SIP-XXXX: $BOS token distribution

Bitocracy
1

Hello Sovryns,

over the past few days, there have been lively discussions about how the 10% $BOS token allocation (See SIP-0083) to Sovryn should be split. A poll was conducted in the Sovryn trading Dojo telegram channel, the place of choice for many long-term SOV stakers for uncensored expression of opinion. I would like to share these results here and use them as the basis for this SIP. Multiple answers were possible in this survey.

"How should we distribute the allocated $BOS tokens within Sovryn?

  1. (59%) Distribute it based on Voting Power
  2. (29%) Sovryn treasury should receive a part of these tokens
  3. (27%) Distribute it based on Voting Power AND unstaked SOV tokens where 1 unstaked SOV token equals 1 VP. (For reference, 1 max staked SOV token = 10 VP)
  4. (18%) Distribute it based on $OSSOV holdings.
  5. (5%) Distribute it based on VP and in addition, Liquidity providers. (similar to AMM rewards)
  6. (5%) None of the above.

I think a simple and understandable solution should be the goal. I would therefore like to provide the following basis for discussion for this SIP:

-SOV stakers to receive the majority of the 10% $BOS token allocation to Sovryn, based on their Voting Power.
-Some $BOS-Tokens shall be reserved for the Sovryn treasury, provided that it can present a strategy on how these tokens can be used.

I would also like to discuss whether some of the $BOS tokens for the treasury should be used to incentivize the Zero stability pool in order to give Zero the chance for the revival it deserves. This should be in line with Onedigit’s proposal to revive zero.

If you support this SIP, please consider delegating Voting power to the following adress:
0x56cd794fc058349b48188113ba70f064c0143587

Best regards,

Sacro

6 Likes
2

If a more clear future is described on how stakers would have an advantage in staking treasury BOS as a group. We could consider long term to be better to have a bigger allocation to treasury than stakers. Because right now many gonna cash out.

3

Thanks, Sacro, for your post and initiatives both in conducting the poll and proposing to put forward a SIP.

First, I’d personally like to say that what we’ve witnessed in the recent vote has been nothing short of remarkable. With over 31% voting rate from hundreds of voters, Sovryn’s Bitocracy has once again proven itself to be the most active DAO in the world. The Bitocarcy is one of Sovryn’s greatest assets and can be at the forefront of any new strategic direction Sovryn might take. The passing of SIP-0083 isn’t just another governance decision or the beginning of our journey with BitcoinOS - but potentially a transformative moment for Sovryn itself.

A Fork in the Road

As discussed in our recent community calls, Sovryn stands at a crossroads. Over our history, we’ve consistently demonstrated an exceptional ability to innovate and see where the market is heading before others. From being the first to build DeFi for Bitcoin, to pioneering rollups and ZK technology on Bitcoin, to now developing BitcoinOS - we’ve shown we can be years ahead of the market.

The question before us now is whether to embrace our strength as an incubator of freedom technology. As @yago outlined in Community Call 66, Sovryn could position itself as a project that gives birth to independent projects which slot into different needs required for self-sovereignty. This would mean evolving from a project that maintains everything under one umbrella to one that creates, develops, and launches independent, successful projects - much as we’re doing with BitcoinOS.

This strategic decision will significantly impact how we move forward with BitcoinOS and the allocation of the $BOS tokens. The immediate tasks ahead are substantial:

  • Developing new frameworks for the $BOS presale - This will require Sovryn to build new frameworks to ensure a smooth and efficient distribution process. The development of these frameworks represents a pivotal moment for both BitcoinOS and our community, as these could be utilized again for other BOS projects.

  • Delivering on the comprehensive commitments outlined in SIP-0083 section 4.2 - developing the $BOS presale frameworks, creating the Bitcoin-native token standard, providing educational resources, marketing, and building out the necessary infrastructure. These commitments are clear and voted on, again with enthusiasm and overwhelming support.

