SIP-XXXX: Launch of BitcoinOS (BOS) Under Sovryn Incubation

They can’t, because they were happy ho create the impression through their tweets that Sovryn is developing Bitcoin OS.
The tweets were completely clear in that. I have screenshots, in case they get deleted.
Either that was intentionally misleading from day 1, or things changed at an unknown date, but it was convenient to keep the community in the dark.
Now they say that it was clear from day 1, and we all suffer from some sort of a collective “Mandela Effect” of misremembering.
It is actually insulting.
Now it is intentional gaslighting.
NO way I would EVER vote for this proposal or anything resembling it.

2 Likes

Hi all,

Though I can see why this is controversial, my current position would be to vote ‘yes’ to this SIP.

TLDR: Yes, Sovryn and BitconOS are separate, and a separate token is for the best. A 10% allocation so Sovryn is best for the decentralization and health of BitcoinOS. A healthy BitcoinOS will make Sovryn (SOV) holders rich by extension. It’s a win-win.

Most of the current contention seems to be that Sovryn and BitcoinOS are suddenly being reframed as separate projects, and that this separation becomes official with the launch of a new token.

Based on comments from Edan Yago and StanTheGreat, BOS token stakers “will earn bridge fees and multi-rollup gas” and will seemingly not have any governance powers, as “it likely will not be a system that is actively governed.” This seems to provide holders with a financial stake in the network, thus incentivizing them to either invest or build towards the success of BitcoinOS. This is completely distinct from the SOV token.

One the one hand, I agree that Sovryn has marketed itself as being extremely close with BitcoinOS, especially given Yago’s involvement with and promotion of both in the same breath.

For example, the Twitter page states that Sovryn is “Building BitcoinOS.” The wiki says that Sovryn are “Developers of BitcoinOS.” And with all its promotional efforts until now, Sovryn is by far the leading champion and incubator of the BitcoinOS ecosystem.

That said, I believe their statements about both have remained consistent until now: BitcoinOS is a “public good” that is being “built collaboratively,” and is not designed to provide explicit economic benefit to SOV token holders or stakers.

Ultimately, this is a separate infrastructure project with a grand ambition to unlock Bitcoin’s full potential - scalability, privacy, programmability, and everything else.

So why is Sovryn so focused on promoting this, and associating itself with BitcoinOS?

Because even without direct rewards, the indirect benefit of bringing this platform to life will be incalculable for Sovryn and its investors.

Bitcoin will finally have a truly secure decentralized scaling and programmability layer. That’s something the entire community can get behind. It’s something that could suck in billions of dollars in liquidity in the blink of an eye, and eventually most of the capital on Ethereum and Solana.

Meanwhile, through the Sovryn Layer, Sovryn will be home to the first and largest BitcoinOS rollup and the biggest Defi platform, which also supports Bitcoin’s blooming token standard – Runes. That puts Sovryn and SOV holders first in line for the tidal wave of capital that BitcoinOS could attract.

In my view, this opportunity is so great that SOV holders (including myself) should not waste time scrounging for a greater share of the BOS allocation.

Many are calling for a 20% or 30% allocation, but all this does is reduce the remaining share for BitcoinOS developers, alongside other projects that would help build out the ecosystem if also given a financial stake in the platform. Therefore, it would harm the incentive structure and stunt the growth of BitcoinOS.

We don’t want that. We’ve got one shot at this, and we need to make sure we do things right. That includes having a decentralized token distribution involving a variety of projects and remaining welcoming to all.

10% is just fine for that. Don’t get greedy. Let’s make sure BitcoinOS wins - then we all fucking win.

7 Likes

The sooner we understand that Yago
has, can, and will do whatever he wants;
the more sane one will stay
(or leave for that matter)

2 Likes

After our community call, I think it is clear that there are some unknowns as to how the relationship between Sovryn & BOS will develop once $BOS launches.

And that’s totally ok with me, because I trust that our community can figure this out step by step. I’m really excited that we have an opportunity to build alongside such a project with incredible devs (none of which are Sovryn’s core devs) that could add tremendous value to Bitcoin.

