I’m also asking myself why miners should now merge mine brand new BOB instead of battle tested rsk?
1 Like
More liquidity and better defi primitives generate more revenue for miners. Adding a new merge mined chain does not require to switch from RSK, it’s possible in parallel
3 Likes
Why is a separate bitocracy and staking needed on this new (and possibly on every other chain Sovryn eventually deploys to in the future)?
3 Likes
Imo it can be pretty simple.
Without 2 separate governance institutions (with maybe even more in the future)…
rsk stakers could decide -in a united fashion- to not only deploy features on BOB (like AMM, lending, Zero, etc…) like what this SIP is going to do…
… but instead of every person providing funds into eg lending pool or Zero individually…
… Stakers could vote to setup a lending, amm, zero… fund on that chain.
All controlled and deployed by the governance system we all already use. (Current rsk staking mechanism)
This way, wherever and whatever chain Sovryn may deploys it’s features… it all drives back to a single instance of stakers. In a united fashion.
Of course, if individuals still want to park their capital in eg just that particular AMM on this particular chain… one can do that, just like we do now.
But that way multichain governance is achievable with the very tools we already have and use today. If/When at some point governance is probably moved to OS… it can be done in the same repeatable fashion.
1 Like
On another note,
I do not understand “the rush” to vote after this weekend on Monday.
Are there any reasons?
To me the informal rules inclined to send a SIP to vote after a forum discussion. And only if the discussion can be deemed concluded or so fractured that it is ripe to get Y/N settled.
5 Likes
this is the opposite from what was said in this last spaces, how is it that we go for a vote on something that is not even write anywhere? just said in a twitter spaces.
who decides this? clearly not the community.
0 transparency is still the motto here.
1 Like
I agree. Staking rewards and governance should stay with current Bitcocracy.
Is there a reason this would be a problem?
_
_
Edit: after listening to today’s spaces, I would revise my question.
-
If staking is absolutely necessary, is it possible to split revenue fairly amongst BOB and RSK stakers?
-
If Sovryn on BOB experiences wildly larger volume, would that not be unfair to the stakers that are stuck on RSK for many years?
5 Likes
I would also say, as Sacro pointed out, this is more of an internal dialogue that doesn’t really have anything to do with the launch of Sovryn on BOB itself, but rather how it will work.
This SIP doesn’t seem to address Bitocracy and staking. I’m not sure who is ultimately making the decisions as far as how things will be implemented. But I feel like a separate discussion and possibly a separate SIP is warranted about fee share and governance.
Sacro suggested putting rewards in a multisig, which could probably be SIP’d in the future to release them to Stakers.
4 Likes
I am still concerned about the dev time this whole bob thing needs and actually think this should be spend on getting BitcoinOS out of the gate ASAP. Runway is getting dangerously small and everything that distracts us monetarily and breaks up resources from our main focus will get a hard no from me. POWA seems to be aligned with BitcoinOS - BOB seems to be a huge distraction trying to grab liquidity but thats not even a sure thing. BOB Team has no track record to deliver yet. Its not a working system. It doesn’t have any users. We have not seen how good they are with marketing, and yet we are spending resources on it. Yago not answering precise questions about these things not making me any more confident. The whole split bitocracy and no fees for current stakers - many who have just extended their stake for POWA programs - is a really bad look.
FOCUS on BitcoinOS god dammit get it out the door, work overtime, get every resource you need to deliver SOMETHING in a similar timeframe then BOB. You had 3 years to prepare… Then BOB is not needed at all. it seem just so desperate to go there.
Hard NO from me on this.
2 Likes
From what I understand most of the work is complete, and according to Yago this work is negligible and shouldn’t effect work being done on BitcoinOS.
Did you attend the spaces today? Travis asked this question at 26 minutes, and you can here Yago’s expanded answer, particularly at 30 minutes
1 Like
I will not have time until Tuesday to listen to the space. Which is after the Vote is done. If most of the work is done already then this is a done deal anyway. Team will overrule normal stakers as usual. Why vote at all? We should have been asked before any work was put in. Would really interest me how long this has delayed BitcoinOS launch if we wouldn’t have committed Dev time to it. There are 280 messages on Discord and 70% of them are against this SIP in some way or another - most focusing on the staking aspect. Split bitocracy split fees no path for current stakers. All aint sitting well with a lot of peeps.
2 Likes
Well, the general answer was;
Team working on BitcoinOS and team working on BOB are separate teams, and the maintenance overhead is negligible.
And towards the rest, it is disappointing that us long time stakers won’t be getting revenue share from BOB, and hurts me on an ethical level, but as far as Alexei’s proposal; I don’t really think it’s relevant. That is something we need to discuss with the rule makers of our project.
1 Like
i don’t have a deep understanding of tech. but cooperation is a great stategy for building blockchain. i will vote yes
1 Like
First of all, I am in favor of integrating Sovryn onto the BOB chain. All the reasons explained by Alexei and Yago are more than evident.
Several concerns have been raised, and I would like to share my opinion.
Firstly, regarding the use of resources, I believe it’s worth the effort (both economically and temporally). I think it’s just a matter of a few weeks until the launch of BOB with Sovryn. I don’t mind delaying the arrival of BOS by those weeks. Additionally, parallel teams are involved in the process.
Secondly, concerning unanswered questions or insufficiently explained aspects. We can assume that agreements of this nature involve commitments and concessions on both sides, as well as confidentiality aspects. Sometimes, these are unresolved issues until the moment of resolution, and those managing the situation must make decisions on the fly or postpone them until there is enough data to make informed choices. I would have liked to know what obligations or commitments both parties have during 2024. In the space, I asked what Sovryn would offer in BOB after six months, and it was not answered, perhaps because it’s not even planned yet.
