we were told we was going to get these economic reports this week & a community call.
whats up with that?
Hello Sovryns,
after much discussion I would like to specify the proposal in more detail.
-At the $BOS token creation event, 10% of the total $BOS tokens will be allocated to Sovryn, as agreed in SIP-0083.
-Sovryn stakers will receive these $BOS tokens. The distribution will be based on the respective share of voting power. In the same way as other protocol revenue is distributed.
-The voting power on RSK and BOB is combined for this purpose. All stakers, whether on RSK or BOB, should receive their fair share.
-Depending on the chain on which the tokens are created, these tokens should also be distributed there. If this means that BOB stakers can only receive the tokens on RSK, Sovryn must find a solution for this. For example, BOB stakers may have to provide an RSK address in order to receive the tokens (insofar as the distribution takes place on RSK).
If Armando shares the financial data next week and can also provide clear statements on the Sovryn adoption fund, an allocation to the Sovryn treasury and an adjustment of the % for Staker can still be discussed in the next few days.
Best regards,
Sacro
5 Likes
no Sacro. the $BOS distribution is for bitocracy. and bitocracy are only the RSK stakers.
BOB stakers are getting their SPICE points for whatever they will be worth.
protocol revenue is for bitocracy.
4 Likes
Thank you @Sacro for bringing this proposal forward. Based on your initial proposal, here is an alternative proposal for the distribution of tokens.
There would be 2 main beneficiaries of the BOS token distribution, 1) the treasury and 2) the SOV token holders. The exact distribution between these two parties still needs to be defined.
Distributing the BOS tokens among all SOV token holders weighted according to their SOV tokens and not their VP sounds the fairest towards the whole Sovryn ecosystem. Let me add some additional thoughts on the potential process:
Claim Period 1: After the vote we launch a claim period of 60 days, after which all unclaimed tokens will be allocated proportionally to all token holders. The amount of claimable tokens per wallet is calculated using the methodology proposed in idea 3 of the trading dojo (quoted just above). The relevant Snapshot for the calculation is taken at the start of the voting period of this proposal.
Claim Period 2: The initial claim period is followed by a second 30 day claim period where all unclaimed tokens are distributed among wallets that claimed BOS in the first period. The BOS distribution is again calculated using the same methodology as in period 1 with the same snapshot from the start of the vote. This second claim period ensures the best possible decentralization of BOS tokens in the Sovryn community while also rewarding active participants.
Any remaining unclaimed BOS tokens after the second period will go to the treasury. This has the benefit of not leaving any unclaimed token left hanging.
This setup allows for a good distribution of BOS tokens into the Sovryn community.
1 Like
Hello Sovryns,
@Armando said via bitocracy discord that we would get a statement on the adoption fund and on the financials on December 3rd. I think itâs reasonable to give it a few more days and discuss the exact allocations to stakers based on VP and to treasury.
I intend to bring this SIP up for vote on december 6.
If you support this SIP, please consider delegating Voting power to the following adress:
0x56cd794fc058349b48188113ba70f064c0143587
Best regards,
Sacro
5 Likes
I feel like you should add something to this SIP about not vesting. If the SIP passes and we do not, certainly team will try to lock our tokens up as long as possible. I dont see why we would have to vest as âindividualsâ, if presale isnt going to be vested.
I dont know about any of you. But im starting to feel like us sovryns are functioning as exit liquidity.
2 Likes
We should do 100% to stakers, 0% to treasury.
If the sovryn team needs $BOS for consumption they should get it from the open market.
4 Likes
I agree, a clawback at this point is a bad look.
1 Like
Financial reports have been posted on the Forum.
2 Likes
Thank you for the reports. Well written, easy to understand.
So it appears we have well over a year of runway left, even with the recently ramped up dev costs.
Do you believe that we need to increase dev costs even further to deliver on the tasks from the BOS token SIP?
And do you have an estimate how long these developments might take?
Last question: Do you have a number in mind how much % of the Sovryn $BOS tokens should go to treasury?
4 Likes
I fully go along with what you propose here and the remaining questions are pertinent. On the question of how the 10% BOS tokens should be distributed, it makes sense to me that stakers, the bitocracy receive those in accordance with the share of voting power. Especially when we consider the idea of Sovryn, in addition to being a pioneer defi system, becoming an incubator platform for sovereignty projects for which the bitocracy would play the vital role.
1 Like
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion about the $BOS allocation. The level of engagement from the Sovryn community and this level of discussion exemplifies why Sovryn is one of the best DAOs in the world. I did notice however that vesting requirements haven not been properly addressed in the discussion so far.
Regarding vesting schedules - to ensure alignment across the BitcoinOS ecosystem, any allocation will need to match other early contributors with 5-year monthly vesting and a 1-year cliff. This is essential for maintaining a balanced playing field and demonstrating long-term commitment to BitcoinOSâs success.
