The proposal is tailor made to take into account that there is an open ended set of outcomes.
It allows us to provide rewards without committing to a set path. That’s the point. That’s why the rewards are - for a period - non-transferable.
2 Likes
Absolutely true. And yet I think it is the best of our options. Risk/trust incurred by going multichain, and worth it, I think.
At this point, I don’t see the advantage of a burn. We already have bridging, that serves our purpose well enough for now. As for what happens after the reissuance - a burn would be the worst of the options. I’m not sure i see scenario where a burn has advantages over bridging or a clean reissuance.
Can you please give us some more light on the issuance of canonical SOV because from my understanding you are talking about a new token. Personally I have many questions about this one. Does it mean:
-
Will there be any sales/presales of canonical SOV? In my opinion, there shouldnt be any at all. We finished with this part 3-4 years ago.
-
How the 100million canonical SOV are going to be allocated to stakeholders? Any chart pie? Is this going to be a mirror image of how the allocation on Rootstock is right now?
-
IF the allocation of canonical SOV is already decided, WHO decides(d?) for the allocation? This is a matter of bitocracy - am I wrong here?
-
You are speaking about rSOV mainly - does that mean those who have eSOV will be able to bridge their coins when BitcoinOS is live? So an investor who considers financial risk and ease of mind can just go and buy eSOV from Uniswap (which means dex will lose money as the investor is not using the platform) then wait when the time comes to turn eSOV into canonical SOV?
-
You are speaking about another Bitocracy user base on BitcoinOS - so basically the existing one on Rootstock will be meaningless in the future - yet the same bitocracy on rootstock will vote about the transfer etc. Forgive me maybe I am very naïve or clueless or any other word that I cant find right now, but why we should not find a way to transfer EVERYONE along with their financial assets to the new BitcoinOS and give them the same bitocracy VP and make them stake their new BitcoinOS again. Why we cannot work on finding a way to have exactly the same bitocracy user base, exactly the same LP, exactly the same holder base. I dont understand. You said yourself Rootstock SOV will ceased to be SOV. Anyone else finds this too complicated or is it just me?
This is why the burn has advantage. The burn is FAIR and SIMPLE. For the whole SOV ecosystem without having a SINGLE PERSON missing out. 1rSOV for 1 canonical SOV. Those who staked can have the option to remain staked in the BitcoinOS for extra rewards or just unstake on Rootstock and Burn to transfer liquid SOV to canonical SOV. I would be interested to see a poll on this one, I believe there are many supporters of a burn solution.
2 Likes
I assume there couldn’t be a presale, as Yago has said he doesn’t want to raise the SOV supply.
That is the problem - we ‘‘assume’’. Personally I would prefer all details to be clear so we sit down as a community and decide together what is the best course of action.
3 Likes
I am also in favour of a simple burn or a complete mirror/clone of Rootstock.
let me give the advantages once more, then, this time as a decision tree:
-
bridge versus re-issuance:
(1) a reissuance means a connection between SOV on new place and SOV on old place that is not flexible, hence not susceptible to the market, and so doesn’t move with the market. Any demand for re-issued SOV =/= demand for SOV at other places, such as rootstock. This feeds talk of fracturing and abandoning Sovryn on Rootstock.
(2) it’s not a general purpose solution, it might work for the move to BitcoinOS, but not for going multichain (assuming max supply is kept constant).
(3) the reissuance raises the question “reissue which SOV?”, if you don’t want to increase the max supply, you’re bound to reissuing only that which can be made forever non-transferable, so basically only the special SOV rewards given to stakers. This has many disadvantages. One example: having to lock up SOV to get the reward SOV will detract many newcomers, and hence stifle the growth that BitcoinOS might mean for Sovryn. -
burn+mint bridge versus collateral bridges:
(1) the argument is not one about security or trust, I agree that all bridge mechanisms are roughly on a par (but only roughly bc with collateral+mint, you need to trust both the collateral holding mechanism and mint mechanism, whereas with a burn+mint you only need to trust the mint mechanism, it’s trust minimized).
(2) the argument is one about psychology. Whenever there is a collateralized bridge, the collateral is typically seen as the ‘real thing’. Example: SOV on rootstock is seen as the real thing, eSOV is seen as something representing SOV. when SOV gets destroyed on one place and created on a new place, the SOV at the new place will be seen as SOV. this social consensus and perception is absolutely crucial and not something to underestimate or fade.
burn+mint bridge is the only option that is flexible and general purpose, that creates market sensitivity across platforms (demand for SOV at one place is indirectly demand for SOV at all places, this is crucial glue for the communities across chains), and that enables the social consensus that there is one SOV across chains. it is, like I said, the best of our options, despite the risk incurred by having a bridge.
4 Likes
Earlier I proposed a migration window in which the penalty for early unstaking is set to 0.
So, nothing happens to the stakes of people or their vp if they do nothing, it only means that early unstaking is not penalized during this window. There are many chains where staking doesn’t involve a lock up, Sovryn would be similar during the brief migration window.
There would be an interesting market dynamic: the more people unstake at Rootstock, the higher the APRs will rise on the tried-and-tested revenue generating Rootstock, creating quickly more incentive to stay. I’m confident this would leave a healthy bitocracy over at Rootstock.
Note also, one of the main motivation in yago’s proposal is ppl not staking because of fear of missing out on the new thing, creating a weaker bitocracy. This addresses this motivation. In fact, people are incentivized to max stake until BitcoinOS comes, knowing that they will be able to unstake for free, Bitocracy will be max-strnegthened up to the moment of the migration.
2 Likes
However, your SOV on Rootstock can be transferred to BitcoinOS, eSOV or any other chain after your staking is done, right?
