Winners? You mean when this action destroys project in the future you just take profit if you’re fast enough and move on to the next “victim”? That proposal could drive price of SOV up only for short time and then what? More complaints?
Here is what I see is happening right now:
It’s clash between traders vs, builders of future for everyone. Traders trying interfere with fundamentals to tip the scale in their favor on expence of possible future failure of protocol. This action just feels so parasitic.
As trader you can give constructive ideas how to improve UI/UX. Not just constant complaining how bad it is, but real concrete ideas.But I don’t think your mindset is set to be the one to change protocol fundamentals.
11 Likes
So there is no reason to discuss here, since you already decided to not listen. Why do you have a forum? And a more important question, why am I here … 
1 Like
This makes a lot of sense and I hope others can signal their support for this.
-
Create a separate tokenomics SIP; have a focused discussion on lockups versus burning versus slowing of emmission.
-
Remind each other and the team of the importance and priority of UX/UI during community calls, and so on. Let this discussion serve as input to the roadmap reveal this Thursday.
-
Continue the discussion of removing lock up from Staking. I would personally say that this doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel and start all over, that discussion was already started a while ago, with pros and cons discussed in detail here.
So seems to me the first step is one SIP on tokenomics, to discuss the details, amounts, pros and cons?
9 Likes
1 - This proposal puts SOV back on the map for new investors, which is great as Sovryn needs new blood badly.
2 - Did you miss the part where bcw will bring in another $5mill if things start looking good again?
Do you know how much bcw people traded?
Didn’t think so.
Dman and bcw was the biggest proponent for sovryn and always said it has the most potential out of any project out there.
He never told anyone to sell.
If you can’t recognize his desire to see sovryn succeed, and all of us with it, your vision goes only as far as your monthly rewards, and you aren’t doing even yourself any good service.
Please look at the bigger picture.
5 Likes
I fully agree with this proposal.
3 Likes
I Agree with the change of the UIUX only.
The rest IS an attack vector to governance from people that didn’t even staked any SOV (like dman said he haven’t staked a single sov, few others from bcw are staked and want to get out at a pump, that’s why this sip), and want to change the rules for their convenience.
The points from this SIP are tailored for a pump & dump, from reducing supply by burning/locking, making it easy to unstake (with no penalties), just by holding the liquid tokens are able to receive rewards, and finally dump (again like dman said, it’s a 10 sec job to make and order to sell).
This is exactly why long term stakers have more power to vote, so short minded people can’t just come here and change the rules for their pleasing.
The sad part is that this attack is targeting the defense mechanism of sovryn and some stupid people can’t even see it (or they just ignore it), because for them the important thing is to dump at higher prices and leave.
I would propose to edit this sip for the change the UIUX and DOUBLE DOWN on staking,
INCREASE THE MAX STAKING TIME WITH MORE REWARDS AND WITH MORE SLASHING PENALTIES. dman also talked about loyalty so what about this: HAVE A PERMANENT STAKING WHERE YOU FORGO 4EVER YOUR SOV AND GAIN THE BEST REWARDS RATES PERMANENTLY, it would also behave as a burn mechanism and reduce supply.
-also im using my whale ass size to vote no on this current shit sip.
11 Likes
I think there might be an elegant solution to the whole lock up thing:
Staking remains with the lock up and would provide the users with the governance powers and the higher revenue share.
Yet the holders of tokens would also have a piece of the generated fees without any governance powers. The SOV rewards for liquid holders, that can withdraw it anytime, would be smaller and would be distributed to the holder when withdrawn by the user at a later date.
This way there is incentive to hold on on the token to generate rewards without the need to lock one up. While governance would reward the commited stakers.
Thoughts? I just don’t think the only way is to change the whole of staking. But rather introduce a separate way to get a piece of the fees/revenue. With less commitment.
6 Likes
Forum is intended to discuss important things. What do you mean no reason to discuss here?
Don’t think that everybody agrees with everything. That’s why is discussed here and then decisions are made.
2 Likes
nobody gets 1000sov per day. not even close to that.
1 Like
Do you even listen to yourself:
You mean to suck new users dry?
@unikum, you gave me an idea. I would need to think about it, but one thing we could potentially do instead of token burn mechanisms, if we find a good candidate for a burn, is to redistribute the “burned” tokens. Either to holders or to stakers.
10 Likes
Lol
I’m trying but my imagination can’t come with any scenario where sovryn grows, without new users.
Maybe I’m dumb and you should paint me a picture 
2 Likes
As far as I have read, Yago came up with propositions then D did close the public discussion.
You are right, it is difficult to build something afterwards between us.
May be discussion is going to be resumed privately between the leaders to find a “peaceful” path ?
No. The discussion seems to be activelly happening in here. And Yago is only one individual on the team. So while his word has a lot of weight, it is not the final one.
7 Likes
I don’t think there is a need for private discussion. Transparency is the way to go.
We just need to remain civil so that the discussion can be rational instead of full of drama.
22 Likes
Why are you talking about the arrival of new users and investors in sovryn, in negative terms?
This is the reason for the platform, to be widely adopted. And this is needed. As a sign of a working project, and healthy tokenomics. That’s not the case right now.
4 Likes
Let’s not start to dig trenches here. I’m a trader allright, but a passionate one and like i said i’ve a lot of sov locked up for 3 years. So call me an investor. Without us there will be no progress.
You might have a decent bag of sovryn yourself and like to see that be worth more than it is today? So in the end we need eachother.
I am not sure this proposal does that nor is that the aim. Elaborate on the risks please.
to be honest, i dont like giving lliuid holders any of the fees.
no risk, no fees. if you want a piece of the cake, stake your SOV.
if we are really moving to rewarding liquid holders we become more like memecoin with reflection.
in that case create a 1 or 2% reflection fee on every trade and give that to the liquid holders.
but all fees generated by the protocol should go solely to stakers.
6 Likes
Sure. The point was not about the solution but about how to avoid to oppose the 2 “sub-communities”
Nevertheless I feel reassured by the transparency way to go.
Peace and prosperity, that all what we need !
I don’t think it is better to charge users more to pay out others. I rather think something in the realm of making liquid holders be able to get a small part(or a normal part) of the trading fees for all SOV pairs. Because they are also invested into SOV and support the price with their action.
So revenues from things like ZERO or unstaking etc. would not go to them.