Adoption SOV fund is under Bitocracy control. It was returned to RSK. Almost 15% of SOV total supply. It was controlled by Exchequer only when it was on BOB.
1 Like
I tend to agree. If the idea was to suppress SOV priceā¦ I donāt really see a good reason they would do this unless they wanted cheap SOV for voting purposes.
2 Likes
I hear the argument, and Iāll concede the framing tension. Hereās my answer to it directly: Iām not applying for the ISC. Iām proposing a process. The ISC eligibility rules apply to stewards, not to anyone who submits a governance proposal. If Bitocracy required known identities to propose SIPs, that bar would need to be written into the rules and applied consistently - including to anonymous contributors on the team side.
2 Likes
Exactly. Leadership has operated under significant opacity for years, and the response to a governance proposal is to scrutinize the proposerās account age rather than the substance of the claims. The asymmetry speaks for itself.
And yes - this SIP is partly an answer to accumulated frustration that has been cooking for years. That doesnāt make it wrong. It makes it overdue.
3 Likes
This is exactly the question that should have been answered a long time ago. A full public list of Exchequer members, their roles, and their compensation is the minimum baseline for any claim to accountability. It belongs in the Handover Pack spec, and Iāll add it explicitly to the next revision.
Compensation generally has been a big ānonoā for the team to disclose. I rememeber bunch of people on one of the community calls asking if active community members/team members are compensated at all. You would be surprised how much some of the lead actors are getting paid.
I think it should be noted for everyone that in the last two years no development of sovryn products or significant updates to existing products has occurred in the 2 major sovryn smart contract repositories:
Sovryn-smart-contracts: 19 merged pull requests since 2024 of which almost all are scripts related to transition to BitcoinOS.
Zero-contracts: 3 merged pull requests since 2024 of which 0 occurred in all of 2025.
There has been active updates on the front end dapp, though minor yet frequent. Itās helpful for people to understand: the front end dapp does very little to drive revenue to Sovryn compared with the underlying smart contract products. AMM revenue and liquidity has consistently been falling year over year. AMMs suffer from horrible slippage/fees and poor allocation of capital.
Zero is the primary revenue driver of Sovryn and almost no work has gone into improving it or working on known issues that lead to incentivizing redemption of the ZUSD token supply - that harms the very people using the product.
Then the biggest, most obvious, issue is 0 resources have been allocated on creating new smart contract products.
Moving existing sovryn products to different isolated islands like BOB or BOS (isolating and stretching liquidity even further) is not likely to significantly impact revenue or help the financial problems management has described. All it maybe does is help support selling another token that doesnāt benefit sovryn at all.
I think itās important in the context of this SIP to consider what leadership has achieved for Sovryn in the last 2 years.
4 Likes
This is the most important post in this entire thread.
Brianna just did what leadership should have been doing for two years: pulled verifiable, on-chain and on-GitHub data and put it in front of the community. No slides. No narrative spin. Just the record.
The numbers are damning. Zero merged PRs on zero-contracts in all of 2025. A handful on Sovryn-smart-contracts - almost entirely BitcoinOS migration scripts, not product development. Meanwhile the community has been told to wait for Sovryn Layer, trust the roadmap, and accept reduced staker revenue because of financial pressure.
If Zero is the primary revenue driver of the protocol and zero engineering resources have gone into improving it or fixing known ZUSD redemption issues, then the treasury isnāt just being mismanaged - the product itself is being allowed to decay while overhead continues to run.
And Briannaās final point cuts through the whole āweāre building the future on BOB/BOSā narrative: moving existing liquidity to new isolated chains doesnāt generate revenue for Sovryn. It generates a narrative that supports selling another token. Thatās not a business strategy. Thatās an exit ramp dressed up as a roadmap.
This is exactly the kind of documented, evidence-based record the Handover Pack should include - and exactly why we canāt leave it to the current leadership to write that record themselves.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Youāre pushing a high-stakes SIP that demands known identities and public history for ISC members, while refusing to disclose anything about Yourself.
