOV).

Multiple points are just taking things for granted (like the locking up of the funds, as it is thought can be replaced by the raised capital, and the “easy” roadmap of things being written and tested for multiple itterations). Other points are good recommendations we are aware of (the UI/UX has to be more clear) which are fine to make.

The removal of the staking lock is also very disturbing to me. In my eyes it is not about the money and the yields. It’s about the governance and stability of the protocol.


Of course, it is POSSIBLE, if we decide it is possible, it’s easy, and people have done it in the past, just airdrop/reissue the new tokens to snapshot of existing holders minus the pools and minus the team.

So I don’t appreciate to hear “it is not possible” when you disagree with something and want to passively not have it pass.

Moving to thing 2)
The attack narrative is again wrong, you can handle it the same way, you can issue governance tokens the same way you will issue bonuses for longer stakers… the longer they stake, the more voting power they have.

Moving to thing 3)
Yes, you agree on this because it doesn’t: hurt your tokens and your power, and doesn’t change a thing, just it’s overdue for 2 years.

Not cool Yago.

What I said, this must be done in a package for the benefit of Sovryn token.
It should be done as a burn, but I accept your compromise of 10 years.

At the end of the day, it’s not us who will decide (no matter how you politicse it), it’s you and your insiders who get the dominant voting power to steer it however you want.

I made my point by showing you how many real money (bought on the market or for their own coins) SOV holders agree with this SIP and want to see it pass for the benefit and glory of the Sovryn.



I agree 100%
It’s dead on.


Yes, all current stakers would get their tokens paid to this date. In one go.


Thank you for supporting this SIP.


I am glad Yago layed out the break down. That’s exactly right. The incentives for SOV Holders would be a tricky thing to find. But would be very beneficial for the adoption.

1 Like

yeah dumbass, read again and again

To your answer towards Point 2:

It’s not about the voting power. It’s about the incentive to act in with the goal of supporting the protocol and be held accountable for the decission supported. If there is an easy way out after the vote, there is no incentive.


Agree 100% something needs to change, too many promise with nothing. There are good brains in SOV and D-Man team so come on let s move forward and get this rock n roll. Regarding details what ever we are adults and sure for the good of the project should find an agreement. A wake up call is always good, easier to push from bottom of the pool. Cheers guys stay positive, stay Sov.


Just to know, are you part of the core team ?


Ahh, you BCW people are pleasant. Im so happy you guys are an active part of the community since the last 15minutes. Its like, you really care about the project.


My two cents:

A. Tokenomics.
I support DMan’s general idea that something needs to be done about it. (It is either lower supply, or increase utility of SOV; the increase in supply is so high that utility can never keep up – any investor can see this).

I don’t support the particular proposals by DMan, however. It would seriously harm the ability to grow the dev team, if team tokens are locked up for 10 years. Dev team is everything. Also, liquidity providers need juicy rewards in return of providing liquidity; stakers need to be rewarded in return for securing things, governing, and so on. Just locking stuff up, or burning, doesn’t work.

I think the better option is to severely slow down the emission schedule. In fact I would be in favor of tapering of emission schedule into infinity, meaning that we forever approach full dilution but never reach it. That is also the best solution to ensuring that LM pools are sustainable; fees only is never enough (and never competitive), one needs additional rewards. Put the brakes on the emission schedule, let it run asymptotically towards full dilution. Solves two problems at once: token release is slowed down, and liquidity pools are sustainable for the foreseeable future.

B. Remove time-locked Staking (and also “SOV holders should earn fees”)
I support this; in fact I wrote an exploratory SIP draft on this, followed by a good discussion with some community members. SOV holders don’t need rewards, they just hold as an investment.

I would say that point 1 and 3 are more important than this point though.

C. UX and, in particular, first time user experience must be improved.
Totally agree! This should be a priority. The way to do this I think is as follows: there needs to be the option of a Simple Mode and an Advanced Mode (= current interface). The Simple Mode should be created from the ground up next to the existing interface, have fewer features, and be super simple.

Some of the other stuff, like delaying Zero while it is ready are a big No for me. Also, these should be three separate SIPs.


They care more than you. You already voiced your dissatisfaction. They are getting more updates about the project than you do. Not everyone in Sov is supposed to be a forum boy. There are some traders here, some free thinkers, some Sovryn nation future citizens… Do you really want to diss the fellow Sovryns just based on some hate? Is that the point?

