Makes sense. I think it’s the best (fairest, with most certainty) idea I’ve heard.
You know we can burn 50% of the rSOV supply and do what onedigit suggests we will still meet the 100million SOV in total. In my eyes what we are trying to create here is a loophole. I do get that there are technical difficulties but there must always be 100million SOV in TOTAL whether those SOV are in eth, rootstock, mars. The fact that the implications of that plan is unknown makes it even harder for me to accept it.
This is the framework, 100million SOV in the world. Not one less, not one more or 100,000,000 more. And there are ways to obey this written in stone rule. I suggested one, burn 50%, I am pretty sure there could be more.
Thank you for writing this. I could see this as a possible way. Market likes forks and I could see token price appreciation here. I don’t see dilution issues. The only thing I could see is a massive quick unstaking happen on RSK as everyone rushes to sell their soon to be worthless rSOV so the can increase there BossSOV stake. This probably going to happen in some severity. (I for one sold these worthless BitcoinCash things as soon as I could ,)
Thanks for your thoughts.
I don’t anticipate a big unstaking or dumping move after the spin-off. Just before the spin-off occurs, the value of rSOV will be worth the sum of the anticipated value of rSOV-X and SOV-X (X means after the spin-off). Once the spin-off occurs, people will not suddenly lose value. They will have the value of both assets. So it’s no problem if rSOV-X is regarded as worth 10% of what it was before the spin-off. SOV-X will be worth the other 90%. There really won’t be a reason to suddenly dump it because it will instantaneously represent a fraction of the previous value, not a re-valuation of what was happening before. It might get volatile as people do price discovery to figure out what that fraction is, but there’s no reason to think it’s a dump.
Even if it’s a dump, that probably means most of the market value has gone to SOV-X. So not a big deal.
In the @one_digit proposal, we would treat the launch of BOSS as a forking event, creating a duplicated, mirrored registry of bSOV. I have concerns:
- This splits the project where I would prefer we maintain a unified project and community. I see SOV as a primary unifying force - a community token.
It may be the case that we end up having to fork and indeed creating two sets of tokens. However, it is too early to determine if this will be required.
My proposal seeks to provide us with a way to begin preparing for BOSS without pre-determining what the mechanism will be. To achieve this I propose maintaining and strengthening Bitocracy, in the lead up to the event. We want a strong, inclusive and diverse set of stakeholders making the decision. In the interim, we reward SOV stakers for their committed stake.
- This rewards SOV liquid holders at the relative expense of Stakers. SOV liquid holders maintain their liquidity throughout, maintain the optionality of selling the fork event and end up in the same or better position as stakers.
Turning to the @Martin_Adriaan proposal:
- One of it’s pillars is the creation of an early unstaking. An early unstaking would be a potential death-knell for Rootstock Bitocracy at the time of transition. It seems to me that Martin is suggesting this, to remove the perceived cost of staking. I don’t think we should remove the cost of staking, it plays an important role. Instead we reward staking to make it worth the cost.
- The second part of the proposal is a burn+mint mechanism. I dislike this mechanism for the same reasons I mentioned in my response to the OneDigit proposal - it rewards liquid SOV relative to staked SOV.
One of my primary motivations is to provide an absolutely clear advantage to stakers - as opposed to liquid SOV holders - as we get closer to the transition. There are two main scenarios I see:
Scenario 1 - the reissuance creates a forked token (i.e rSOV and BOSS-SOV). in this case I want to make sure that Stakers are the primary beneficiaries. I would support going so far as to say that ONLY stakers should recive BOSS-SOV. And stakers who have been staking for months before the event should be advantaged over new stakers. The SOV rewards I propose help facilitate that. Stake now and you will have a more significant proportion of SOV.
Scenario 2 - The transition is possible while maintaining a unified SOV token across the various chains. Here my proposal again provides an advantage to stakers, who in the intervening months have manahed to accrue additional SOV and recive the first wave of SOV on BOSS.
All this follows the basic principle that SOV stakers are the stakeholders and should see the rewards as primary (but not sole) beneficiaries of the value created and captured by Sovryn.
Can you say more about scenario 2. If there is a unified SOV across various chains, yet the SOV of stakers is locked on Rootstock, and there is no early unstaking without penalty, how could stakers receive the first wave of SOV on BOSS?
I mean if there is a way to restrict access to a burn+mint bridge to stakers (at least for a considerable period), then sure, that would have my preference too. I have just never seen anything like that.
That would be like driving blindfolded. Based on sheer trust. Hard to sell.
I don’t see a disadvantage if the status quo from rSOV is mirrored to SOV (BOSS-SOV).
Who has a crystal ball to see what happens? If rSOV fails and tanks after introducing BitcoinOS and with it SOV (BOSS-SOV) the staker would not be too concerned since his portion of SOV (BOSS-SOV) is the same and therefore he will be rewarded with the same ratio like on Rootstock.