And we’ll be the first to take advantage of it.

4 Likes

In order to have that kind of ongoing input, we need to spell out precisely what the Bitocracy authority relationship is to BOS. I don’t think the current SIP spells that out clearly enough.

1 Like

I would like to make a comment on why we’re shifting from a merge-mined platform to normie tokenomics - which is not a obstacle to success - when platforms like Curve may prove that even partial pre-mining misaligns incentives and platforms like eth are testing ‘ultra-sound’ burn models…
I have missed tonight CC so maybe huge news, but I believe we’re here for anything that increases bitcoin adoption, although anyone should be free to try new tokens.
I never considered BitcoinOS to be built on Sovryn, as clearly it’s Sovryn that is built on RSK and BOS is meant as a competitor to this ‘-1’ layer to Sov.

When critiquing “new token” distribution per se, one should recognize 10% is a big slice of the pie as mentioned by @thesolution1506 . I’d prefer to know what funds will go for example to other creators such as BitcoinVM (oh cool I intercepted the CC here https://youtu.be/-hRHNQBIItg?t=2267), “upon” which BOS seems built.
And as for the tokenomics I would like to know why a model liker merge-mining has completely gone through the bin. Given that I see 0 way you use BOS without operating on Bitcoin. Maybe it’s related to the focus on bridges?

Idk, just my normie observation. Hope this works fine and gives traction to Sovryn anyway!!

1 Like

I could not join the CC yesterday. However I would like to say one thing.

Since the announcement of Sovryn building BOS, the SOV price has increased rapidly.

A lot of Sovryn supporters invested their hard earned money in the SOV token at this high price, thinking they would receive 100% of the value created by BOS, as this was clearly communicated by the core team.

Now for them to hear: “sorry, some miscommunication, you will only get 10%” is a very hard message. I completely understand the community is very unhappy about it.

We as a community do not have nearly the same information as the core team and we completely rely on what the core team is telling us. This is the reason there are strict rules regarding providing information to stockholders in normal businesses.

Some called the community members complaining about the 10% percentage greedy. Coming from 100% what was told earlier, I don’t think this is greedy at all and I completely understand they are very unhappy.

I don’t know how the BOS team values the DAO and the Sovryn community making the DAO work, however, if they value it and need it for their project, increasing the 10% to make the community happy again would be a sensible thing to do.

6 Likes

the 10% allocation of BOS should directly go to voluntary SOV stakers without lockup or vesting.

3 Likes

Yeah i would rally for that as well. I’d like to see a distribution to stakers based on their Voting Power. If we can find a consensus, the SIP could specify a date where the VP distribution is measured and distribute the token based on that timestamp.

Sovryn Stakers have 2 roles as far as i can see it. They are probably the most important group for BOS in terms of early adopters and power users.

In addition, they help to provide a hub for much needed security and decentralisation via bitocracy for the devs which must be protected at all costs.

3 Likes

@yago What about this possible token distribution?

For clarity, I’d like to see some more explanation around this.

It would help if you give a more detailed explanation on every slice of this pie. I am also curious to hear about the other Partners and Users.

Elaborate with us what you see as the “maybe” on this slide.

Thank you.

2 Likes

A couple of counterpoints to this, respectfully.

  1. Sovryn never promised that BitcoinOS would be 100% owned by the Sovryn community, and never even claimed that there would be any kind of explicit “ownership” or reward mechanism (such as a token) involved with BitcoinOS until this SIP was posted.

2.The BOS token allocation isn’t meant as a form of payment for Sovryn’s support and marketing until now. They’re simply coming to the community as one group - among many - to whom they can distribute these tokens, in order to keep the initial allocation as decentralized as possible.

A decentralized allocation will keep the development of BitcoinOS relatively neutral and healthy, and incentivize shared collaboration from many parties. It will also signal to other projects / rollups down the line that it is safe and free to build on BitcoinOS, without feeling like the system they are building on can be rugged out from under them by one centralizing force that’s calling the shots.