Let me tell you, you have nothing to worry, this SIP is not in favor of the team holding majority of the power… it cannot pass if they don’t let it pass… so stress not. It is just to show that the community is sick of wrong actions and recognizes this SIP as something that could truly lift Sovryn off the ground. You do you.


You are forgetting millions and millions that Sovryn team already raised for this special purpose - development. There is no need for any dev pool beyond millions already in.


just airdrop/reissue the new tokens to snapshot of existing holders minus the pools and minus the team.

This is a fork. I am not opposed to a fork - but I have no interest in being part of it. I also doubt it would be in any way successful. It would rightly have zero credibility.

The attack narrative is again wrong, you can handle it the same way, you can issue governance tokens the same way you will issue bonuses for longer stakers… the longer they stake, the more voting power they have.

The design of the current staking rewards for Bitocracy is designed to be forwards facing, not backwards facing. It is designed to incentivise long term future thinking, not reward OGs.

you agree on this because it doesn’t: hurt your tokens and your power, and doesn’t change a thing, just it’s overdue for 2 years.

Not cool Yago.

Let’s focus on the issues, not your opinion of me.

I understand where you are coming from, you are concerned about the possibility to see price appreciation and attract new users. These are legitimate concerns.

I agree that Sovryn may be able to extend the emissions schedule by locking up tokens. This could provide users with higher assurances as to the value of their holdings. In that respect I am definitely in favor of exploring this, and if we can convince ourselves that this is the way forward - we should execute on it.

For this purpose I will be working to put together a task force to analyse and specify our options. I welcome you and any other competent community member to join this taskforce.

The economic structure of the protocol is crucial to its success. So we should definitely re-examine things like token emissions. The fact that this seems to be a matter that bothers a lot of the people responding to this thread is reason enough to take it seriously.


I fully support this SIP. We all want SOV to succeed, tough actions such as these are needed to reboot SOV


I can see more people in favor than against so far.


No I’m not. That’s for one-off grants and bounties, and I take it, salaries. That’s not enough. Good devs are in insane demand. You want to be able to snatch good devs away by giving them attractive stakes and skin in the game - and locking these up for 10 years would make such carrots seriously unnatractive. But perhaps increasing vesting contracts from 10 months and to longer periods might be reasonable.


Sovryn has a problem because it doesn’t have too much credibility even now.

You didn’t even man enough up when your team was separating to inform the loyal followers that they might dump their tokens onto us. We are a tool to you, and that’s not good.

However, let’s focus on constructive.

You said you have no interest of being part of the fork, meaning you disagree with it and it’s the story OVER. Sip will not PASS.

No need to discuss further.

And it’s the same SOV as one disappears one appears, it’s just technical change, nothing else.

“forward facing, not backward facing” - leave the parole at home. Let’s speak in exact terms. What facing forward or backward… I gave you EXAMPLES and EXPLANATIONS where other projects like that failed when they did over staking and just issuing more and more of their native tokens. I want to make SOV token really valuable.

I go sleep. People, no matter how many of you will support this sip, no matter how many of you hold the tokens, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be passed, impossible, as Yago said now he doesn’t agree. And why would he… it would require him to give up some of his tokens (HIS adoption pool*, his development pool and his overblown 25% team tokens).

*his adoption pool… if you don’t know, he wanted to sell part of your adoption pool to guys who offered him money again under nicely worded, political “they are strategically important for Sovryn”… so Adoption pool is to be sold and further raised money? Interesting. Everyone can suffer but the team won’t show solidarity? Interesting.

I think actions speak louder than words.

My actions are: I supported projects even when not at my financial benefit. My community trusts me because I sink with them and sing with them, we celebrate together and we cry together. I’ve shown it with my own wallet. THAT’S why they trust me.

I am no perfect, but my intentions are super pure.

Even for Sovryn, all I want is to make changes that I strategically thing are NEEDED to make it fucking glowing and reach the stars it CANNOT reach otherwise. It is in HEAVY down spiral… Project is at $85 to $3 what’s that -94%… how many projects didn’t die after such retrace and went to zero?

I try to awaken this… but the leadership said no, and it’s a no. Nothing you or I can do about it once the dictator says no, whether it comes from his influenced or from himself.

No matter how many guys write here “I support this sip”.

Good luck people.
I tried my best.

Even knowing there is only a REMOTE chance of success. I owed it to you and to myself to at least try.