I fully support @DMAN !
Clearly this isnt going in the right direction now , Such a shame for such an awesome project…
1 Like
No, BCW is not trying to turn SOV into a meme coin or pump’n’dump it. I am part of it and so far Dman was always honest about his intentions. I understand the concerns you voice here. I actually would also be worried. Yet I have to point out, that BCW did not sell in bear times nor after the group’s top analyst dropped SOV out of his portfolio. It was on his recommendation that we found and bought SOV. We then saw the potential of it and were excited. We want it to be a success.
But in the end a platform or protocol can’t grow without new users. And if anyone sees a coin that’s been in a downwards trend for several months in a row, it doesn’t paint a good picture. No matter how good the vision is. So sometimes something as simple as a gesture to the simple man is needed. Give them freedom and flexibility with their money, lock the platform’s token to ensure upside potential for that very same token or even just a funny little feature on the exchange.
2 Likes
I am in support of all 3 proposed changes provided in this SIP, however I do feel that we might need to document different specific SIPs to discuss each of these components separately to ensure we are not getting mixed up with all the detailed discussions around it.
Great discussions on this thread so far, Thanks to D, Yago and the community for a conscious attempt to steer this forward in the right direction. Let’s continue to coordinate together in the interest of this protocol future and this grand mission, whatever may our differences in opinions be.
Stay Sovryn, y’all ! \m/
1 Like
I want to keep it civil here but i am having a hard time to do that after seeing your comment.
Memecoin ? Dman is supporting Sovryn for a long time now , what in the world are you talking about ?
Seriously … Your attitude towards them is pretty shamefull…
1 Like
-
Would a lockup touch the fundamentals of the protocol? The supply isn’t gone. It is just made sure, that it can’t be used right now. Be it good or bad. I think that would give the simple SOV member some security that the token isn’t watered down unnecessarily by selling the rewards.
I found one idea of Yago for a supply reduction. The redistribution to holders and/or stakers. This idea sounds good at first, but would in the end lead to the same result I mentioned right now. The stakers/holders would just sell it as soon as they are liquid. As noble our cause is, we are also here to earn with sovryn. And if the tokens aren’t sold immediatly it would create a strong sell pressure. -
Yeah I agree on that. Sovryn already has great feature. I still think that it would be a gesture of good heart to give them flexibility with their money. While a 2 week stake involves basically no risk it still locks the money in. And if that isn’t that big of a problem, I think the upside of flexibilty still outweighs. Isn’t it logical to get more rewards and voting power by staying with the protocol? I think it has something beautiful. You care for the platform, invest in it and learn about it. And you are rewarded for your loyalty with more and more power.
On the other hand, someone with a lot of money and influence can buy a lot of tokens and stake them for a long time. Yes that can also be good as he can immediatly start to shape the platform. But he would still be a newcomer and in my eyes he would have to earn the trust to get more rewards and voting power. Moreover once he commited himself he can’t change his mind anymore. He is forced to stay. That may prevent him from commtting to 5 years, which otherwise would happen maybe by itself. Yes he can decide all of this, yet it would still leave a bitter taste in my mouth.
A TL;DR of the second paragraph. Right now you commit to the platform and your rewards and voting power gets smaller and smaller. And until the end you can’t really get out. But why not the other way around? Your share gets bigger and bigger the longer you stay. It would symbolise growth.
Sorry, it got a little philosophical at the end. I hope you still find it constructive to this conversation.
1 Like
Go fuck yourself.
Rug pull I can do without you or without benefit for the project. Are you retarded. If I want to rug pull why I need to make project better. Check your logic.
4 Likes
Agreed. Thank you for supporting the SIP.
1 Like
When you become so fat that you cannot climb the stairs anymore, you loose weight and grease to catch some breath again.
When you fly a fu*kin Montgolfier hot air balloon, and you see you are about to crash on the top of the trees, you throw objects overboard as much as you can to save the ship.
Move the grease in other parts of the body, like from the belly to the thighs does not make it a fit body. Same for the hot air balloon, store heavy object in other parts of the basket does not make it lighter!
Why would it be different for this project? Why move a problem without treating it? Sovryn deserve more than that!
I’m talking about the tokens lock here. Locking is not the right solution. The tokens will still exist. This solution is making noise for nothing. It is moving things around from a place to another with no effect at the end. Still everyone will go to CMC and see 100M overpriced tokens.
The excess tokens have to disappear and be BURNED. Sovryn has to look attractive, seductive again for new comers.
The rewards for stacking or holding have to be distributed in BTC, USDT, BNB or whatever the coin or token, as long it is not anymore in SOV! Rewards in SOV is more SOV on the market, more selling pressure and more downward action!
Sovryn is an economical project. Ok for decentralization, financial exchanges freedom and all…But what is the point if an economical project is not even profitable? Not economically viable?
These tokens have to go! Forever!
2 Likes
Hello folks, Average Joe here 
I’ve been closely following this thread and the two AMAs, and although many of the comments and replies sound uncivilized and primitive, I do get a feeling that this is the right form of debate/governance that a decentralization should bring on the table, and something good might came up of this after all.
I am a BCW follower (not a premium one) and a strong Sovryn supporter, I actually learnt about Sovryn on behalf of Dman and stayed for the idea, and will definitely stay in the years to come. Just an addition all of my SOV is staked for the maximum amount of time.
Regarding the changes proposed from Dman, I do agree with him completely that they must happen, but messing up with tokenomics can be a fucked up thing, and can be a double-sided sword, and here are my two cents on that.