  • Potentially repositioning Sovryn as a freedom technology incubator

Bells of Freedom

Each of these requires significant investment. However, before we can determine exactly how much funding the Exchequer needs or precisely how to allocate the $BOS tokens between treasury and stakers, we must first align on Sovryn’s strategic direction.

I propose we begin with a focused discussion on Sovryn’s future as a freedom technology incubator. Once we’ve reached a consensus on our direction, we can then determine the resources needed for two distinct sets of commitments:

First, our immediate obligations under SIP-0083.

Second, if we decide to embrace the incubator model, we’ll need additional resources to build out entirely new capabilities: frameworks for identifying and launching projects, systems for spinning off successful products as independent entities while maintaining beneficial relationships, and processes for attracting and supporting new talent. This represents a fundamental shift in how we operate and would require significant investment in new infrastructure and expertise.

The allocation of $BOS tokens between treasury and stakers will need to reflect whichever path we choose.

Time is of the essence, and this discussion should be very active and move fast. I’d like us to hold a community meeting next week to discuss the points and arguments that will be raised in this forum so we can propose a SIP in a timely manner.

The decisions we make in the coming weeks will shape not just how we handle the BitcoinOS opportunity, but potentially redefine Sovryn’s role in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

What path do you believe Sovryn should take: continue as an integrated DeFi platform, or evolve into a freedom technology incubator?

5 Likes
4

thank you @frenchvictory for the write up. Thank you @Sacro for taking the lead on the SIP.

I do think a VERY large (90%+) portion of the BOS token needs to go to stakers at this point or you gonna loose ALL of that community in a heart beat. Most of the peeps still staking and having voted are probably in so much pain as their investment has pretty much done a 90%-99% drawdown. If you don´t throw them a meaty bone here there is nothing to salvage.

I think the incubator idea is a very good path forward. I don´t think the BOS token distribution should pay for it. Id rather see us sell off Sovryn on BOB to bob team and use these funds or use the “lost gamble treasury” to fund the launchpad.

I also see Sovryn the DEX is detrimental to Sovryn the incubator as having all the coins that run on BOS Grail and launch on SovrynINC should have the Sovryn DEX (SovrynLayer?) as a home to trade among each other and against BTC & against DLLR. Could be a sub project with its own team - maybe but there should be a hard link between the two - same with ZERO. (Hard link meaning same branding same website)

Sovryn Bitocracy is the big pillar of Sovryn (thanks @light to spearhead this - you are missed) The current stakers are true believers. They don´t sell easy if they believe in a project - that is crucial for the incubator. But dangling this carrot in front of them(us) and not giving it to them(us) is probably the last straw.

Id have prefered the BOS team gives us 10+1% so we have the funds to build the infrastructure to launch their own project and stakers get kinda sorta happy, but for sake of moving onward Id say give treasury 1% out of the 10% so they can use it WISELY (to build or incentivise - not to gamble).

3 Likes
5

I equally share gratitude to Sacro for his initiative. He’s always there when he’s most needed.

I’d like to delve a bit into the history. I’ll try to be objective.

When BOS was first introduced in the Sovryn community calls, no change in Sovryn’s purpose was mentioned; we were still committed to DEFI on Bitcoin, with all the challenges we’re familiar with, but hopeful about developing Sovryn Layer on BOS, which would be our “runway” outside of RSK. In those early presentations of BOS to the community, neither resource allocation nor later compensation was discussed. Neither side asked for anything.

It was on June 18th that Dharkmattr reported the launch of BOS under Sovryn’s incubation. In his SIP proposal, among many things, he outlined the 10% allocation split between Sov holders and Sov stakers and stated that BOS would help Sovryn launch Sovryn Layer. This sparked a strong, prolonged debate in the community regarding the distribution percentage.

