SIP-XXXX: $BOS token distribution

[Sacro]

First of all, thank you for all your great work on Babelfish, Sovryn and now, BOS.
I notice these projects all share somewhat similar Vesting periods and i wonder if this is the correct approach. But it’s not up to me to decide on that.

Are there any $BOS token allocations that have a different cliff or no cliff at all? If there are, we must make sure that Sovryn also falls within that range.

Especially because Sovryn is a DEX and it would be very beneficial to have a $BOS token trading pool on Sovryn from the very beginning.

I think this could become a great deal if the 2% of $BOS tokens that potentially go to treasury like @Armando suggested would have no vesting and could be used to create a $BOS/BTC AMM pool on Sovryn.

I believe that i hold enough VP and delegated VP to bring a 10% allocation to stakers based on VP to a SIP vote and maybe to a success. Or to bring a 8% staker and 2% treasury allocation to Vote and maybe to Success. I believe that i would not act in the interest of my VP delegators and aligned long-term stakers if i’d agree to such long vesting periods in this SIP approach.

[Armando]

Strategic partners are capped at 16% and early contributors (excluding Sovryn) are capped at 10%. I don’t have visibility into all the strategic partners and with those they I do have, I don’t have ability yet to disclose. Remember that by launching the token, Sovryn will have full control on how the vesting contracts are deployed so we can verify all the info that we get.

[Armando]

Sovryn has always worked to provide tooling on Bitcoin natively. This is now possible from a technical point of view, only thanks to BitcoinOS. I believe that there is appreciation of this fact in the community evidenced by the weeping vote in favor of launching the BOS token. I also believe that Sovryn can do very well as a launchpad and gateway to the BitcoinOS ecosystem. If successful, BOS will draw a massive influx of teams that want to launch on it and through its token standard, and SOV can in turn become an index token for this ecosystem. I also think that the market and interest in BOS will dictate to an extent what our path forward is.

On point 2 I think you are correct, the base assumption is that if BOS is successful, that will translate to Sovryn’s success by association and by providing the platform to be bitcoin native.

Sovryn has a marketing team and there is a marketing team dedicated to BitcoinOS (who I believe will lead and coordinate the effort). In addition, there are partners who are going to leverage their own marketing reach to get more exposure.

I can’t disclose what I know about the price that different stakeholders came in on, but I think it is largely irrelevant due to the long vesting period. Can you please elaborate why you think this is important info - it will help me understand what the concern would be.

Sacro - wrt other vesting schedules, it is the intent of the BOS teams to have a pre-sale of the token that is liquid at launch. The goal is to distribute the token very broadly, potentially even up to 60%.

[lactarius]

Armando,

By not answering these questions, you are withholding information from an early contributor.

Just as other early contributors know Sovryn’s allocation and conditions, we must also know theirs. How can we ensure that we are not being disadvantaged compared to our partners if we are not informed about their conditions? It is entirely appropriate to ask about the timing and price at which they have access to BOS tokens.

Similarly, withholding information about the team from an early investor makes no sense. How are we supposed to decide on our approach to investing in a project when basic information is being withheld from us?

[Armando]

Not all early contributors are privy to all this information, neither am I. This will also be the case in the future I suspect. Teams that get BOS allocations will be able to do with them as they please (within the limits of their vesting).

[lactarius]

So why are you answering these questions, and not the one who can answer them?

[Armando]

I am just letting you know that there is information that is confidential between external parties to Sovryn. What I do know for a fact is that these obligations are contingent on partners accepting the vesting schedules. So I might not know all prices at which tokens are sold, but I do know what vesting obligations were undertaken.

[lactarius]

I am trying to make everyone understand that Sovryn is a founder of BOS.

No one other than Sovryn has the right to enter BOS under the best conditions. There is no one better than Sovryn to have access to the conditions of those who came after Sovryn.

[Armando]

I fully agree with this sentiment

[interferenz]

Ok I try to be polite here:

1. Vesting was NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the original SIP. We are given 10% of BOS to do what ever we want with it. Period. Withholding this iVITAL nformation on the original SIP is not our problem. This is Sovryns 10% for the community to decide what to do with it. If we want to vest it or not.

2. Vesting for 5 years is a testament of failure before this even gets of the ground. If you have confidence in your product then you don´t do vesting. Doing vesting means your product is not ready and maybe never will be. Its vaporwares and bordering a rip of. Vesting has helped Sovryn not one single bit. Look at the chart. It just delayed the inevitable. You are late with products you are announcing vaporwares people will dump. Now or in five years doesn´t matter. If you force a vesting against the communities will that basically means you taking the money and run without any real consequences. It’s bad look for BOS.

