Some further thoughts on the different options. I tried to think about the options for Sovryn as platform/chains in conjunction with possible views of what 'Sovryn’ is and could be.
Sovryn can be a ‘platform’ in the sense of a ‘platform of ideas and principles’, where these ideas and principles aim to bring a bitcoin-focused/inspired conception of finance to as many people as possible (think of ‘Slowfi’ as principle, think of Zero as implemented idea).
- The suggestion to build something on Ethereum or with Cosmos might be a pretty natural next step for this way of understanding what Sovryn is.
- For example: if Sovryn builds an eSovryn with an eZero on Ethereum, where people lock wBTC or tBTC to mint eDLLRs, this brings a hodl-bitcoin-while-playing-around-with-alts/defi/degen mentality to the crypto world, and by drawing people into the Sovryn community, spreads the bitcoin-focused principles and ideas. This can be a service to bitcoinization. With the broader technology to work with, there is room for improvements and new ideas. For example, if eSovryn is built on Arbitrum (instead of Ethereum), there are low fees and an ability to do perps.
- Doubts. By going to Ethereum, Cosmos or some other alt, this arguably requires sacrificing the most central principle in the package of principles and ideas that constitute Sovryn, namely self-sovereignty, having to trust the Ethereum foundation, Arbitrum DAO, wBTC multisig partners. These are organizations that are not always aligned with the principles/ideas that drive Sovryn. There is a danger of the entire package of ideas/principles falling apart, and seeming to become dishonest and inauthentic. Rootstock is not ideal, but at least it is aligned in what it strives to be.
- Here the discussion should be focused on what exactly the principles and ideas are that constitutes Sovryn, to better judge whether going outside of Rootstock helps it or undermines it. I’m quite convinced it undermines it.
Sovryn can be a ‘platform’ in the sense of ‘a center for building for bitcoin’, where what is built is premised on two assumptions about the future: continued bitcoinization, and the eventual addition of rollups to bitcoin.
- The suggestions to upgrade RSK or create a rollup for RSK fit this conception of Sovryn.
- Doubts. It is almost impossible to build for a future that isn’t there yet; there is so much risk of building things that turn out not to fit with what is to come. It is hard to see how an upgrade to RSK or a rollup to RSK has enough benefits to Sovryn in the current state of things to merit the resources.
- Why is it quiet here at RSK? It seems to me that the main reason is not fees (which I find reasonable), nor trouble bridging (which strikes me as pretty smooth), nor an absence of perp swaps (which is really not such a popular DeFi product in the cryptospace). One key reason for it being quiet is simply that there is nothing at RSK that is built to pump. Crypto degens stay away for this reason, while many bitcoiners stay away for maxi reasons, and sadly the crowd between crypto degens and maxi’s tends to be small. Now I think the choice between offering something that can pump or offering something that is maxi-kosher is a bit of a false choice. There is also building something that is unique and cannot be gotten anywhere else. But here is the thing: I don’t currently see how an upgrade to RSK, or a rollup for RSK, will create something novel that cannot be had anywhere else. Quicker blocktimes or lower fees are just not key, perp swaps are not that interesting (and I expect would be as interesting as current lending, margin tradin, DEX features on Sovryn). The only true thing that we really want, rollups for bitcoin, cannot be built. (BTW these doubts largely also applies to my own idea above of creating a bitcoin rollup hub, a bitcoin fork whose sole aim is to have various kinds of rollups grafted into it).
So with the current info that I have, I think that none of the options currently on the table are worth pursuing.
I have long had the feeling that Sovryn suffers from the inability to make one really tough choice: the choice between creating pumpamentals for SOV, or going tokenless and abandon SOV. Let me quickly discuss these.
-
Having a token that doesn’t hold the promise of competing alts has always been the main thing pulling Sovryn down, it is not something around which a community can grow. One option would be to loosen the no-utility-to-SOV principle, and introduce the mechanisms that allow SOV to pump. We all know this creates an influx of people, community livens up and becomes vibrant, it becomes a joyful thing to build for such a community, so more gets built, and so on. Ironically, a SOV made to, or allowed to pump exposes people to bitcoin ideas and makes people notice RSK, helps lock btc, and ultimately helps gather more momentum for things like bip 300&3001 or other such ideas. Sovryn might need more distance from maxi/anti-alt ideas to truly be effective in helping support the idea of sidechains. (God I sound like that DMan character; but I think there is truth to this. This is not a financial or techy point, but a social observation about how communities and traction work within the crypto sphere: they rally around tokens that have hopium, there will be sadly no real Sovryn Legion without this).
-
The second option is almost the radical opposite of the previous option, and this is to put our minds together and make steps towards a tokenless implementation of Sovryn (of course while rewarding the current SOV stakers and holders with appropriate value). I think this should be some form of governance based on rBTC staking, where people earn fees from staking rBTC, and current SOV gets translated to a multiplier on how much revenue someone’s new rBTC stake earns them (so that current SOV holders are rewarded with a higher share of revenue). This would be something unique that doesn’t exist anywhere else (like Zero), and Sovryn would be spearheading tokenless real-yield DeFi, which would generate attention. I also think this is better suited to a world with rollups on bitcoin (there are game-theoretic reasons for thinking that miners would always prefer rollups that are bitcoin only, and dApps using bitcoin only; there even some ideas that rely on btc staking as basis of the security of rollups, see the cool idea of stakechains). This suggestion is more exciting to me, as it neatly fits both of the conceptions of Sovryn outlined above. I know people are intuitively opposed to this (being heavy SOV bag holders), but I think this is really something where first appearances are deceiving, and people need an open mind, it is something worth exploring and brainstorming on (see here for my own initial attempt).
Anyway, very long post, but after some thought I think that the current options on the table are not the sort of steps forwards that Sovryn needs; with too many risks and too little benefits. I think that there are more effective and more innovative next steps to consider.