Months passed, and something important happened. Just days ago, on November 6th and 7th, Yago proposed reflecting on a change of direction for Sovryn, suggesting a shift from current efforts to becoming a project incubator. This was a debate as feared as it was anticipated, but it was openly received by the community, now in a phase of analysis and definition, as FrenchVictory rightly noted.

Shortly after, SIP 83 arrived. Put up for a vote on Monday, November 11th, it retains the core of Dharkmattr’s proposal, but makes no explicit mention of Sovryn Layer, releasing BOS from this development collaboration. It was approved by the stakers with historic figures.

After this background, I’ll drop the objectivity and share my point of view. I neither want nor expect to convince anyone.

Firstly, I would prefer that 100% of the allocation goes to Sovryn stakers based on their voting power, in full. The reason for leaving nothing in the Treasury is that I believe these things shouldn’t be mixed.

The future of Sovryn should be addressed in a separate SIP. We need to open a new debate to decide what we want Sovryn to do moving forward. There seem to be only two options: either embrace the incubator role or not. I’d love it if it were possible to do both, as then we could find out if Sovryn Layer was more than just a pretty name. But it seems that intermediate paths are not possible either. It must be one thing or the other. SIP 83 has already taken Sovryn Layer out of the equation.

Perhaps Sovryn should accept that becoming an incubator is a fantastic path to embark on from scratch, potentially without the burdens of the past. Perhaps a new name to reflect the new team that would lead it, with new investors. This doesn’t seem like something that could be done in just a few weeks or months hastily.

For this reason, I believe stakers should receive 100% in full, and then each person can decide Sovryn’s direction as they always have, joining or not joining the proposals to come.

5 Likes
6

Thank you for your input. There are discussions with regards to the future of Sovryn that should not be part of this SIP.
Reading through all the buzzwords i think your main message related to this SIP consists of:

-Sovryn treasury needs funding for doing the tasks described by you.
-Sovryn treasury/exchequer will use and sell allocated $BOS tokens in order to fund these tasks.

I am not sure whether selling a brand new token with unknow price/liquidity will be enough to accomplish these things. I think bitocracy deservers a plan that is more clear in order to support such a use of the allocated $BOS tokens.

The $BOS token is advertised to act as an enabler for the 1/n trust assumption when bridging. Sovryn stakers have shown countless times that they have a long term view. Giving the $BOS token allocation to them will have a bigger benefit for the bridge than putting it in Sovryn treasury.

Additionaly it happens to be the case that Sovryn exchequer consists mostly of $BOS team members. There definitely is a conflict of interest if they have to decide selling their own infrastructure token for further development of Sovryn. This may not be in line with bitocracy consensous.

We’re at crossroads here and my view is that long term stakers should get this bone- otherwise there will be a conflict that will be beneficial to none.

However, i’d like to see a small allocation of $BOS tokens to treasury in order to boost Sovryn products via incentives - especially for reviving Zero by giving out $BOS tokens for depositing $DLLR into the stability pool. It doesn’t have to be much - but a new token will work wonders. We cannot abandon our products without giving them a chance at the first bullmarket they are experiencing.

8 Likes
7

i do not think giving the treasury more than 1% is reasonable, also the team wallets has stakes that could gift it to the treasury to further add on, we are being promised so many things with the underlying song of “stay sovryn” but we are not sovereign enough to decide what to do with our money & need to dish it out to salaries.

what has became of things like POWA that we have been paying salaries for a long time?

single dollar to treasury at this point it should be discussed firstly by team in a SIP, treasury need to have very good arguments for their needs of cash & should not be handed it blindly any longer, failing miserably dont deserve more cash being thrown at it.

then the next discussion could be if the individuals interested in the incubator project are interested in putting those funds together to fund it - with possibly a new token creation event for that specifically since SOV token at this point is used for nothing & is inflated away & abandoned by team.