3. So what happens if we vote against vesting? Are we getting SIP after SIP until the vesting is voted in? Team using their voting power to overturn community?

4. "I encourage the community to incorporate vesting parameters in this SIP to avoid delays from requiring additional governance votes. " this is a threat and not how you treat your allies. You ask them you incorporate them in your decision making - you don´t force stuff on them.

[Armando]

1. By “do what ever we want with” I assume you mean we deceide by a SIP - yes that is 100% correct. If Sovryn decides through a SIP to have no vesting thats what will be. It will run the risk though of other teams not adopting the token we launch.
2. I don’t agree with this - vesting is in place to align long term incentives. How exactly do we force a vesting against the communities will if this is going up for a SIP?
3. Has there been a case where there was continuous voting on SIPs until some “desired outcome” is approved? I am not sure where this concerns stems from.
4. What is being forced? We are having a discussion in preparation for a SIP.

Thanks for being polite. I think that’s the baseline for having a civil and productive conversation.

[TM1]

Do you (say team) has any hints or plans for Sovryn treasury to not be bankrupt by the time this proposed cliff (and further; vesting) period is over?

[interferenz]

Didn´t read Armandos reply above. So editing this post:

So dev time is around 800k. @Armando you say you don´t want to sell the 2% and keep to the vesting schedule and even want to give it to community at a later date. That means our runway is cut short another what 6 month. So We are out of runway before the 2% become liquid. How do you plan to keep going? How does the 2% even help sovryn survive?

[Hyde]

This has evolved into a very interesting discussion. I had intended to share my views much earlier, but it was hard for me to find the time. On the other hand, the delay gave me more time to reflect on the topic and consider it more thoroughly. The diversity of perspectives shared here reflects the strength of the Sovryn community.

I want to address the main themes raised and propose a balanced approach that considers the interests of stakers, the treasury, and Sovryn’s long-term success.

---

Need for Strategic Thinking and Strengthening $SOV

Allocating the full amount of $BOS tokens to stakers would be a one-time bonus - a short-term gain that doesn’t address the bigger picture. For Sovryn to continue thriving in this competitive space, we must prioritize incentives, user acquisition, sustainability, and most importantly, staying at the forefront of innovation.

Sovryn has already proven its capacity to lead through innovation. BitcoinOS is a prime example of how Sovryn can set the direction for the broader ecosystem. Without continued investment in these priorities, the long-term growth we all hope for won’t materialize.

The $SOV token is the backbone of Sovryn’s ecosystem, and strengthening its value and utility is essential for Sovryn’s long-term success. One way to achieve this is by extending the opportunity to participate in the $BOS token distribution to new stakers.

---

On Vesting Schedules

@Dharkmattr and @Armando highlighting the importance of aligning vesting schedules with other BitcoinOS contributors. It was not mentioned earlier and this is a very important factor that needs to be taken into consideration - there are different angles for BitcoinOS and Sovryn. @Dante raised a very valid concern that these terms may feel overly restrictive for loyal SOV stakers. We need a balanced approach, which would lead to a reasonable compromise (which essentially means that no one will be fully happy).

---

On Rewarding Stakers with $BOS

I agree that rewarding stakers is crucial for maintaining trust and engagement, but we must approach it thoughtfully. It’s important to recognize that even a smaller 5% allocation would be a very generous offer. Asking for more overlooks the bigger picture and comes across as shortsighted. Let’s appreciate what has been offered and focus on using it strategically to benefit Sovryn as a whole.

---

New Path for Sovryn and Treasury allocation

To be able to deliver on our obligations to BitcoinOS, which were outlined in SIP-0083, and also move forward with the launchpad and incubator, we need to ensure that sufficient resources are at Sovryn’s disposal. Sovryn is at a strategic crossroads, and the Treasury must have the resources to fund growth and innovation.

---

Proposal

Taking all this into consideration, I propose the following distribution:

• 6% to SOV Stakers:

  • Distributed to stakers on a Voting Power pro-rata basis in stages (based on snapshots of active stakers taken some time before each unlock):
    • 1% liquid upon $BOS TGE/Sale.
    • 1% liquid after a 6-month cliff.
    • 1% liquid after a 12-month cliff.
    • 3% with a 12-month cliff and a linear 4-year vesting schedule.

