Yago, your word carries weight here.
So we can dispel some ideas here, do YOU think Dman is proposing this so price can pump and bcw can exit??
Or is that not it?
Thatâs a very bad question to ask. Please refrain from framing questions. As it does not support the discussion.
3 Likes
i would never vote yes for this.
they have no risk, can sell at any moment.
they need to give something in return for fees sharing. locking up tokens is the way to go
simply holding the token is not enough.
2 Likes
Firstly, thank you Dman for initiating this much required topic. Definitely something has to be done to improve the confidence of community and to attract potential new Sovryn citizens. Hats off for addressing the elephant in the room.
Personally I would stand for this SIP wholeheartedly.
Next, Yago: I have read the AMA posted here, I must say, you do have the foresight to make Sovryn one of the best projects out there. Some of the comments in the AMA had pretty strong words and I admire your coolheadedness in those situations.
We are at an impasse here; if you are not agreeable to Dmanâs SIP (I know you have mentioned the reasons in earlier posts), why not state your counter proposal here? I too advocate full transparency and look forward to what you can suggest.
5 Likes
Before diving into details, this SIP for sure needs more polish. Itâs currently unclear what exactly the vote would be about. Bundling all three issues together in a proposal is problematic and unnecessary.
3 - UI/UX improvements are a priority and something almost everybody agrees with. This suggestion has been introduced on many occasions, for example in the recent marketing town hall (01/04/2022). Now the question is how exactly this will be done. Developing a dead simple new interface from the ground up for newbies eventually to be merged with the existing one, as @yago brought forward, or just upgrading what we have now? The core team has identified a company with a good reputation in the field, so we can trust this process and provide our comments along the way. Therefore, if needed, proposals on this issue can be handled very soon in a separate SIP.
1 - The tokenomics proposal is to divert from the initial Sovryn design and to reduce the supply of SOV by burning or â as a compromise â locking up 50% of core developer teamâs SOV stack.
Naturally, in the short term, this will increase SOVs value for whatever ânobleâ purpose. The problem I see with this is a loss in trust, reliability, and security. These, as you know, are the core characteristics of Sovrynâs underlying base asset BTC. If a core metric such as the overall supply of the SOV governance token can be fundamentally changed, trust in the protocol will remain low. Itâs built on sandy grounds. Thatâs why @yago mentioned the written-in-stone protocol mechanisms put in place to prevent altering the key parameters of the SOV ecosystem. Everything else would be a fork, which I personally wouldnât like to be a part of either.
Locking up 50% of core developer teamâs SOV would prevent a fork, have a similar effect as burning, but would hang like a sword of Damocles over the project, again bringing insecurity.
I suggest considering the 4 proposals @yago made in his post. They can put a lot of pressure on the supply side of SOV but leave the protocol intact and provide transparency. Details can be discussed in the suggested expert group, preferably as simple as possible. Because such a decision is crucial for the future of Sovryn, it would have to be a separate SIP vote.
2 - I think a loyalty bonus system isnât enough an incentive for long-term project support and not as effective as time-locked staking. Instead, the bitocracy run by time-locked stakers should be strengthened and made more community and voter friendly. For example, by extending the voting time frame for SIPs etc.
Sovrynâs SIP-0024 regulates the incentive structure (rewards & fees) for investments of up to 3 years. It is only a few months old, gaining traction, yet already again drastic changes to it are being discussed. In order to gain trust of investors these things shouldnât be changed all that often. Especially the protocol fee sharing should be crystal clear for a good foreseeable time to come. I am doubtful about letting holders of liquid SOV participate in fee-sharing. Traders are users not governors of the protocol unless they choose to stake. Iâm open to ideas, but the important thing here is to decide and keep it simple & steady for a good period of time. The current staking incentives strike a nice balance with AMM pool incentives and other instruments on the platform.
A proposal on 2. could be linked to 1. but could also stand separately.