I am sure of the pure intentions Dman has of making Sovryn hall of famer, and never selling a penny, but the issue here is that I do not think that all of the BCW members share the same idea as him, and he does not have a full control of the group. If a burn or lock is implemented this will pump the price, which will definitely attract new users, but I think many of the BCW members will sell their SOV to book some gains, despite the fact that Dman will be opposed to that. And this can be even more fucked up for Sovryn, in the same time the funds for development will be cut off, with the price of SOV going nowhere. There was even a comment in the AMA where someone said that will sell all the SOV, once it gets to 10$
From the opposite, I must say that not all of the Sovryn team share the same idea as Yago, and are here only for personal achievements, as we have seen in the past.
One thing I have in mind, if we are going with tokenomic changes, is for BCW members to have the SOV transferred to a multisig wallet, does not have to be all of it, and have the funds locked up for some period of time (the math of calculating the time is way above mu understanding ), in order to be sure that SOV won’t be sell as soon as it reach some market cap.
So long and thanks for all the fish 
4 Likes
I fully agree with you.
1 Like
I fully agree with this.
2 Likes
Conversation with me any Yago (without violating any privacy) regarding my question will he put this to a vote, he basically considers this non vote worthy 
Yago, [04.04.2022. at 21:47:33]:
…We avoid votes for highly controversial things. If controversial then we do not do it by default. At the moment it s a very controversial proposal as you can see in the thread. So I will put together a task force to try craft a proposal that achieves what you and others are seeking and will have broad support. Why? Because I mostly agree with your aims.
D, [04.04.2022. at 21:48:16]:
Man, It gets majority… so its not controversial. I can get enough of voting power to get it to a vote. Will you then still reject it?
No, you will not craft a proposal. I want MY proposal to be put to a vote
He wanted me to delay vote. I didn’t agree.
4 Likes
Hi Harmaus
I do not think you want to go fuck yourself neither does Dman I suppose.
My speciality is people, not crypto.
The more I read the proposal the more I am a fan of it and I see in no place any rugpulling.
Have you read the AMA’s?
Dman seems to be harsh forward but I like the idea.
Yago I respect for his view, but the techniques, the downhill, the non existing marketing for a long time.
You know, visionary man are not per definition good managers.
In my opinion we have to take action. Always better than no action or down move.
His valid points seems not to have the wanted effect?
Like always and everytime: time will tell.
Till today : Time is telling us to do something.
anyway : your point of rugpulling? Do not see it.
4 Likes
“Get Started”: this should lead to lending/borrowing, yield farm or spot/margin trading - NOT buy SOV. Why? Our narrative is that you don’t need SOV token to use the platform
1 Like
I echo your sentiment on Yago being a visonary leader, and add that I see the classic ‘founder’s trap’ conundrum emerging here, see: https://site.adizes.com/lifecycle/gogo/#:~:text=The%20Founder’s%20Trap%20occurs%20when,bottleneck%20that%20is%20its%20Founder
1 Like
I agree, separating them is much likely to get the UX voted through, then the tokenomics, then the staking matter. By bundling them, you put extra (intentional?) pressure on Yago and the team to make a complex choice in very little time that might change the future trajectory of Sovryn in a way that might not suit many stakeholders other than you: @DMAN and perhaps some of your CWS friends.
I would have no clue what I would be voting on, in the current state.
UI: make it simpler? That’s not a proposal for how to change things, it is a request for some unspecified change. It is not anything that could be put into action. And seriously, we have all known for a long time already that it should be simpler. Question is how, given the full feature suite, and there are no suggestions for this in this rant that we are discussing here.
Token lock: remove lock by a loyalty bonus. How much loyalty bonus, determined in what way? Increasing s-curved, linearly, what? We vote, and then the team gets to decide how? We just give them a free pass or something? How do you imagine action on this vote?
Token burn: you burn tokens by sending it to a burn address. No one can send tokens that aren’t released yet. Given that 80% is still to be released (which is the very problem you’re concerned about) you can only burn or lock a tiny fraction (a small percentage of the 20% in circulation), which makes no difference to what is still to be emitted. Doesn’t solve the supply issue. I take it what you really want is for fewer tokens to come into existence, as this concerns the larger chunk, but this SIP doesn’t even deal with that.
4 Likes
I must inform you that admins here have started banning people that are voicing their displeasures. Admins I expect this thing to stop immediately.
There is NO spamming here in this thread. I am the thread author and I say that there was no spam!
So unban that person and every other SIP supporter you banned for your crussade.
2 Likes
I could not agree more. Changes to the tokenomics on the fly are a sign of desperate, failing projects, and they are ripe for abuse…especially token burns, which add no value and do not increase the overall value of the project.
Changing the token lockup is not only a security risk, but also shortchanges the long term stakers.
This proposal is brought forth by a group that is essentiallly a cult, lead by a cult leader who gets paid by his followers to tell them what to think. We cannot even access what he said about this without signing up and giving our personal info to the cult, not exactly as transparent as they claim.
The tokenomics and staking issue is not what is holding the price down. It is a lack of marketing, and a UI that is a little confusing to newbies. The tokenomics are actually far better than most DeFi projects on other chains and the insane inflation of their governance tokens, that often have no utility beyond governance. SOV has that utility through fee distributions.
The project is on the right track. The SIP proposed is dangerous and would do nothing but derail it.
6 Likes
You saying that know that that ‘cult’ got MAJORITY of people today in Sovryn.
Even the non-bcw friendly dojo decided to do a vote whether they approve this SIP and even people who strongly dislike me, and are yet honest and caring for Sovryn benefit more than their grudge with me, have stated (like that blue person)… that after reading both AMAs and the proposal they are in full support of it.
1 Like