• 4% to the Sovryn Treasury:

  • 1% liquid at the Exchequer’s disposal:
    • To maintain agility in the decision-making process and address potential incentives or immediate needs.
  • 3% with 12 month cliff and 5-year vesting:
    • To extend Sovryn’s funding runway and meet SIP-0083 goals.
    • To support long-term incentives post-transition to BitcoinOS.

[Phrygian12]

I would be ok with something similar, but as Armando posted treasury would only need 2-3%. So maybe follow your idea, but 7% to stakers with a similar vesting/cliff, and 3% to treasury with a similar vesting/cliff.

This is very middle ground, and should be acceptable to us as a whole.

Does anyone have a better middle ground idea?

Lets keep in mind, we are not adversaries.

Also, I would add: some of us long term stakers would probably use our liquid BOS to add to LP.

[Dante]

@Armando

Sovryn has always worked to provide tooling on Bitcoin natively. This is now possible from a technical point of view, only thanks to BitcoinOS. I believe that there is appreciation of this fact in the community evidenced by the weeping vote in favor of launching the BOS token. I also believe that Sovryn can do very well as a launchpad and gateway to the BitcoinOS ecosystem. If successful, BOS will draw a massive influx of teams that want to launch on it and through its token standard, and SOV can in turn become an index token for this ecosystem. I also think that the market and interest in BOS will dictate to an extent what our path forward is.

All those sounds positive but considering the history of Sovryn and the rest coin launches that happened in the past, asking people to vest for long period AGAIN, is like jumping off the cliff. What WE as a community get from this apart from promises? We stake our SOV, and you suggest to have the same BOS vesting period as the partners/team/etc. For me in order to do that I want to know WHO are these people/teams/etc? who are the people from Sovryn team? - how much they are going to invest in BOS - what price they get in. In my eyes if there is a chance for your vesting suggestion to have a positive outcome (which personally I will strongly disagree with it), Sovryn community should have the best terms as someone else posted after me. A separate sale where Sovryn stakers can have a guarantee allocation to buy BOS coins at the same price as all the vital stakeholders is something that will put us on the same terms in my opinion and I am looking forward to discuss such possibility.

@Armando

On point 2 I think you are correct, the base assumption is that if BOS is successful, that will translate to Sovryn’s success by association and by providing the platform to be bitcoin native.

Lets take the negative scenario, we have our community Sovryn staked for 3 years max on RSK while the team will not have the same rules as they will get their coins from a different part of the chart pie that doesnt require (I assume to stake Sovryn). And any stakers BOS tokens are going to be vested for eternity. Do you see the risk here?

@Armando

Sovryn has a marketing team and there is a marketing team dedicated to BitcoinOS (who I believe will lead and coordinate the effort). In addition, there are partners who are going to leverage their own marketing reach to get more exposure.

I am here since 2021 and Sovryn marketing team is a topic that we can write many posts about it. Can we have details on who is going to manage the marketing for BOS? where they worked and history of their results? Can you give us the name of the company who will lead it and the people of the team and their experience so we as a community can have a good idea about the marketing part of BOS? I believe that you would agree with me that having a strong marketing team with a plan can make a difference in almost every crypto project to grow, and BOS will be no different. Knowing that BOS marketing future will be on good marketing hands will be one of the factors that will help me to decide what to vote in the upcoming SIP.

@Armando

I can’t disclose what I know about the price that different stakeholders came in on, but I think it is largely irrelevant due to the long vesting period. Can you please elaborate why you think this is important info - it will help me understand what the concern would be.

Do we have to create another SIP to ask for transparency and for the team to reveal all the information regarding stakeholders/VC/whoever is going to get BOS allocation? Why you cannot disclose this information?

@Armando

I am just letting you know that there is information that is confidential between external parties to Sovryn. What I do know for a fact is that these obligations are contingent on partners accepting the vesting schedules. So I might not know all prices at which tokens are sold, but I do know what vesting obligations were undertaken.

It is very convenient for those parties to not reveal the prices that tokens were sold and is also very convenient to reveal the vesting period so we as community be forced to follow the same schedule as them. Since they are going to get beneficial price entry, they should not get beneficial treatment by pushing Sovryn community to have the same vesting schedule as them. Can you elaborate how this will affect their long term approach as you seem to know their perspective. How is their conviction to BOS is going to be affected by having the 10%, the Sovryn community stakers using BOS tokens on the new platform? Since they believe in the project, I do not think any of them will have any problem with Sovryn stakers using all their allowed BOS allocation, which is way less than their allocation anyway, on the new BOS platform.