I’m open to considering different allocation sizes for Sovryn than 10%, but let’s also be clear on what this allocation is about to begin with, and what’s at stake if the allocation grows to centralized in Sovryn’s hands.

BOS tokens are not Sovryn’s reward for promoting BitcoinOS. The success of BitcoinOS will be Sovryn’s central reward here, with a BOS token allocation being a cherry on top.

P.S. I do agree that Sovryn should communicate much better about its relationship with BitcoinOS, and that they should behave a bit more like a public company in that regard.

1 Like

Since this is a discussion forum I want to counter with a more fair proposal for Sovryn community:

I would counter this SIP with 20% and sovryns get to be first when it comes to the offering of the token. Meaning the deepest discount on tokens. Before VCs

Funds go directly to stakers

No adoption fund or exchequer or anywhere else but to Sovryn’s core community✊🏼

In exchange they can have our marketing/community support also as Yago mentioned👍🏼

And also be able to use us for crowdfunding.

Your fellow sovryn

6 Likes

I agree. I think that’s the least they could do at this point.

Yes. We need to know how many partied are involved. Are we (the sovryn community) the only one? :thinking:

3 Likes

What is the projected development timeline of BOS (optimistically and conservatively)?

How and by which numbers is the capital requirement as well as runway planned out?

Why is there silence here?

I think many things are not discussed yet. :cricket:

1 Like

It seems this has gone stale.

But if someone that has any information on this can answer;

What exactly does Sovryn get out of this besides the 10%? What do they get from us? What are we giving them? What does “Incubation” mean?

Are they going to help us launch Sovryn layer?

Why does this need an SIP? Why don’t they just do their thing, and airdrop us 10% for the work we have done, and tell us tough shit, or don’t airdrop us at all?

If this is an entirely separate project, why not work with Alpen or someone that’s not launching a shitcoin, in which Light is already working with? BitcoinOS doing a shitcoin launch could hurt our reputation, in which maybe we should separate ourselves from completely. Let them do their little shitcoin thing, and if we want, we can launch Sovryn layer on it afterwards.

I think RIF launch by Rootstock is a big reason that drove Bitcoiners away from RSK anyway. Should we do this again with BitcoinOS?

7 Likes

10% could be great if there were some transparency here. If 5 other projects launch on BitcoinOS then our community will be in a great position with this SIP. If only 2 further projects launch taking 17% each this SIP will age terribly and all concerns aired already will be validated. Forcing the vote with no transparency even when pushed on these matters is just something that none of us are here for

And also yes, just to make bitocracy that little bit more redundant we now seem to be wanting to reward all liquid bagholders not just stakers. This would be further sabotage of our own token (SOV lol) as it will reward high time preference holding

4 Likes

I fully agree here, especially with the 1st point made: “We have a dream to build DeFi for Bitcoin, not to build DeFi for SOV or BOS”.

I don’t yet see the benefit nor necessity of a BOS token. It’s just been presented as a given in the SIP. Why isn’t Bitcoin itself the token, the currency of the internet, when everything is going to be “built on Bitcoin”?

So, whether the Sovryn community receives 0%, 10% or 20% of the BOS token doesn’t matter much, if its purpose and use case isn’t clear and not talked about here. It needs to be spelled out. What SOV on Rootstock does is clear and necessary and that’s why Sovryns support it.

If that question of what the BOS token does is still to be figured out at the time of voting whether to support the decentralized birth of BitcoinOS, it feels like there’s no actual ground to vote on or even participate in the debate at this point. Also, who is supposed to take the argument of a decentralized operating system seriously, when a system token is being airdropped to an investor group anyway, justified or not?

I’d rather support the build and refinement of a properly working Sovryn DeFi platform on any Bitcoin (!) chain that is as clear, simple, trustless and Bitcoin value oriented as possible. BitcoinOS may very well become just that and this is what we all hoped for. But what is a BOS token?

7 Likes

this SIP has not code changes?
then after this SIP fails I’ll propose one that also has also no code changes:
EVERY MEMBER OF SOVRYN THAT IS WORKING ON BOS TO BE CAST OUT FROM SOVRYN.
this will make things simple to understand for the future.

1 Like