Those SOV will be free if you do not keep extending. so in 2027 you will have 10k SOV on RSK, than can bridged, minted, burned, whatever they come up with to BOS, BoB, eSOV or something. Or simply keep on Rootstock if it still exists.
and you will end up with 2.7k SOV on BOS, liquid.
So anyway, when your max stake expires, you have 12.7k SOV on 2 different chains
2 Likes
The burn you are proposing would create two different tokens. SOV can be burned on one chain, and then issued on another, but there is no way back - that creates two non-fungible tokens.
If you allow a path back, you are just bridging, not burning.
Creating a migration window is a terrible idea in my view for two reasons:
-
We would need to make huge, risky changes to Bitocracy, changing the very code of governance, for an ad-hoc, one off action. I can see no way to justify such a risk, expensive process that would take months in the best case scenario.
-
It doesn’t even fix the “problem”. Users won’t want a one-off migration. They will want to constantly arb between platforms. And this will create intense staking uncertainty.
The fact of the matter is we are on Rootstock only right now. This is not ideal but it made complete sense when Sovryn was launched. That bakes in a status quo that will be uncomfortable to change. I am very much against trying to fiddle at the margins to make the transition feel smoother. That will set us on a path of massive tech investment and endless delays and will only exacerbate uncertainty.
We should pull the plaster off in one go. Let Sovryn expand at max rate. Reward SOV stakers, increase SOV value.
Keep it simple.
1 Like
I don’t see this argument. A one-way bridge is a bridge, and burning one one chain and minting on another is the sort of thing that is the most deserving of being conceptualized as ‘SOV moving across chains’. If this is the creation of a new token, I don’t see how a reissuance of small fraction of SOV and a declaration that this ‘the canonical SOV’ will not similarly create a new token and abandon the old.
I agree, a two-way bridge would not involve genuine burning, don’t think we should have that. People can go back and arb via bitcoin (SOV on BitcoinOS->BTC, BTC-rBTC, rBTC-> SOV on rootstock).
Sorry this is just rhetoric. You’d need to set a certain value within the code (cost of early unstaking), let’s not exagerate.
And it would not be one-off/ad-hoc, it would be useful for any migration to any new platform, we don’t know what L2s will develop, which will be successful. etc. A simple reissuance is not flexible enough.
It does fix many of the problems. Any SOV holder, staker or non-staker would have a choice of what to do with their SOV. They will be given a choice, and after the migration window closes, will be responsible for whatever choice they made. There is no remaining problem concerning what people will want beyond that.
3 Likes
Reducing the cost of early unstaking is a fundamental and in to my mind, breaking change to the entire Bitcoracy model. Bitocracy doesn’t work without the unlock penalty.
Martin, you are making two radical proposals - seemingly without realizing it:
- Turn SOV into two different, non-fungible SOV tokens.
- Completely changing the economics of Bitocracy, making long term staking less costly, and therefore incentivizing unstaking.
1 Like
What about moving the stake without unstaking. TOM F suggested “withdrawal address can be be new staking address instead of wallet”. Would that be plausible?
2 Likes
This would require a major reengineering of Bitocracy. It was actually designed to defeat this as such a system can also lead to rehypothacation. Bitocracy is the only system designed to defeat rehypothacation that I am aware of.
Do you want to have multiple bitocracys?
Or do you think we should strive for having it under one roof?
Edit:
I’m not sure, but I think eg the eSOV amm is powered by (rsk-)Sovryn as well. It is initiated and governed by rsk stakers on a different chain.
The very same way functionalities on BOB can be handled imo.
Bitocracy decides to:
Port over functions and initiate & maintain eg amm, Zero, lending pools.
This way not one single staker has to move, worry or is left behind. Until we move governance to its final destination.
3 Likes
Completely agree. Also, the notion that temporarily suspending unstaking
penalties to allow stakeholders to move to Bitocracies final destination somehow breaks Bitocracy, but copy and pasting it onto a new chain so it can operate independently somehow does not. It makes no sense.
1 Like
Yes, we should not break the bitocracy on RSK and move the stakers to BitcoinOS and have the final bitocracy usebase there, despite being told in this post that SOV on RSK will cease to be SOV. Makes sense.
Why anyone who invested his money into staking SHOULD GIVE A DAMN if bitocracy on RSK breaks? We MUST move all stakers to BitcoinOS along with everyone else and have the bitocracy on BitcoinOS.
You hit the nail on the head.
Hi @yago , I have a bit of a different question regarding this SIP and the coming Migration.
I am a LP in the SOV/RBTC pool since 2021 and feel like this sip speaks to me as I do feel the uncertainty towards the upcoming event in regards to my position and of ending up in the right play so to say - I want to ensure my journey continues with Sovryn and not end up in the wrong place.
(I’ll admit that my technical understanding of this topic is limited and leave my trust with you guys - my apologies for any stupid questions or lack of clarity in them as a result)
Two questions to try to understand the practical implications:
-
I understand that the how of Sovryns next steps are still discussed but with the different options on the table, how is a LP position effected during migration? Is it left behind or “re-created” in BitcoinOS? (Would there be a added “safety” to staking over staying in LP in regards to the migration process?)
-
If I move my position to the max staking to ensure they still earn SOV; then as BitcoinOS launch and the new Sovryn with it I won’t be able to go back to LP on BOS until stake is over - or what are the implications here?
In short I guess I’m wondering how to navigate this the best way to continue my plan to stay with Sovryn long term.
I’m a practical example of the uncertainty you’re speaking of and the effort to align and create certainty is definitely appreciated.
4 Likes