The āIām not applying for ISC, Iām just proposingā line doesnāt solve the problem. In a pseudonymous space, how do we know You wonāt simply nominate Yourself (or Your alt/legit account) later once momentum builds? Thatās a very real risk with a brand-new account driving leadership removals and key handovers.
If this is good-faith governance and not sockpuppet theater, disclose Your prior Sovryn presence now. Anything less makes the whole thing look like a convenient exemption for the proposer while holding everyone else to stricter rules.
Eventually a rare case where I agree with Hyde.
Thanks for highlighting it.
While thinking about it;
In the same go i demand to know the names/handles and their ties of:
- Actual leadership (whoās in charge right now?)
- Exchequer
- Guardians
A hypothetical and eventual new leadership is one thing, but seems we arenāt even allowed to know the actual state of structure. Or present leaders are considered a sock puppet theater establishment as well instead of good-faith governance?
5 Likes
from my experience in Sovryn these kind of demands only works 1-way & the leadership is exempt from them so dont bother trying to ask Hyde for it
Let me be direct: Iām not disclosing, and I shouldnāt have to. Not now, not before a vote, not ever if I choose not to.
This isnāt stubbornness - itās principle. Sovryn was founded on pseudonymous participation and trustless governance. Bitocracy exists precisely so that decisions are made by stake-weighted votes, not by whoever can verify their LinkedIn profile. The moment we require identity disclosure to propose a SIP, weāve broken the most fundamental value this protocol was built on.
You want to know who I am. But ask yourself: does it matter? The GitHub data Brianna pulled is public. The treasury movements are on-chain. The zero PRs on zero-contracts in 2025 are verifiable by anyone. The arguments in this SIP either hold up or they donāt - and that has nothing to do with my name.
The irony is striking: the team has operated with anonymous contractors, an undisclosed Exchequer roster, and no public accountability for years - and that was fine. A pseudonymous community member submits a governance proposal and suddenly identity is a prerequisite for participation.
If pseudonymity disqualifies a SIP proposer, write that rule into Bitocracy formally and apply it to everyone - including the team. Until then, the proposal stands on its merits. Vote on those.
5 Likes
Founded on the principles of trustlessnessā¦ on the dapp clear for everyone to see: āPowered by Bitcoināā¦ and suddenly we need to trust not verifyā¦ the fact that this āleadershipā we are all talking about it so very quiet gives me chills.
Sovryn is failing. The people that care and want to help are being attacked and we are eating each other up from the inside.
Sad. Because this stupidity distracts from the unbeleivable potential of this project and also its connection to BoS.
SAD!
5 Likes
I respect pseudonymity - Iāve said that already. This isnāt about full identity disclosure - itās about basic credibility.
Satoshi Nakamoto built his credibility through consistent presence, the Bitcoin whitepaper, code contributions, and hundreds of forum posts - we donāt need to know his real identity to recognize that track record.
A brand-new account with zero visible presence in Sovryn channels, suddenly proposing key changes opens Sovryn to real, unknown risks including hidden agendas or coordinated plays.
You first offered to reveal Your real name and do a live Q&A āif this moves toward a voteā - now itās ānot disclosingā¦ not ever if I choose not to.ā Thatās a retreat from even conditional reciprocity.
That isnāt principled pseudonymity - itās a one-way exemption for You while enforcing stricter visibility rules on everyone else.
If pseudonymity is absolute and equal, amend the SIP: drop the āknown historyā requirement for ISC. Otherwise, the double standard undercuts the entire ārestore trustā framing.
On-chain data and arguments can stand on their own, sure. But in high-stakes governance proposals some proposer credibility matters for assessing good faith. Refusing that entirely isnāt neutral - itās evasive.
1 Like
can you show good faith and give us the details asked for by regarding identitys of current leadership roles? or is this only applicable for when it suits you?