1 Like
8

The strong support for the BOS launch SIP indicates to me that this is a very welcome and supported initiative.
This community has taken upon itself to not only launch the BOS token but also develop core functionality within the BitcoinOS ecosystem. In addition, if Sovryn wants to position itself as THE incubator and launchpad for the growing BitcoinOS ecosystem, it’s first launch needs to be successful. Based on this I think there are some core principles we need to consider when deciding on the allocation of Sovryn’s 10% of BOS tokens:

  1. Long term commitment: the allocation should signal that the community is committed for the long term to the success of BOS, to ensure that we have credibility in the eyes of future projects that will consider launching through Sovryn, and to ensure healthy tokenomics for BitcoinOS.
  2. Sovryn treasury needs to have sufficient resources to ensure a successful BOS launch and that the core functionality it is responsible for building is completed and supported post launch.
  3. SOV stakers should receive a large share of the allocation as they are the core backbone of Bitocracy.
2 Likes
9

why are you withholding the financial reports from 2023 and 2024 , we do not know our current budget and have been kept in the dark for a long time now.

I would say our SOV holders are very comitted on the longterm and giving away all our funds would result in another hostage situation on our future prospects.

8 Likes
10

So, I think I support this SIP Sacro, but it seems a bit ambiguous.

What do you think the percentage should be?

Like:

0.5% to Zero.

1% to Treasury.

8.5% to Stakers (based on VP)

This is just an example, but it would be nice to have something concrete.

1 Like
11

Armando… We can’t possibly speculate on the financial burden without financial reports.

Last time we heard of the financial situation was doing fine with Bitcoin held in treasury, which is up to 90k today.

Also. As stated: in Dark matter’s SIP, BitcoinOS pledged to help us develop Sovryn layer…

And I’ll add, long vesting periods on BOS distribution after we got the piss beat out of us on SOV stakes… Yago has mentioned becoming an incubator for multiple projects. Will we vest tokens from all of those projects?

7 Likes
12

Thanks, fair points and i think they align very well with this SIP’s proposal.

  1. A distribution based on Voting Power will benefit long-term stakers, exactly the kind of individuals that have a proven record of long term commitment.

  2. How exactly is a distribution of $BOS to treasury helping with having sufficient ressources? I imagine the resources have to be there before the token is launched. Does Sovryn have enough resources to pay for the required work upfront?

  3. I will add that a large distribution to stakers can have a major influence on the perception of the $SOV valuation. The first token launch for BOS in particular should be a flagship here.

6 Likes
13

We need the financial statements.
And the addresses where the funds are.

4 Likes
14

Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion. I’d like to address several key points that have emerged:

First, we cannot effectively allocate the $BOS tokens before determining Sovryn’s strategic direction. As discussed in Community Call 66, Sovryn needs to decide whether to embrace its potential as a freedom technology incubator. This decision fundamentally impacts how we should structure our resources.

Regarding funding, Sovryn faces immediate obligations under SIP-0083 that require resources. The $BOS presale will happen before the token launch, meaning we need capital to deliver on our commitments. These include developing the distribution frameworks, creating the Bitcoin-native token standard, and building necessary infrastructure.

While some have suggested selling parts of our DEX to fund this transition, this isn’t a viable path forward. As Yago explained in Community Call 65, AMM DEXes face fundamental challenges in the current landscape - they require deep liquidity to function effectively, and as execution environments multiply, liquidity and user bases become increasingly fragmented. Over six years since the first AMM DEX launched, these core problems remain unsolved.

Moreover, we’re competing against projects that can deploy massive token incentives and maintain special relationships with their chains. As seen on both Rootstock and BOB, chains actively discourage multi-chain deployment, preferring dedicated partnerships. This makes it increasingly difficult to maintain competitive advantages across multiple chains.

Therefore, to successfully pivot toward becoming a freedom technology incubator - a direction that leverages our proven ability to innovate and see market opportunities ahead of others - we need to secure adequate resources. A strategic allocation of $BOS tokens to the treasury represents our best opportunity to fund this transition and maximize our chances of success.

