Uh thats what I read through the lines. Good that you spill it out like that and I surely like this proposal! Its very fair to all those who have been with the project for so long through all ups and downs. It would create a strong message and bind all of us to the project even more tightly!
3 Likes
Would a fork not create 200 mil sov? 100mil on BOOS and 100 mil on RSK? Or is the SOV on RSK then eternally locked after the fork?
1 Like
I think with a fork you have two different tokens even if they could be bridged between chains it would be two different tokens altogether.
What I see as extremely difficult with the fork is my experience with forks. There have been two forks Bitcoin main chain creating another token and both where chaotic to say the least total dump age of the new token. Here it might be different that the dumpage might pretty likely happen on the old token.
I do not buy the âoh lets see which token creates valueâ. What I am seeing here is BOSS either works or not -
if it works then RSK SOV is pretty much dead - what utility does the RSK version of Sovryn have then?
If not I am having a hard time seeing any worth in either token over the medium/short run until/if team stomachs the punch in the gut. So RSK version of SOV is also not really a hold investment
that mean the only reasonable thing to do if you have RSK SOV is to dump it as soon as possible which is right after the fork block goes live - take unstaking penalty and try to be the first to dump it on the market to get the highest price possible. A very chaotic event to say the least. It might mean BOSS sov will get a huge boost as most of that money probably goes into increasing ones BOSS stake. But if you not having time on that specific date you out of luck and stuck with a almost worthless RSK token while the ones lucky enough will potentially double their BOSS stake. I personally totally dislike this - I have observed it on Bitcoin Cash. where I was early enough to increase my holding considerable waiting for that fork block to happen and instantly dump it. That was nerve wracking and totally dumb event if you ask me.
I rather like an approach where those are rewarded who have been with the project for long. They get the first and biggest shot. I really like the idea that the only way BOSS SOV is issued is through RSK staking - longer you have been staking with a certain adress the more you get.
3 Likes
Iâm not sure the above is exactly what @yago meant by ânothing in any of the suggestions creates new or more SOV.â My interpretation is that there will only be one canonical SOV registry, on one chain, with 100M SOV on that chain. There could be pegged SOV (like eSOV now), and there could be spin-off leftover SOV like rSOV on Rootstock. But that would not be canonical SOV.
@yago Can you clarify your meaning here?
2 Likes
I think this is a misunderstanding of what happens in an event like this. Before the spinoff, rSOV would represent the total value of what people expect the sum of rSOV and BOSS-SOV to be immediately after. Because all holders of rSOV immediately after the spinoff would become holders of both. However, the price of rSOV before the spinoff says nothing about what people think rSOV will be worth individually afterward. The reality is that at the very moment of the spin-off, the value of rSOV will be some fraction of what it was. It wonât fall continuously from its previous value. It will simply gap down from its previous value representing the sum of the two token values.
Suppose pre-spinoff rSOV is worth $5. You might expect post-spinoff rSOV to be worth $0.10 and BOSS-SOV to be worth $4.90. But after the spinoff you discover that others think rSOV is still worth $0.20 and BOSS-SOV is worth $4.80. There would be no sudden rush to unstake because whatever the price is, it already is what it is. Unstaking and selling wonât help you get a better price because itâs already gapped down to some new market price. And that price might be more or less than you expect.
3 Likes
Yes. Technically.
Psychologically this will be a wild ride printed on charts.
Also, to gap down⌠at least one (or a few) in the know have to bank faster than others.
Itâs like knowing on Friday that Mondayâs open will be down.
It like an arms race in the order books.
In my opinion, this is not what Sovryn should be about.
What prevents having a powpegâish / burn&mint mechanism to move into that new system?