-guardians
-exchequer
-leadership whos controlling/deciding whats done in Sovryn
and on a sidenote, i think original poster speaks for 90% of Sovryn community with this post. The inability to be transparent has already over the years showed the detriment of Sovryn by both price, technical developments & core ethics this was supposedly built upon
1 Like
For Guardians and Exchequer: check SIP-0041 and SIP-0047. They list the original multisig members and structure, though some have left and updates are overdue.
Leadership: Yago, Armando, FrenchVictory.
Even if the orginal poster speaks for majority of the Sovryn Commnity - it doesnāt make questions about his motives, agenda, or lack of visible history any less valid.
I see a lot of complaints about slow technical development in recent years. What people often forget is the major effort put into new DEX on BOB, Runes Bridge, Money Market (sadly it didnāt go live) and Origins.
and exchequer?
yea all those things failed alike most things this leadership has ever been involved in prior (MYNT, FISH, POWA list goes on)
-now the Rune Bridge is shut down
-BOB totally useless project didnt reward their users spice it was selected by Ai if you got or not & its unclear what has happened to all the rewards SOV team was given. Sovryn on BOB also go hacked.
-Origins totally worthless project no one even wanted, this stuff is token-selling buisness which goes against core essence of Sovryn
1 Like
Youāre right that thereās a tension there, and I want to fix it properly. Rather than just dropping the requirement and leaving a gap, Iād genuinely like your input: what vetting model for ISC members do you think actually fits Sovrynās core values? Stake-weighted vote only? Minimum forum/Discord activity threshold? Something else? Youāve been in this ecosystem long enough to have a view worth hearing, and if weāre going to get this right, the community should shape that criteria, not just me.
On the retreat accusation: I changed my position because the framing was wrong, not because Iām hiding something. Offering a Q&A was an attempt at good faith, but you were right to call out that conditional disclosure on my own timeline is still a form of special treatment. The cleaner answer is to hold everyone to the same standard, and that standard should be: arguments stand or fall on their merits, and the vote decides. I think we actually agree on that.
On Satoshi: thatās a genuinely good point, and I take it seriously. You donāt need a real name to build credibility, but you do need a track record. Fair. What Iād say is that this SIP doesnāt ask anyone to trust me personally. It asks you to check the GitHub commit history, verify the on-chain treasury movements, and vote on whether the arguments hold. The evidence doesnāt change based on who assembled it.
And look, I appreciate that you keep engaging with this seriously rather than just dismissing it. These are exactly the conversations that make a proposal stronger. The real question that matters most right now, though, is whether a guardian veto gets used to block SIP-88 on Friday. If that happens, everything weāre debating here about process and credibility becomes a lot more urgent for everyone.
3 Likes
Iād assume youād know this but deploying the exact same evm contracts onto another evm blockchain is not a major task. I know there were some front end developments that happened for BOB and I acknowledged that there was frequent work on the front end (though I would also point out web development is not usually considered hard or time consuming). But as for the smart contracts, you know there is one PR that was merged since 2024 referring to changes needed for BOB. And it was not large it seemed to essentially just update some minor parts of the governor contracts. Same for the bridging you know those contracts already exist. Itās just deploying a new set of them as well. As for stakers, who all of us are that are discussing this sip, BOB did nothing for increasing our return on SOV. Most stakers that I ask have no idea where the revenue generated from the BOB sovryn platform went.
Origins I bet was actually a lot of work. Unfortunately in my eyes that was desperately needed resources diverted towards helping the sale of another token that essentially does nothing for sovryn. And again no direct revenue returned to stakers.
Itās important to remember that when deploying sovryn elsewhere, if there was a lot of work done on it, we would see the pull requests being merged into the smart contract repository. Besides, we are also the users of sovryn, we would notice when a new service pops up or a major upgrade to a service we use happens. Thereās really been nothing for years Hyde 
.
2 Likes
There has been a lot in these years, a lot of embezzlement.
1 Like