Without appropriate vesting, we risk creating misaligned incentives that could undermine BitcoinOSâs adoption among other communities and partners. Each component of the ecosystem needs to demonstrate sustained dedication to building BitcoinOS.
I encourage the community to incorporate vesting parameters in this SIP to avoid delays from requiring additional governance votes. Our shared goal is to create sustainable value - both through BitcoinOSâs development and the tokens that enable its ecosystem.
To carry out this analysis, it is necessary to understand the tokenomics of BOS. But most importantly:
a) Who are the Venture Finance backers of BOS, and what are their vesting schedules?
b) What other Partners are supporting Sovryn during this early contributorsâ stage, and what are their vesting schedules?
c) What are the vesting schedules for the BOS Team?
Surely you understand the different factors here, we have to stake liquid SOV, to get vesting BOS in a 5 year plan with 1 year cliff to show commitment to BOS? How about the commitment that all this time the community has with Sovryn, is this even going to be taken into account? What is the plan with our staked Sovryn, will there be a plan to move them to BOS without affecting the 100million SOV circulation (letâs say by burning the SOV in RSK and issuing liquid Sovryn on BOS, thatâs an example)
There are too many unknowns as always and you ask community to agree for a gazillion time with you, otherwise what, there are going to be delays because we donât agree with your plan? What if community donât like vesting idea and wants liquid - are you going to delay this until you massage people to go towards your way?
There are companies that are working on development of BOS that have taken investments from strategic partners, that vest over 4 years (1 year cliff) in the event that the investment includes a token element beyond equity. All contributors working on the project are committed to a 5 year vesting schedule.
I sincerely believe that if Sovryn does not conform to the contributor vesting schedule, this will be a bad signal for other contributors. We need to remember that we need buy in from other teams working on the project to adopt Sovrynâs BOS token as the canonical token for the platform.
Hard to estimate what increase in Dev spend will be required. The work on the token standard will be at a minimum $250K not including maintenance. Then there are cost for having this standard integrated with partners (Exchanges, Custodians etc.), hiring integration devs, auditing firms and business development efforts. I expect a minimum of $80K a month for the next 6 months. Some of this may be covered by diverting current resources to this effort, but not all of it.
Sovryn treasury has never received any portion of the revenue driven by the system (it has all gone to stakers) This is not sustainable long term, and I expect that the treasury should receive at least 2-3% of the BOS allocation. This can be sent in whole or in part to stakers at a later date if deemed it there are no treasury requirements. I am taking into account that no portion of this would be liquid before the 1 year anniversary after TGE, cause I believe that it is imperative that Sovryn conform to contributor vesting schedules as I mentioned above.
Armando,
I think it is important to be as rigorous as possible at this stage. Considering that Sovryn is an early contributor, we need to know with whom we are sharing our investment and in what manner, to understand if we have the same rights and obligations as our fellow travelers.
First, just as it is known that Sovryn will receive 10% allocation, what percentage will the VCs, other early partners like Sovryn, and the team receive?
Second, when have the VCs, other partners, and the team received or will they receive their percentages? Before Sovryn or at the same time as Sovryn?
Third, if it wonât happen under the same conditions as Sovryn, what is the price at which the VCs, other early partners like Sovryn, and the team have received or will receive their BOS tokens?
Fourth, who are the VCs and the other early partners like Sovryn?
Fifth, who are the members of the BOS team? As early investors, I believe we have the right to know the people building BOS.
Thank you for answering these questions. I completely understand that we must respect other early investors, but we need to know their conditions to compare them with ours and make decisions accordingly.
1 Like
Thank you for your quick answer.
I personally believe that there are many unknowns in this equation.
-
what is going to happen with Sovryn? You ask us to care about BOS after everything that happened in the past with MYNT, ZERO etc. What message team is going to give to any partners and investors if the project feels abandoned? When are we finally going to decide on how Sovryn is going to work on BOS. You ask Sovryn stakers to stake getting nothing for 1-5 years in return. How do you think this deal would sound to anyone? I believe you would agree with me that it would be easier for people to stake and support this plan if they know their Sovryn are going to be on BOS in the end of the long tunnel?
-
how are all those partners going to help BOS and Sovryn grow? Surely by allocating resources to BOS we us Sovryn community should expect that this will be beneficial for Sovryn, am I correct?
-
who is going to deal with the marketing campaign of the new coin? Can we have more details on who is going to be responsible for this part? This is a very vital part of any project and must ensure the right people are dealing with it.
-
at what price each part of BOS is going to buy their coins? Founders/teams/VC etc. I personally want to see transparency in this part.
Thank you for your time.