SOV Rewards and BitcoinOS as the Canonical Ledger

I bought into SOV for its original vision first outlined in the white paper - a vision that finally has a shot at becoming fulfilled with BitcoinOS thats why I put a lot of EGGs in this basket to be part of it - I had a lot of issues with how the team has handled the project in the past but BitcoinOS made me a believer again. I truly think for everyone like me who has been with this project we should have a shot at generating wealth from it. For me that means that SOV should not only be THE token to govern the LOWER layers of BitcoinOS but also our rSOV stake should become a 100% SOV stake (in percentage not necessary in coin numbers) and we should have get a cut out of every BitcoinOS transaction no matter what the upper layer is PLUS the sovryn DAPP upper layer. Reason is we invested in Sovryn and have therefore helped financed this project to this point. With any investment you are in on the rewards if its successful - all parts of it. I would hate to see a " BitcoinOS token" and a Sovryn App token as separate. I have no issue with thousands of other tokens on top of BitcoinOS that are on the app layer. I don’t need airdrops or anything as long as part of the revenue of BitconOS transactions is paid out to (r)SOV holders. Everything else is not even on the table as it would just be a slap in the face for long term believers, supporters and community members in the project, BitcoinOS is what Sovryn stated to do and therefore was the premise of investing in the SOV token and staking it. As longtime holders we should have a say in the development direction of BitcoinOS and for that we also need SOV as governance token

Since BitcoinOS will be needing to generate some revenue on its lower layer for infrastructure its a no brainer to also reward investors and stakeholders who take the time and money to help shape its future.We have shown with the old rootstock token how this works and it seems the model is sound.

I see true value of SOV not in the intermediate price of the token but the value it gets when stakes earning true sound rewards from BitcoinOS transactions. They might not be huge in the beginning but I am sure if team pulls this off this will hugely increase as more ethereum projects are won over. How many transactions does uniswap have in a day? imagine convincing a project like that porting to BitcoinOS and what that means for transaction fees.

If the price of SOV rises and people can’t afford big stakes anymore - tough luck. Time to buy SOV is now I guess or 3 years ago. Everyone else has to content with what’s left over, Early investors are rewarded the most. Period. Always has been that way. I don’t see a path where this technology is not generating more community members on its own if it works flawlessly. This actually might self market (this from me who always dissed the team for its bad marketing). So the only reason for me for bringing SOV rewards back is giving us - the long term stakers - a way to play with the new toy before all of rSOV gets converted over 1:1 or 10:1 of whatever (I like the 10:1 conversion obviously less supply-> less coins-> higher price → the more locked in we early stakers get with our share). It would be a way to get us accustomed to the new work flow, see how it works with wallets etc and brag about it :wink:

1 Like

I agree with @one_digit and @Kobayoshi that the Rootstock Sovryn dApp should stay. I think it should ideally stay with its current token, and ensure resources required to maintain and curate it. Nothing needs to be faded out. I don’t think we even need to treat it as ‘separate’ from Sovryn, let us not in anyway abandon what has been built and what works.


About the Sovryn Layer / BitcoinOS, I don’t see how the decentralization of Sovryn’s functions there (with which I agree of course) implies the need for a new SOV token. Tokens are so 2017, there is so much I dislike about them, especially as a vehicle for governance (but that’s another post).

There are all sorts of alternatives. I described an alternative based on time-locks earlier (turning Bitcoin into the true timechain). But here is another alternative using tech that exists and so might be easier to imagine: create ordinals tied to the various functions to be fulfilled within BitcoinOS / Sovryn Layer / rollups. Only an address holding the relevant ordinal can do certain defined actions for defined aspects of the BitcoinOS. Think a ‘governance pass’, a ‘dev pass’, ‘sovryn community pass’, ‘market making pass’, in whatever way one wants to structure this (and with sexier names of course). If desirable, one could create these on rootstock now, bought by burning SOV or earned by doing something for Sovryn (such as staking SOV) and teleburned to the BitcoinOS/Sovryn Layer later when it’s there. This allows for all sorts of meritocracy and structure within the DAO, and allows for Bitcoin to be the main vehicle of liquidity and committing btc as the main way of having skin in the game. Tying functionality to ordinals is already being done. Would be easy to create the sort of subDAO’s that were once part of Sovryn’s heated history too.

My main point is: this is an opportunity to make steps forwards in the way governance and DAO structures are designed. Let’s use it and improve the way things are currently done.