1 Like
Will it be like this you sure? People not gonna sell cause you have to keep your rSOV for the snapshot so what would drive the price down pre fork if no-one is selling? Selling is what drives price down and thats what will happen right after the fork on block one. You very likely even have an increase in price (as all other big forks have shown in the past) pre forking as people want to be in on the fork getting two tokens for one. I mean this is what happened on BCH & BCG - been there done that ^^
1 Like
After reviewing all posts and replies in this thread and the other one about where the canonical SOV ledger should be, I most resonate with the approach and suggested SIP by @yago. As it stands now I would support it. Myself, I am not a programming-technical person. The reasons are:
- From the proposed options it becomes clear that itâs still too early to decide on the technically best and most agreeable transition. Meanwhile in limbo, incentives for staking on Rootstock decrease, despite vital Bitocracy voting decisions ahead. My personal reaction to when things are still unclear is to go risk-free and put decisions on hold. Long-term stakers since 2021 know the project very well and are likely to make informed decisions. Itâs vital to keep and boost their support and engagement for the transition and give them the opportunity to start using and shaping BitcoinOS as soon as itâs online. They would be at a disadvantage if they had only their locked Rootstock stake. So giving them the option to use their SOV staking rewards in BitcoinOS while continuing to provide the Bitocracy and user substance on Rootstock makes a lot of sense to me. Newcomers and liquid SOV and rSOV holders can also come in as soon as the transitioning procedure is clear and BitcoinOS online. So nobody needs to feel left out or behind. A hasty, hazy, first come, first serve transition will harm trust in the project in this important phase, where the right cheerful, optimistic energy of all Sovryns means everything.
- Talks of mirroring the project BitcoinOS vs. Rootstock, having two Bitocracies, or splitting the 100 million token supply in SOV vs. rSOV without a clear and fair transition procedure to me sounds unsettling at this stage. Sovryns can use the time while technicalities are being sorted out to get familiar with the transition ideas - here in the forum, in the Telegram groups and on Twitter.
Therefore, I find the proposed SIP an elegant way forward. Itâll keep possible rancor to a minimum (comes with every big change like that) because it gives all Sovrynâs ways and time to benefit from the crazy pioneering journey thatâs ahead of us.
7 Likes
thank you for putting this in so eloquent wording. I fully agree with your assessment.
2 Likes
I generally agree that the 9% max SOV rewards will facilitate decentralisation and participation of Bitocracy.
We definitely should figure out general migration plan for SOV soon.
The objective is to transition the canonical ledger of SOV from Rootstock to a new chain within the BitcoinOS framework. This implies that the community will recognize the ownership data of SOV on the new chain as the definitive source of truth in case of any disputes.
Migration Plan Options (non exclusive list)
- forking the Rootstock chain
- Replicating the ownership data SOV into the new chain
- implementing a unidirectional bridge from Rootstock to the new chain
Given that we are going to expand the dApp to other bitcoin related chains and BitcoinOS, there are questions on how we are going to enforce governance decision across multiple chains. It is technically possible. Aragonâs solution for executing governance decisions across multiple chains from a single DAO is currently limited to EVM-compatible chains.
7 Likes
The SIP-0077: Enhancement of Staking Rewards and Governance Mechanisms in Anticipation of BitcoinOS
Implementation: PR
I am absolutely not happy. The whole discussion of this SIP revolves around that we need a more clear picture of the migration plan BEFORE we do the 9% staking rewards. Pushing this through with not even one minute of discussion in the community call is not very confidence building. Please put this SIP off and discuss with us what team is really thinking about the whole migration. This has not been made clear. I even think this warrants a whole own call where team explains their deeper thoughts of how we will move forward.