But if you stake faithfully on Rootstock with penalty and all and suddenly the action shifts to BitcoinOS and SOV (BOSS-SOV) then it’s a disaster and you rott with your rSOV.
Don’t know the technicalities but if I understood @one_digit digit correctly it sounds like a logic and smooth way to go.
And there is no dilution. The staker with 10k rSOV now has still the same PLUS 10k SOV (BOSS-SOV) so in the grand scheme of things it all stays the same (at first).
What am I missing? What do you think?
Thanks for your feedback on this. Good discussion.
I think there are two separate issues here:
How to allocate BOSS-SOV
How to transition Bitocracy
@Martin_Adriaan addressed both issues in our proposals, but we need to acknowledge that these can be mixed and matched a bit.
I’m unclear how Bitocracy on one chain can enforce governance on other chains. I think this may be the same question @Martin_Adriaan is asking. It seems like you have to choose between:
spinning off and having two bitocracies
winding one bitocracy down while spinning up the other one
I do understand that we don’t have to have all the details nailed down. But we shouldn’t pretend that there aren’t hard choices lurking around the next corner, and a lot of Sovryns want answers (at least tentative ones or options) before we charge blindly in that direction.
I’m assuming that this isn’t possible. I think that multiplying centers of governance will be unavoidable and perfectly ok to do, the question for me is how best to do this.
Yes. I think option 1 here is really preferable. Going multichain doesn’t make much sense (doesn’t add value) if we constantly wind down what is left behind. I was thinking that the real choice comes when we decide how to have two bitcocracies:
- 1a. having multiple bitocracies, each based on staking the same SOV token.
- 1b. having multiple bitocracies, each based on staking a different SOV token.
1a). I’m a proponent of 1a, and it seems to me the best way to get 1a is through a burn+mint mechanism. Any new deployment creates new demand for SOV = added value for any SOV holder. I don’t think that lowering the early-unstaking-penalty is "the death knell’ for the bitocracy on rootstock, as Yago remarks (I haven’t seen an argument for it). Additional SOV rewards to stakers as per Yago’s proposal is fine too.
1b ). You’d get one bitocracy based on staking rSOV, one based on staking BOSS-SOV, one based on Chain-X-SOV, and so on. This would be the result of going via a snapshot and issuance (whether duplicating all SOV as per One-Digit’s proposal, or duplicating only staker-possessed SOV to stakers, as per Yago’s proposal). I think there is a real risk that only one SOV will become seen as the “real SOV”, just as with other forked assets, meaning that this effectively ends up winding down older bitocracies.
I very much agree. Especially to 1a)
Also i wonder if its technically possible/feasible to
waive early unstaking penality only under the new condition, IF the unstaked amount is staked on the new chain.
I’m thinking of a mechanism a bit similar to how reward contracts function, when a withdrawal/claim call is made.
The early unstaked SOV doesn’t go into user wallet, but into new staking contract.
Eg a button “unstake rSOV and stake to new chain”
Also the “regular” early unstaking contract and functionality can stay as is.
I find it difficult to participate or suggest ways forward when it comes to technical aspects. I read everyone carefully and learn, because everything is new to me.
Common sense tells me a few things which is the only thing I can share, in case it helps anyone to suggest something new for discussion.
Sovryn’s defense comes first, as a way and end. For me, SOV price should not be the focus for decision making. Therefore, I don’t consider it necessary to burn tokens. Likewise, I would not understand if there were more than a hundred million tokens.
I would like to imagine a single Bitocracy for all sov stakers in a common place for everyone in different spaces. Something like a United Nations of Sovryn, where people come to vote from everywhere, wherever they are.
There is an underlying idea that there will be first class Sov, second class Sov…Maybe we can ask ourselves if it is possible to have a single class sov, wherever it is, and everyone chooses where to give power to their sov to have more or less bitocratic and reward rights.
It would be good to create a question and answer area on the wiki regarding all the doubts raised these weeks. Surely some cannot be answered yet, but many others can.
Coming from a non technical Sovryn user I always ask myself what happens next with such a step. With @one_digit 's proposal your stake will remain as rSOV while mirrored with the exact same portion on the new chain as BOSS SOV. Sounds fair game to me. Giving the Sovryn user a “free decision” to stay either on Rootstock with rSoV or send half of it to the new chain and stake there as BOSS SOV might sound tempting but it is a lose - lose situation and a gamble. No one knows what happens and which side might create more revenue for stakers and one side migth implode while the other moons or none at all happens. Still it means a whole lot of uncertainty which favors the ones with the most money in their pockets (like everywhere). The “worry free” solution is you get what you have on both sides and take it from there.
There is a lot of things I still cannot grasp. Will there be bridges from Rootstock to BitcoinOS to whatever else chain there is involved? Will that mean that each involved chain could be depleted as in drained cause the respective SOV supply migrates where the most action is? If Rootstock doesn’t offer enough then people bridge their rSOV to BitcoinOS and get BOSS SOV (like fast BTC - rBTC)?