Thirdly, I have believed that BOS is the goal of this current Sovryn journey. Therefore, I see BOB as a stop along the way. Just as I anticipate the migration from RSK to BOS, I also imagine that we won’t stay in BOB for a long time. That being said, I reiterate that it is absolutely necessary to integrate on BOB, as described earlier.
Fourth point. In both this thread and in the space and telegram, the most controversial issue is the concern of R-stakers about the possibility of a bitocracy and staking in BOB. Yago has confirmed that this will indeed happen. The benefits in BOB will initially be held pending a decision on what to do with them. What are the complaints raised?
a) We could question why it is necessary for BOB to have bitocracy and staking. Can we assume that there will be activity in both BOB and RSK when we migrate to BOS? I find it difficult to imagine, and in that case, it would be very ephemeral and distorting. However, if the migration is delayed or not carried out, perhaps RSK and/or BOB will be the plan B, in which case these features will be needed.
b) R-stakers want a share of the benefits generated in BOB. Some want the benefits in BOB and RSK to be combined, divided by VP, and distributed between chains. I don’t see this as possible because profitability depends on the resources involved, and there is no way to allocate specific resources from different chains to the achievement of fees on different chains. Let’s imagine, for example, that ZERO only works on RSK, but somehow DLLR goes to BOB and generates ten times more fees than in RSK. How do you determine the allocation of expenses and income between chains? It reminds me of the corporate world when there are parent companies and subsidiaries.
c) R-stakers believe that the profit in RSK will decrease, harming them. They are told that, as compensation, there will be Sov rewards at 9%, and in the event that BOB generates a lot of benefits for its stakers, the value of the Sov token will appreciate across all chains simultaneously. This might not convince an r-staker, as they seek profitability streams over time and do not plan to liquidate their Sov with penalties to sell them.
There isn’t much time until Monday; the debate is necessary.
2 Likes
I am thrilled to vote ‘yes’ for Sovryn’s expansion to other chains! This will not only increase its outreach but also open up new avenues for the Sovryn ecosystem. Let’s be a part of this revolutionary change and make it happen together!"
3 Likes
Thank you for your lengthy explanations.
As for it has a different development team: Who funds that? Did BOB agree to any funding? We are about to run out of very very precious runway and it surely looks like we need every little bit of it to get BOS up and running.
BOB is a whole distraction, it complicates our message - DEFI on Bitcoin is now DEFI on Bitcoin and Etherum on some weird hybrid that you need a one hour reading session to barely understand - good luck selling this to the masses.
As a staker I always expected getting revenue from all endeavours this project ascends upon. Especially after the multi token disaster made it clear that stakers want to be in on everything. This is not the case here it has almost the feeling of going multi token in disguise. Yes we can switch our stake with a 30% penalty if BOB takes of. Yes we are soothed into submission with a 9% reward that we don’t know what the future will hold for that with a SIP that has also multiple problems. This ain´t sitting well at all here.
This seems almost like a desperate attempt to get something until BOS is coming so numbers are not going down. I am so used to number being about 0 I have no problem going through another 4 years of that if the outcome is a robust Rollup Chain on Bitcoin that has all these features and layers as promised.
Running around like an ADHD child frantically looking for liquidity is just making us look stupid. Thats what I am getting out of this BOB thing - I still will vote NO. It will pass I am sure team still has majority anyways.
3 Likes
I agree with your take on this. Every question posed as far as I have read is maybe, possibly, could be … answers with no indept regard to any negatives for those long term rsk stakeholders ……a no vote
Why is mutichain bitocracy voting not working: Simple mind exercise: RSK votes to increase staking rewards that are always higher then on other chains - what prohibits stakers on BOB do the same thing - because you know - BOB doesn’t see the adoption that was promised. Then we get into a rewards war with ourself until we run dry of funds. Then who is EC listening too if there are oposing SIPs regarding the safeguard of funds (oh lets move all funds to BOB chain and convert them into ETH because we are more then you puny little ones on RSK). There are so many problems with this multibitocracy thing governing the same token. I could go on and on.
And again case why BOB will take of has not been made just like RSK it will be an island - a new one on top with its own version of BTC - tBTC. The reason that is cited is that we will be in the flood of liquidity - how why? Magic? people need to trust that new chain. Until that trust is there (final version of BOB long long way down the road) we should be more then ready with BitcoinOS without any trust issues out of the gate on top of the biggest liquidity chain their is → Bitcoin.
Again my view: Focus on getting BitcoinOS out the door forget any sidetrack until then focus focus focus and work you ass off. Forget token price until then forget huge marketing until then (though POWA is a different beast) and when ready release the dragon hopefully before everyone else. Our only chance to make it. Everything else is distraction and get us nowhere. Tokenprice has spoken bounds what market thinks of BOB announcement doesn’t look excited at all.
1 Like
Bridged governance is inherently insecure. As things stand, eSOV is bridged, that makes it less secure. Adding additionally that SIP votes must be bridged makes it doubly insecure.
More practically, there is no bridge that can transfer vote data from Rootstock, so it’s currently technically impossible.
3 Likes
In an environment of trustless composability, which BitcoinOS can provide, there can be a single governance system. This is not possible when using trusted bridges. So absent composability, each chain would require a separate bitocracy.
As things stand, there is no technical way to bridge bitocracy, even with trusted bridges. For this reason, among others, the BOB deployment will start out as multi-sig controlled.
On Resources:
The deployment on BOB has close to zero impact on our runway and minimal impact on dev resource allocation. We initially were skeptical that this would be the case and devs/product were leaning against the BOB deployment. After examining it closely, it became clear that the assumption this would be a distraction of resources proved false. That means this is an extremely low-cost way for Sovryn to expand. Close to a no-brainer.
5 Likes