How is migration going to happen? Are we moving the canonical register over and all coins as well - how then can just the rewards be liquid. What about staking on other chain (BOB?) how are we ensuring that RSK rewards are ALWAYS higher then staking on a very successful other chain? 9% might not cut it seeing the liquidity on a chain attached ETH f.e. This is all very much in the blue ATM. We really need to know more details of it all even tentative plans (labeled as tentative) would be more then the information black hole we are in. I really hoped sovryn team would open up more and shed more light on their internal strategies now that bitocracy has taken over but we are still blindly led down a dark alley promised a ray of light but there might just be a pit full of shit at the end. BOB was already not really what I wanted to hear. but I can live with that if that brings us liquidity (that decision also should have been a SIP btw) . Not having/sharing a migration plan for a product less then quarter of a year out isâŚ
3 Likes
As previously mentioned, this contract specifically caters to rewarding voluntary Stakers with an ad-hoc âcouponâ osSOV. Itâs essential to note that this token remains non-transferable until a decision is made regarding its processing. Consequently, itâs crucial to understand that this SIP is not directly related to migration but rather focuses on the discussion of a separate subject matter.
2 Likes
Im not against the subsidy, but I do think migration is relevant, as the subsidy itself is incentivizing locking tokens in staking contract.
Incentivizing token lockup, without a clear pathway to claiming, or how those locked tokens will migrate, or if they will migrate, seems important to discuss.
Maybe Iâm wrongâŚ
âTrust the planâ
3 Likes
Im not disagreeing with this but do you really find it palatable? If the value is wiped off our stakes / liquid rSOV tokens by a âgap downâ, will this occur before canonical SOV tokens are made liquid? Or will rSOV holders be once again left waiting with nothing but vaporware value until a successful - barring no complications - launch of a totally new protocol? Seems like a gigantic leap backwards in the risk reward dynamics of being a holder, which are already long skewed in what should be our favour
Also im not sure what my calculations are missing because if you wipe 98% of the value from my rSOV, put that value instead into a new token but then only give me 9% of my original stash in that new token, im definitely not doing too well
1 Like
As I said before, Iâm generally in favour of the staking rewards in light of the transition. But I will say that me too, I would appreciate more details about the planned rewards before voting. Am unsure about in which way to stake more at this point.
P.S. Where does this POWA come from? It looks like itâs addressing this issue, too, isnât it?!
Do you know when approximately they plan to launch Bitcoin os? They have been working on that already 3 years.
I think we all get what this SIP is doing its the implication this will have in the future for us stakers that are unclear. Is it all we get? or are our stakes transferred later? If so how so? Like pretty much every post here asks these questions so its seems to be important for this debate about this SIP to at least discuss tentatively so we have some kind of idea what the future holds.
To clarify my position on creating more than 100m SOV or multiple types of SOV for different chains: NO.
I am opposed to increasing the max SOV supply.
I am opposed to breaking SOV into lots of little SOVs.
SOV should remain a single unified token. This is the reason for a reissuance and reregistration of SOV to BitcoinOS.
The question of what happens to rSOVis a complicated one in this scenario. The token cannot be eliminated. It will always exist. But it will cease to be SOV.
There are several ways we can reunify SOV. Some examples:
- We could abandon rSOV
- We could look for a mechanism to burn rSOV for SOV
- We could upgrade Rootstock to BitcoinOS and merge the tokens
Its too soon to say what path will make the most sense several months into the future.
Thatâs why my proposal does not issue more rSOV but issues canonical BitcoinOS SOV instead.
5 Likes
Some thoughts
So basically we are talking about voting on something that we have no idea what the implications are going to be for rSOV nor a way we can actually solve this problem. How anyone can vote on this?? You are also telling us that rSOV will cease to be SOV.
You suggest three solutions. Abandon rSOV, burn rSOV to SOV and upgrade Rootstock to BitcoinOS. I am in favor for a solution that will benefit EVERYONE in the ecosystem. Abandoning rSOV is NOT option. Upgrading Rootstock might take MUCH MORE time than actually one expects (year(s)).
To me the only logical solution from the ideas you shared is the BURN mechanism for EVERYONE who has rSOV then reissue canonical SOV. There is nothing wrong with that, itâs fair and simple.
Also, should we open a different thread then to see how we deal with the transition as this is a vital topic not only for this SIP but for the whole SOV ecosystem.
3 Likes