@one_digit suggested 100mil on Rootstock and 100mil on BitcoinOS with the exact same portion for everyone. If those tokens could be bridged does that mean supply can go up and down on each side and creates a whole new game of possible pump and dump action? Just thinking out loud here from an average Joe’s user perspective.
Looking forward to your help and discussion to improve an understanding for everyone.
My first reaction was: no that’s not possible, because one chain cannot set conditions on what happens on another chain (these chains don’t speak to each other as it were). Perhaps one avenue would be liquid staking: give stakers a liquid staking token that can be moved to the other chain and there only redeemed for staked SOV.
That is very tricky to build, because what happens within the one central place would need to be able to have effects within other chains. afaik that’s not possible.
Personally, I would not mind a different model, within multiple bitocracies strengthening each other (due to all driving demand for the same SOV, this is not about price but about value and security) but also acting independent from each other, an archipelago bound by social consensus around (bitcoin-based) values. That’s why I think a Sovryn Statement becomes relevant again when considering multichain.
I think this highlights how separate the tokens will be. If the 100m rSOV gets duplicated and 100m BOSS-SOV is created through reissuance; then it’s going to be a fully separate token. If some bridge to Rootstock would ever be created, the rBOSS-SOV would not interact with Sovryn Protocol on Rootstock. I wonder whether people fully see that Yago and One-Digit’s proposal really involve the creation of an entirely new token. After the creation of the new token, any growth of Sovryn on BitcoinOS would not do anything for Sovryn on Rootstock (in particular, not drive demand; as each place creates demands for its own token). If we were to use a burn+mint mechanism and really stick with one token, each new deployment of Sovryn drives up the value of the staked SOV across all bitocracies.
That’s a reason why I’d like to see 100m cap respected.
If it’s burn & mint, fine.
If there are other ways/solutions, fine too.
Just to add a note here, the solution must be favourable for all the Sovryn participants, stakers, liquid holders, LM etc and reward the stakers more. Should not reward JUST the stakers and exclude everyone else. Yes stakers are CORE part of bitocracy, they will decide about the future of SOV and they should think not only about their own benefit, but the benefit of Sovryn as a whole.
There are people who bought SOV at high prices, there are people who had their coins staked for 3 years and just got their coins back and want to profit from bull run- you cannot tell to those people to go and stake just because this will be the only way they will benefit from BitcoinOS and they do not agree with your ideas. Whether one likes it or not, those people are part of SOV ecosystem, they invested in SOV, excluding a group of people because of their position status shouldn’t even be a discussion for the ethics Sovryn wants to represent.
I am with you to reward stakers. Yes they must be rewarded MORE. Because of the financial risk a decision to be a staker has. Bridge + give them double APR or something, you name it.
BUT, at the same time will need to respect the 100,000,000 TOTAL SOV circulation, and inclusivity of every person who is part of Sovryn and treat them the same, no matter if they hold 1 or 10,000 SOV, staked or not staked. Every person who is part of rootstock SOV, Eth SOV etc, must be able to access BitcoinOS. Each person who invested in Sovryn should not be forced to take any decision out of fear or pressure. And again, I am all in to reward stakers more, and there are ideas to do it, but the idea should be to make people willingly to stake because they will get X reward, not force them to stake because it is the only way to join a private club.
Would it be 2-way though burn & mint though?
I can imagine Bitocracy might decide to move (staking and voting) to BitcoinOS in the future. In the meantime people could move their SOV between chains and choose where to participate.
Most likely new features will be built only on BitcoinOS and not ported back to RSK Sovryn?
I believe it should move freely while respecting cap. So 2way.
Although it’s very probable that over time most will float in one direction only (new chain)
We cant keep the total amount of SOV on all chains at 100m?
why do we call every SOV on an other chain differently?
Look at Chainlink (LINK) for example. its called on every chain LINK, not eLINK, bLINK, etc, etc
It makes it overcomplicated to call every SOV on an other chain differently, like its a completely different project.
personally i really dislike eSOV already, 2 different names for 1 token is simply inefficient.
i would suggest atleast to keep the ticker ‘SOV’ for all chains, and if possible, change the name eSOV to SOV as well.
lets not overcomplicate things.
rSOV, eSOV, SOV, etc… it’s overcomplicated, confusing and unneeded
There seems to be a lot of debate about the 100m SOV cap.
Just to clarify, nothing in any of the suggestions creates new or more SOV.
Thank you for clarifying Yago that there will never be more than 100million SOV in total (eth,rootstock,BitcoinOS combined)
Can you please be more specific how someone who has liquid SOV of any chain can use them on BitcoinOS? What is your take on this for those who just prefer to keep their SOV in their wallet?
I don’t think any voting should go ahead until we have a full detailed plan on how the whole process will look like for all the different stakeholders (stakers, LM, holders) of SOV. Voting blindfolded and leave everything on trust will not work as there are many people who heavily invested in SOV and want to see a clear, structured plan. It is good that we have this discussion here so we can understand better the views of the team and team to understand better how community thinks on this matter.