Sovryn is not a business project per se but meant to provide a truly decentralized financial operating system to enhance Bitcoinâs potential and freedom for everyone in the world. My problem with this SIP is also that it reads like a revolt against the current core development team. It is cheaply rallying support behind it like âAre you with us or against Sovrynâs success?â. In its current form, it compromises the core of what Sovryn stands for, this should be clear to everyone. Constructive and polite discussion is important, but thereâs no need to be afraid of calling out BS where it surfaces.
12 Likes
this is for me a very important and well written line.
there is fundamental difference between traders and governors/stakers
4 Likes
I donât know guys, this discussion is a bit hard to follow. Most discussed thing as all we see - tokenomics, and thatâs really matters, but not less or more than other points. Of course, itâs totally understandable that @yago donât want to burn tokens, but I donât understand if he supports locking? If yes - why? If no - why and which options @yago sees instead of it? Leave everything as it is? Not showing any results for a long months alreadyâŚ
Some of you talking about pump&dump by BCW group (that have never happened in history, correct me with proofs if I wrong), or that it will impact price only for short period of time. And we donât see any argumentation for these phrases as well. Guys, tokenomics is pure math. Everybody who has piece of paper or calculator can understand it. @DMAN suggests STRATEGY, that will bring new BUYERS to the market. If SOV not on the radars, who the f.ck will know what is it, where to find, how to use, why itâs needed at all? How to prove new people that SOV is attractive?
Definitely not with some BS and argues around the simple things.
All described points of SIP combined = STRATEGY for Sovryn rehabilitation, especially when we see new projects-competitors with DeFi on Bitcoin that are already in development. We are not talking about some kind of political BS, pump&dump or something else. Taking this into account, you can also realize WHY SIP couldnât be divided into multiple different SIPs. Dividing it to multiple discussions will cause into uselessness of this good solution, which also wonât affect in the long-term tokens that core team reserved for their selves.
Why they need the tokens now? If Sovryn is going to become >1T project, I donât understand why the team is not willing to show the community how theyâre confident in Sovryn succeeding.
Make conclusions. We must find some way, otherwise Sovryn will be lost somewhere on 100 page of CMC.
2 Likes
I personally think that rewarding mere holders with rewards doesnât fully answer the reasons for wanting to change things in the first place.
The reason why I donât like the lock up is that it requires a level of conviction that newcomers wonât typically have (and rightly so, Iâd say) and itâs absolutely essential to draw newcomers into staking, as itâs key to everything, to security, proper distribution, growing the committed community, turning supply illiquid, etc. Awarding mere holders doesnât do that, many would just take those fees and dump them when they see a better investment. I think that there should be a lower threshold to staking for newcomers, (while making sure that staking creates incentive not to leave) and that the lockup stands in the way of this.
5 Likes
I think this is spot on. The security aspect to prevent attacks etc. is important obviously. But it must be possible to find some middle ground. Or even maybe staking can remain as it is if newcomers are more easily convinced to stake and stay in the project.
In general, i want to ask the people who are completely against the proposal (and specifically the core members of Sovryn):
How do you guys see it?
- Do you think the way it is going is the right one?
- Do you believe changes are needed and if so, which ones?
- Do you agree we are at a standstill with practically no growth, no increase in users, no increase in recognition for Sovryn,� And so something needs to change?
3 Likes
That is a very good point. This is something worth taking into serious consideration.
What we could do right now is give hope to Yago and his team we all buy 1 or 2 % of our crypto investment and in exchange please find quick solutions, work all together because 10k brains better than 1 and we all stay Sovryn and happy 
3 Likes
This divisive proposal brings engagement to Sovryn, myself included, thatâs really nice! Iâm largely against the proposal, so therefore my response:
-
On a fundamental level, yes, I do think Sovryn is on the right way. Most people even canât yet comprehend the true value of Bitcoin, its freedom, energy, disincentivizing violence aspects. This is now changing with the current geopolitical and societal developments. Now, Sovryn is even a step further and aiming to provide a financial ecosystem for and on Bitcoin with the same value propositions. It may very well be that Sovryn is just too early for people to see. Introducing an electric car in 1995 was not successful because too early. Do I think because of it we should instead turn Sovryn into a successful business project sacrificing those values? No. Iâd rather be patient, help educate as long as the developers agree and can keep on working.