I agree that the decision about Sovryn’s new strategic direction deserves its own dedicated SIP and forum post, which I’ll post separately. However, we must reach a consensus on this fundamental pivot before we can meaningfully address the allocation questions presented here. I invite you to continue this discussion in the upcoming strategic direction thread.

15

Where are ours treasury funds?

4 Likes
16

hearing this makes me want to vomit of the thought of locking up tokens further to create a new narrative.

“freedom incubator” sounds like the joke that it is. “predicting the future” is a game for suckers.

we used up all our team funds supposedly to create a DEX & bitcoin DeFi(we didnt) - and now our treasury reserves are mysteriously gone and unaccounted for as the team have pivoted to a new project.

i say give us our 10% and market it as early $BOS allocation at currently 300m market cap.
Thars a very cheap valuation since this most likley is a multibillion project in a bullrun, and its also why team showed up quickly with lots of reasons of why we cant get our 10% they obviously want these tokens themself.

if that means shutting down SOV then so be it, i believe it will live on regardless but its beyond a meme at this point and used as personal bank of the inner circle team members. if they care for SOV they themselfs can chip in to save it, they have benefited so much out of all this already.

i hope everyone understands that if we give them this money, your going to be jerked around for the remainder of this bullrun, on the contrary if we lock 10% BOS marketcap to SOV we increase our value fundementally & no one controls your path forward (or limits it).

3 Likes
17

Would be nice to figure this out sooner rather than later so we can use the allocation for marketing. Token price is dropping so low, a few Bitcoin could suck up 10% of VP.

This is concerning to me, and I’m surprised nobody else has raised concerns.

It feels like most of us don’t actually know what “Freedom technology Incubator” means.

I can’t figure out if Sovryn Layer is still being created, as BitcoinOS team said they would help us with that, but Sovryn team won’t clarify. A lot of speculation.

It sounds as though we have to be either “Defi” or “incubator”. Why is this the case? Does this also mean “Sovryn Layer” or “Incubator”? Essentially just saying we should mint a new token for Sovryn Layer? What of OSOV?

Obviously it seems your leaning towards “freedom incubator” as you frame it as Sovryn’s “Full potential”. Is this the sentiment amongst team?

What is the maximum amount (%) of BOS allocation you think we would need for Treasury? 10%?

Are any of these questions answerable? It’s mind blowing to me that Sovryn team doesn’t have any Idea of what is expected.

4 Likes
18

As a path forward:

Team needs to show us a DETAILED Budget. What happened to our funds where are we currently, what do we have, what do we need to maintain the DEX etc. Before you post this FUCK OFF with any proposal on siphoning anything else.

If you want to post a “future of sovryn SIP” that NEEDS to have
A DETAILED business proposal - WITH DETAILED financial data included of what is needed to RESURRECT our Origin launch platform that has been launching multiple tokens in the past and seemed to be easy to adjust to new tokens back then. (MYNT) No need to reinvent the wheel until we are better off. Also no need to spend big bucks on big programmers when thesis just a front end - outsource to some cheap Indian company (yes I am not kidding we are short on funds we need to do what all companies do - can´t finance fancy lives of some self proclaimed geniuses)
Until we have that FUCK OFF with any proposal.

We the community had enough of your shehanings-. If the 10% allocation was for the SOV internal team to distribute among themself then you should have said so before the 10% SIP. The SIP clearly states “FOR SOV STAKERS”. So it will be.

6 Likes
19

Thanks for the clear words! As a long-term community member, I fully agree with what you said.

20

It would be nice to get exact distribution numbers, and put this up for a vote. A community meeting was discussed, but never scheduled.

Since its “Stakers decision” team should be more direct about what they expect, as us stakers are. It seems this SIP had immediate steam, then team stopped it.

Maybe we should have the discussion, or put this thing up for a vote. But without exact numbers, the SIP isnt meaningful as we would need another SIP to clarify.

2 Likes