1 Like

I know very little about the system design of BitcoinOS.
Will the new SOV token be used to incentivize people to run the BitcoinOS/Sovryn Layer infrastructure?

I foresee it will take us one or two years to migrate all the functions to BitcoinOS. It will be better to support RSK and BitcoinOS systems during the migration period. We should have a two-way bridge for users to transfer their SOV between BitcoinOS and the rootstock network during migration.
Once the VTL in BitcoinOS is bigger than RSK and we feel like the BitcoinOS is ready, we should have a vote to recognize BitcoinOS as the canonical ledger.

We should definitely keep a 100M supply cap of SOV. The value of the Sovryn platform can be present in any supply as long as it is dividable. And keeping the 100M supply cap is simple and easy for users. Easy to remember and to calculate.

I support SOV token rewards for early supporters. How much are we talking about? 1%? 5%?


The decrease number of SOV supply will not make you wealthier. SOV is just accounting system to keep tracks of the right to future BTC revenue in Sovryn platform.

1 Like

mathematically you are totally correct psychologically less surly means higher value in a shorter amount of time.

I’d like to propose to consider a bit different approach that could be particularly beneficial for stakers in the transition to BitcoinOS/Sovryn Layer. It revolves around the concept of using the Voting Power of rSOV on Rootstock as a basis for distributing the new Canonical SOV on the Sovryn Layer. Essentially, the longer an individual has staked their rSOV, the greater the amount of Canonical SOV they would receive in the airdrop.

For example, rSOV staked for three years could translate to receiving three times the amount of Canonical SOV compared to rSOV staked for just one year. Of course, these numbers are just illustrative, and a detailed analysis would be needed to determine the most appropriate ratios.

Additionally, liquid rSOV (not staked) could be eligible for a swap to SOV at a different, lower rate. This mechanism would encourage staking on Rootstock, as locked rSOV would not only yield rewards but also grant greater voting power in the Sovryn Layer.

This approach would achieve several objectives:

  1. Encouragement of Long-term Staking: By linking the amount of Canonical SOV received to the Voting Power, we incentivize continuous and long-term staking on Rootstock.
  2. Significance of Locked rSOV Rewards: Locked rSOV, offering greater voting power, becomes more attractive, aligning with the principle of greater rewards for greater commitment.
  3. Recognition of Early Supporters: Those who have been part of the Sovryn ecosystem since its early days and have remained active stakers would be duly rewarded with a greater impact on the future direction of Sovryn through enhanced voting power.
  4. Reduction of liquid rSOV: This would reduce circulating supply of rSOV.

I think that all this aligns with the core principles of rewarding commitment and loyalty, thereby strengthening the Sovryn community and ecosystem.

Edit: Ultimately all the staked rSOV could be burned, once users receive canonical SOV on Sovryn Layer


Just to clarify. Are we proposing minting a new Shitcoin on the new chain and pretending it’s SOV?

I 100% agree with Capitalist and Sacro, keep the 100M supply limit. No new coins minted. Lets try not to turn this solid project into a money grab.

I don’t understand a reason to increase the supply limit, it seems simple.

RSOV to SOV 1 way bridge. And just leave it open.

Also, Dave brings up a good point, how are staking subsidies relevant to bridging, at all?


If the Sovryn core team decides to mint a new token in a way that dilutes existing $SOV on the rootstock network, it will literally destroy the property rights of Sovryn community members. Then, what is the point of this project ?:thinking: being the ruling class?

I strongly object to @Hyde suggestion.

To make it simple
1:1 conversion rate.
nothing more, nothing less.


I wrote this in Dojo and share it here for a wider audience and another perspective on the topic.
I’d be very much in favor to

a) keep the 100million max cap

b) do the snapshot and mirror the exact stakes to the new chain (if technicalities differ e.g. not copy but set up new as per snapshot, then fine)

c) I do not want to “falsify” “dilute” (or whatever you call it) our token as per Hyde’s proposal, I don’t see someone getting more tokens on the “other side” just for a longer staking period, this imo just incentivices new stakers who pay pennies per SOV and further slaps old stakers who buried shitloads of money in their vision.

I’d rather see those rewarded who already staked for one or two years no matter if they extended every fortnight. But that’s just thinking out loud.

For no one to feel left behind AND without favoring anyone and taking into account that the “market does what the market does” I would very much prefer a status quo mirrored on the new chain.