-
Yes, I do think changes are welcome.
- I would like to see the bitocracy better embraced, strengthened and put to full use. Voting needs to become easier and more manageable. A new corporate type of law can develop, this is pioneer stuff! Not all the stakers have time to follow the project closely every day. Voting preparation periods and tools need to be clearly defined, the voting time frame extended and announced better.
- The vesting contracts for LP rewards seem like an unnecessary nuisance, costing many precious rBTC. Better fewer rewards, but less expensive liquid withdrawals.
- Improved, easy UI/UX, thatâs a given.
- Clear project plan, sticking to roadmap milestones and if not announce why in a transparent way (news blog and dedicated project development section on main Sovryn website, mailing list, official Telegram pins, Twitter etc.)
- Release new key features as soon as appropriate this year (perpetual swaps and Zero) at the agreed time, once the UI/UX are in shape.
- Prepare the grounds and follow through with a targeted marketing strategy as announced recently with professional help. Share how and what at regular intervals depending on the available resources, at least once every two months. Take on board constructive suggestions, forum etc.
- Engage open-minded organization consultancy firms if deemed helpful.
You see, when I read all this potential, I donât see why we should change the fundamental parameters of Sovryn. Reducing SOV supply, yes, letâs discuss. But we have to leave Sovrynâs constitution intact. This is vital for its symbiosis with Bitcoinâs values.
- Yes, there seems to be no growth. Do other such projects grow meanwhile? Even the SovrynTeas seem to not create immediate results. I think they are spreading their seeds, but who knows when they will stick. Itâs not satisfying right now, I agree. Important is that the Sovryn features work very well and that we promote the benefits very clearly. Maybe some sceptic bitcoiners are waiting for exactly that discussion to take place on Sovryn and will only join and promote once the Sovryn community has chosen which direction they want to take.
3 Likes
In full support of this SIP.
3 Likes
No. Because if the SIP is not accepted as a whole we will again be in some limbo, yes ux will be a good thing to change, and thatâs the only thing that affects nobodyâs pocket so it will likely going to be changed⌠however, as a package these all things, if changed, can ONLY THEN lead to massive Sovryn acceptance and growth. Which is something we both want, no?
3 Likes
Thank you brother CrypTut
3 Likes
I totally agree with D Man, the SIP must passed or we see continuation of our sinking ship called SOV 
Almost i forgot if u open at the daily chart historically looks like shitcoin pump and dump scheme isnât it ugly
3 Likes
Completely agree with the propsed changes.
I agree with D Man completely
2 Likes
I agree with most points except for burning or locking team stakes. Iâm not sure how it works, but I expect that team stakes are given to members so they would join or continue working in the team. As a bonus. Or maybe instead of salary at all.
And now you are suggesting to breach this contract and lock their SOV they did sign for it.
@DMAN, what do you think will happen if half of the team will just leave the project?
The team already delaying everything, I donât see how we can see features completed and the project not dying out.
1 Like
This is not BNB or ETH for burning tokens.
This is not Safemoon for giving holders reflections.
This is Sovryn.
A financial OS built on Bitcoin.
Short-term price swings are not sufficient reason to change protocol rules.
I oppose this SIP.
And Iâm glad long term stakers have the most vote weight.
Shoot down the SIP.
Sovryn will grow because of the products and value it brings to be financially sovereign. Not because of creative tokenomics.
If you cannot wait for a strong foundation to be built go find another memecoin to pump and 10x your gains.
8 Likes