@Hyde

Proposal

Taking all this into consideration, I propose the following distribution:

• 6% to SOV Stakers:
  • Distributed to stakers on a Voting Power pro-rata basis in stages (based on snapshots of active stakers taken some time before each unlock):
    • 1% liquid upon $BOS TGE/Sale.
    • 1% liquid after a 6-month cliff.
    • 1% liquid after a 12-month cliff.
    • 3% with a 12-month cliff and a linear 4-year vesting schedule.
• 4% to the Sovryn Treasury:
  • 1% liquid at the Exchequer’s disposal:
    • To maintain agility in the decision-making process and address potential incentives or immediate needs.
  • 3% with 12 month cliff and 5-year vesting:
    • To extend Sovryn’s funding runway and meet SIP-0083 goals.
    • To support long-term incentives post-transition to BitcoinOS.

Fully disagree.

10% to stakers, no vesting.

[Armando]

This would be the case assuming that other funding comes in and these tokens are not required for treasury. Other sources of funding can be other token sales performed through Sovryn, SOV sales, additional investments.

[Travis_trades]

Thank you Sacro for the time and getting this started.

This allocation should go to sovryn’s. The reason we have the best dao is because of the people here and we clearly care.

1. Allocation should only go to stakers. This makes sense because it is much easier to do and also less BOS tokens will be lost due to inactive/lost wallets holding SOV getting some allocations. If you want to speculate and not stake then an easy solution would be to have a short stake duration (2weeks) this is an easy and manageable requirement.

2. Funds go to stakers. We are the protocol. We not only carry a voice through SIP but also through funding. As our team has stated repeatedly, we have at least 2 years runway at sovryn and many of our team members are also working on BOS which means BOS should be the ones to compensate them. Not sovryn.

3. Funds go to VP(stakers). It is clear that many are coming to stake and take part in this allocation and it does not seem right to dilute them by also giving a % to the treasury. As I have mentioned multiple times if the treasury expects to receive funds it should have to do so by staking. A direct correlation between funding what works and what doesn’t as in all capitalistic environments.

4)I’m thankful BoS is willing to give us a 10% allocation. So now that we’ve been given it, it is time for SOVRYNs to determine its distribution and how/if vesting is a good idea.

Stay Sovryn

[interferenz]

Thank you for your answer:

1. Thank you for clearing this up. I think it’s healthy if other teams are sceptical. I don’t think its a problem if team delivers on their promises then token will appreciate and other team can come in at a later date. It’s healthy for the token and doesn´t inflate it artificially. We all seen with Sovryn what bad performance +. articficial inflation of token through vesting leads to.

to the other points. The wordings of darrkmatter sound awfully similar to the 10% SIP. Basically community was put in between a rock in a hard place - everyone thought BOS was a sovryn project and all we get is 10% (yes don’t explain we have been through this discussion) so after finally coming to terms and accepting the 10% to mend wound and have peace team comes out "but now you have to vest the tokens and you better vote for it or there will be more “governance” Maybe as a non native speaker I didn´t get the fine detail in that sentence but it sounded awfully like a “better vote vesting in or else” threat. At least that was how it came across - how we all read it.

Community outside team is very clear - we don´t want vesting - we might be willing to reach out a FINAL hand by giving a little bit to treasury. might even be 2% but vesting is toxic. There are lots of examples out there for very successful token launches without vesting. Other teams very generous with the community. If you want us to cheer for the project we could be a very very vocal voice. Right now you have created a toxic mess.

If you don´t want us to dump then create an amazing product. No need for vesting let the market decide.

@Armando

1. By “do what ever we want with” I assume you mean we deceide by a SIP - yes that is 100% correct. If Sovryn decides through a SIP to have no vesting thats what will be. It will run the risk though of other teams not adopting the token we launch.
2. I don’t agree with this - vesting is in place to align long term incentives. How exactly do we force a vesting against the communities will if this is going up for a SIP?
3. Has there been a case where there was continuous voting on SIPs until some “desired outcome” is approved? I am not sure where this concerns stems from.
4. What is being forced? We are having a discussion in preparation for a SIP.

Thanks for being polite. I think that’s the baseline for having a civil and productive conversation.

[Georg]

Will the Snapshot to determine the VP distribution be taken at the start of the vote?