TLDR: You get what you have on the new chain. Everything stays the same. No need for revolt.


With what I propose - we can set max supply to any level we want to. We can even reduce it to specific value. It is just a matter of math. Amount of Sov on Sovryn Layer does not have to be 1 to 1 to Voting Power.

1 Like

Wouldn’t giving higher amounts of “Sovryn layer SOV” to people with higher amounts of VP, be unfair to people that staked long term in the beginning (at higher prices)?

Basically rewarding the people that got in just recently at ATL’s, and punishing people that bought in initially.


It is the matter of how do we approach canonical SOV on BitcoinOS. If it becomes liquid or partially liquid - it would make sense to have rSOV locked and burned.

1 Like

The other thing is - if people staked for a long time in the beginning, they can still extend their stake to the max. Maybe a snapshot of VP at some point of time in the past would make sense, to determine additional rewards for those who were and are with us from the early days. There are multiple ways that we could go. Just food for thoughs.

The snapshot could work. Telling people to extend their stake or get fucked seems unfair after 3 years of financial beat down.

Still: Seems like a lot of gymnastics compared to a 1-1 bridge/burn, and seemingly only serves the purpose of issuing more Token. In which, I don’t really see any benefit.


I personally will never vote for increasing SOV supply, and leadership has always said it’s hard coded (when talking about lowering cap and burning tokens), seems humorous to talk about the supply cap as suddenly nuanced, fluid, and changeable when an increase in on the table.

To clarify, I’m specifically talking about increasing someone’s “canonical SOV” based on there voting power.


If Sovryn decides to continue with token-based governance (not my own preference, as some know), wouldn’t the following be the most sensible approach: create a ‘migration’ period in which the penalty for early unstaking is set to 0 and open a bridge from rSOV on Rootsock to SOV on the new layer.

Keeps (r)SOV supply constant and makes the current value of (r)SOV crystal clear. It would also lower the threshold to enter into max time staking until the migration moment, lowering the current circ SOV supply until the migration period arrives. This benefits everyone, the old community members and the new.

1 Like

If technically possible I’d be very much in favor of the simplest solution.

That is imo a snapshot and a mirrored picture of what’s what at a specific time.
Since the stakes are in a contract the new ones have to be set up again or somehow copied
if just partly or whatever is possible.

Going through a bridge with the funds of thousands of stakers is too error prone imo.
The bridge could be exposed on both sides possibly.
User error could lead to loss of funds.
Funds could get stuck or congested leading to frustration and anger.

With currently somewhat 5k or 6k stakes I’d say a snapshot is the smoother solution.
The old dapp could be frozen but the portfolio balance still accessible for proof of ownership if need be.

I know Yago said “we cannot move funds…” but a rewriting of staking contracts and then pulling the plug
on the old ones does not contradict that and our ethos. It would just need the support via a SIP and vast
majority behind it ofc.

This is just my average Joe point of view of things. Everyone on a high technical level, feel free to
give me a lecture or just state your opinion on if that makes sense somehow.

1 Like

I understand your worries about using a bridge. But much depends on the used mechanism imo. Wouldn’t need to use a ‘lock and unlock’ mechanism, or a ‘lock and mint’ mechanism. Could use a simple ‘burn and mint’ mechanism for the bridge instead. The migration period could be open for weeks, so no need for congestion. The bridge might also be one-way (burn rSOV and mint SOV) and temporary (so that the mint-functionality on SOV is disabled when reaching a certain supply of SOV on Sovryn Layer).

What would need to be developed for the simple proposal is realistic: (1) setting the penalty for early unstaking to 0 during a period before ‘the migration’; and (2) creating a simple burn and mint bridge. That unstaking is free forces no one to unstake. People can decide freely to move over fully to the new Sovryn, or leave a little in the functioning and time-tested rSovryn.

A snapshot and then duplication on the other layer is complex, and has its own vulnerabilities. Creates all sorts of noise of how to weigh VP, how to count the SOV in AMM, and so on. Let’s avoid all the unnecessary discussion and settle for a very simple method that everyone understands.

1 Like

I absolutely favour this simple and logical approach you outlined. Everyone understands it, its very clear and easy and you can just leave the one sided bridge open. get the unstaking penalty to 0 on RSK side forever and people can migrate at their own pace. I fully appove to this approach of moving over.