it must be easy to stand here righteously in defence of this SIP when knowingly you already secured your very large bag. Even though you previously have made it very known bitcoinOS was indeed a part of Sovryn , but now that story is changing in a blink of an eye.
what happened, did you find a better “path” than through Sovryn and are now forced to cut deadweight knowing everyone cant catch this train unless its at expense of you and your newfound partners?
imagine pulling stunts like these on your own community after all the stunts that has been pulled over the years you must believe we can be fed any bullshit and eat it.
@lactarius I have been pushing for Sovryn to be closely associated with BitcoinOS. I think it is a powerful lever to help drive Sovryn forward, technologically and also from a narrative perspective. And at the same time I have been saying again and again that BOS is being built externally.
I think Sovryn has indeed benefitted from this. Would you have preferred that we put more distance between Sovryn and BOS?
I am trying to create and to capture as much value as possible for Sovryn. The opportunity to have a piece of the BOS pie, in technology, narrative and tokens, and at very little cost to Sovryn is a huge opportunity.
I have been greedy Greedy for Sovryn. Greedy to see SOV benefit and rise.
And at the end of the day, what I have managed to orchestrate here is potentially a massive airdrop for Sovryn.
everyone on the sovryn payroll that worked on BOS should forfeit the BOS tokens! these tokens should go for this community who have been already paying these devs wages.
10% is small and should be closer to 30% if we feel we must separate from BOS. The funds should not go to any adoption fund or anything else but directly to stakers.
If I’m not mistaken many of the devs from sovryn have been contributing to BOS and I’m sure have been compensated accordingly.
However, this will fracture the sovryn community with devs/community/etc. into the future dividing attention, tokenomics, teams, etc. it’s hard not to look at this as a nail in the coffin than a launch of something greater for Sovryn and all its contributors/community behind it.
It simply has never ever been mentioned that BOS is a different project - never - not once. ALL marketing material all talking all Community calls say BOS is a Sovryn project. There is absolutely no spin you can do to reframe that. I can show you all the videos where you actually say this with you own words. So trying to reframe here is absolutely not possible without loosing every single member of this community and loosing all your reputation.
Make us a deal that we can actually live with - like 80% BOS tokens go to SOV stakers 10% sold for funding 10% to the dev team to keep them going. Its something I could maybe live with. Or say we buy 80% of the tokens with the Sovryn development fund and then the 80% BOS fees earned get distributed to SOV stakers its also something I could live with maybe. This right now is just such a punch in the face.
For the benefit of this discussion, I want to confirm that no Exchequer funds have been used for BitcoinOS development. Funds were spent on research, mostly over the course of 2023, but the result of this research relates primarily to the Sovryn Layer and the realization that a rollup framework (which the BitcoinOS team has been building) is a prerequisite for the Sovryn Layer. In addition, a grant of 1 BTC was provided to the BitVM researchers late last year. Their research is important for all Bitcoin L2 and scaling solutions, Sovryn Layer included.
I believe that this context is important for this discussion.
so what is the sovryn team really working on this year?
staking rewards is a copy paste, multichain on bob is a copy paste, taproot assets is other team that is working on…what are sovryn dev’s actually doing?
“I think Sovryn has indeed benefitted from this. Would you have preferred that we put more distance between Sovryn and BOS?”
Not speaking for lactarius, but what I would have preferred is honesty and transparency about the plans and intentions of the team.
“I am trying to create and to capture as much value as possible for Sovryn.”
I actually don’t doubt this / believe you and the core team feels there isn’t a way for BOS to succeed unless it’s separated from SOV and there are room for other investors. But what leads you to the conclusion that SOV has to have such a small ownership & responsibility for BOS, for BOS to succeed? What forces are at play besides you and the 6 devs? Who do you have to negotiate with to capture value for Sovryn?
So how many of these 6 BOS Team members are also paid contributors to sovryn? If there is overlap who is overlooking that they actually work on sovryn in their working hours and not on BOS?
A bitcoin bridge based on zk tech (BOS) does require 1 token: $BTC. Because that’s the only thing that is accepted on 1 side of the bridge. Tokens on the L2 still do make sense. Not for bridging purposes, but for the typical DeFi stuff. $SOV has a good system with fee sharing from Sovryn smart contracts. If the contracts see more use because we have a trust minimized bridge to bitcoin, it’s great. If Sovryn smart contracts run on zk rollups (which i understand is Sovryn Layer, NOT BOS), this may improve possibilities and user experience by a lot. Such a system does require $btc for the bridge and for base layer fees. It does not require a BOS token or a SOV token for transaction purposes or gas fees. Advertising those tokens for such things seems odd. We have a dream to built DeFi for $btc, not to build DeFi for $SOV or $BOS.
On L2’s there is not much money to be made on transaction fees and most likely not on bridging fees. It’s a race to Zero. What can generate good revenue is products that require a fee to use: $SOV is built for that and could capture a lot of value from those L2 activities, much more than those pennies for cheap transactions with (almost) unlimited blockspace. 0,1% fee for AMM use, 2% fee for Zero origination, 1% for Zero redemptions, some profits from medium sized lending pools, perps, Sovryn Mynt and so on.
BOS is a very important system to enable the Sovryn Layer, our rollup that will host our smart contracts. That’s the goal. If they need a token for funding, fine with me. If they help build Sovryn layer with their tech, it’s a deal that makes sense.
I see no use case for BOS token right now, why should it have any value? What’s the mechanics behind it?
It’s a smart play from a legal perspective to have Sovryn help with BOS token distribution. They out source risk to Sovryn Bitocracy. But Sovryn can get attention from the fiat lords. This should be worth more than a 10% token allocation. Make it 20%. Give it to SOV Stakers based on their Voting Power.
But 10% is a definite NO vote from me. Sovryn has been marketing BitcoinOS as a Sovryn project on Twitter, telegram, community calls, and even our website.
The whole “Not Sovryn” bullshit doesn’t seem to be fooling any of us.
