There seems to be a lot of confusion about rSOV on Rootstock and SOV on BitcoinOS and so-called transferring.
As I see it, there is only one sensible way to transition canonical SOV to BitcoinOS. At the same time, it’s the simplest, most obvious, and fairest way to do it.
The Plan
-
Set a specific timet for the transition.
-
When the transition time arrives, the ownership of all SOV on Rootstock—including liquid, staked, and vesting SOV—is recorded.
-
Using that record, the exact same allocation is made on BitcoinOS to the same addresses there—liquid, staked, and vesting. That’s it.
-
The rSOV held on Rootstock at that point remains exactly as it was, with all the original ownership and abilities it had continuing as before on Rootstock.
Implications
This essentially creates a spin-off protocol. A Bitocracy will remain on Rootstock that will continue to govern and claim rewards on Rootstock. But now there will be a copy of that Bitocracy on BitcoinOS. Anyone holding SOV in Rootstock at the time of the spin-off now has a share of two protocols—Rootstock Sovryn and BitcoinOS Sovryn—and anyone staking SOV now has voting power in both. Over time the two Bitocracies will diverge as people buy, sell, stake, and unstake.
If either SOV or rSOV moons or dumps due to this transition, it doesn’t matter because SOV holders/stakers/vesters are holding/staking/vesting both. This is similar to the bitcoin fork to BSV. BSV turned out not to be worth much, but everyone holding bitcoin at the time was holding both bitcoin and BSV after the fork. So the total value didn’t decrease.
Because it grants SOV in the exact same state it was in on Rootstock, it retains all the same economic entailments as it had before. Doing anything else seems unfair. For example, granting liquid SOV to users who had vesting SOV would suddenly unlock SOV that was earned under the condition of being locked for a period. That would be an advantage to the user receiving unlocked SOV but a disadvantage to all other SOV holders.
There is no need for a bridge or a transfer. In fact, bridged SOV would make no sense because that would make the underlying “real” token remain on Rootstock.
Non-Transferability
Yago proposed that rSOV rewards be non-transferable. He’s not talking about not being able to bridge to BitcoinOS here. He’s talking about not being able to sell or transfer the funds out of the rewards contract.
That is, he wants to ensure that rewards are actually rewarded to the stakers who earned them and are used to grant liquid SOV in the same amount on BitcoinOS to those stakers. So earned rewards will be locked in a rewards contract. They can’t be dumped either. When the time comes to issue SOV as I outlined above, at that time rewards rSOV on Rootstock would be issued as liquid SOV on BitcoinOS to the same addresses. (I assume these rewards rSOV would also become liquid at the same time on Rootstock.)