Thank you all for this great community that we have gather around the Sovryn project, I was too excited about the ETH and BSC bridges that I didn’t stop and think thoroughly the Uniswap listing, and I’m more bias to the side of not listing there YET, I thing the bridges solves a lot of problem that Sovryn have now, liquidity, right prices on Futures and cheaper / faster mobility from where we already have funds, so this and the two way FastBTC are killer points to me in terms of development.
Another reason to delay this listing, is to reward the people to get involve early and DYOR and take the action to understand what’s Sovryn building and why, so far the growth in all aspect has been more than satisfactory, so why not keep this organic approach until we have a more polished and easy to use platform.
I like what said @yago in the last community call, that we haven’t need to pull all the strings just yet, so we have all this tools ready to use once needed / liked.
We don’t want to have to go to Uniswap, we want Uniswap to come to us. I agree and think our priority should be having people using the Sovryn protocol and not uniswap. I also agree with Dr. Bitcoin in saying that we should be able to see the staking rewards which I know is on the way. Sovryn should become a uniswap of RSK, and also a way to onramp new RSK presale projects and tokens like how we already have money on chain, which is great, I love BPRO. I think interoperability is inevitable as well but I don’t think we should rush it because Sovryn is doing fine without Uniswap liquidity.
So the eth bridge sans uniswap would basically be an eUSDT->rUSDT-> rBTC - > SOV on/exit ramp then, which is good in theory, however I think that if we go down this route ote, perhaps the proposed liquidity for uni should be allocated towards a rUSDT-SOV pool
So, In short, if we are going ahead and launching on Uniswap, then we should first make sure the stats page should show staking and liquidity providing rewards clearly, and our long term goals are clearly visible and easy to find.
If we are not listing on Uniswap, instead incentivizing for rETH liqudity providing for beinging in more users to use sovryn platform, then still the same stats should be mentioned with adition to LP rewards for suggested rETH pool.
Or we can combine it togather, listing SOV on Uniswap and use ETH bridge to bring in more users to sovryn platform by reward SOV/rETH pool, and all the while improving the platform and making sure the stats are clear.
Should Sovryn postpone launching SOV on uniswap, and instead use the recently completed eth bridge to draw ETH liquidity to our platform instead?
No.
There are some tantalising reasons (and I agree with them) to try and bring more liquidity from other chains to Sovryn, but this is essentially an argument about Utility. Of isolationism vs nonprotectionism. In almost all cases in history the isolationist approach has failed while the non-isolationist approach has succeeded.
Overall, and as a general strategy, I think we stand to gain more from making the platform more open than we do with keeping it more closed. Sovryn will, ultimately, succeed or fail based on the utility of the tools the platform provides - this is exactly why Ethereum was a success. It provided something Bitcoin did not at the time.
It expect the dApp to keep evolving and its UX and utility to keep increasing giving more and more people a reason to stay here. I also agree that a specific mobile app would be agreat move for this reason. My point is: there are many many more important ways to bring people to the platform than getting involved in maximalism.
Great discussion, all good points here. Overall, I think getting more people involved sooner with easier onramps is critical.
I think that we should provide some tasty farming incetives for SOV-rETH pair on Sovryn to attract more farmers to our platform after UNI listing. UNI listings is a must ASAP. Timings are everything. UI fixes and other stuff should be made on the run.
Agree that there should be big incentives to bring rETH to the Sovryn platform. We need to compete and be battle ready and then battle tested as soon as possible. From the perspective of smart contracts, the BTC world is playing catchup in terms of usability and features. Mass adoption doesn’t care about BTC vs ETH, liquidity of Sovryn, etc. It just cares about “What does this give me? What’s the utility?”
@Nakameowdough although I understand part of your philosophy and admire your conviction in Sovryn / RSK, however, I find most of your arguments against a listing on Uniswap to be biased and somewhat baseless. Being objective, critical and open-minded is important, especially for important developments such as the Ethereum bridge.
Ethereum et Al. Concerns
Being on Ethereum is very different than launching on Ethereum . Interoperability is a strength and technological feat, not a weakness or a sign of failure. SOV was launched on Bitcoin and will only ever exist on other chains as a derivative. Existing as such on Ethereum, BSC, Tron, or Cardano will never change its origins nor impact its integrity. To participate in the Bitocracy, members will need the Bitcoin-native SOV token, and that will never change.
Uniswap Concerns
Not launching on Uniswap because you are concerned that many Uniswap traders are speculators is, in my humble opinion, a poor argument for many reasons. Bitcoin is an open and free financial network, who are we to decide who participates and for what reasons? Limiting (directly or indirectly) who participates in the ecosystem based on trading habits and interest in fundamentals goes against the ethos of Bitcoin. Bitcoin will forever be free and decentralized and neither you or I can (or should) decide who can participate in the network.
Speculators bring free marketing and liquidity, why is that a bad thing? What makes you so sure that existing SOV holders are all in it for the tech and not for speculation? Deviations between price and value are inevitable and happens even in the most rational markets with extreme efficiency in price discovery. Blocking out other chains will not necessarily prevent this from happening.
Being afraid to launch on and gain exposure from Uniswap because of the lack of certain functions that are currently being developed (trading rebates, launchpad access, staking rewards, etc.) is not a weakness but should be perceived as a future opportunity. One of the most important rules in business is Done is better than perfect , which is exactly what @AlykzAlex is trying to highlight with his analogy/anecdote.
Bringing users to SOV
If SOV is better, more secure and cheaper to use than Uniswap et Al., hardcore users, speculators, investors, new projects, etc, etc. will come on their own. Trading done off-platform has many benefits, especially from a marketing and liquidity perspective.
A good product sells itself and in this case, it will bring more users and liquidity organically. “Forcing” users to onboard directly through the SOV App is a terrible idea from a UX and marketing perspective and again, against the ethos of freedom.
Final Words
By launching the Ethereum bridge, I don’t think the project will all of a sudden stop working on adding core and highly-demanded features to the Sovryn App. On the contrary, the rapid growth, improved liquidity, price appreciation, etc. that can result from the bridge will be, in my opinion, a catalyst for success. We can attract more talent, learn from successful platforms like Uniswap and build a thriving platform accessible and open to all, as Bitcoin was designed to be.
It would be nice if the reward distribution for Sov stakers was more transparent before we reached out to broaden the community. If ppl understood the value of the the token i think we would attract stronger hands. I think the uniswap listing makes sense if its only to eventually attract the liquidity to the Sovryn dapp. Collecting rewards is a strong incentive for ppl to hold SOV so id like to see that start to happen(or atleast communication on when it might start) before reaching out too far to other planets.
Farming. Provide rETH-Sov and get vested SOV with staking& voting ability as rewards. So farming goes on both chains, Eth and rsk.
And release the news that farming reth-sov will start in 2-3 weeks after uni listing. So we attract more attention and later get more liquidity on Sovryn platform.
But still it must be so that BTC liq providers get more benefits then Eth providers.
But after start of rETH SOV farming.
So later people bring more BTC to platform because it should be more attractive to interact in BTC with Sovryn platform.
This!!! SOV should NOT provide the SOV interest (and liquidity!) to the ETH network. It should seek to attract both ETH interest (AND LIQUIDITY) to the SOV network!!!
Mister Nakameowdough have some valid points and it is an impresive post.
But when I read to not list (e)SOV on Uniswap I kinda almost loose the intention to read further.
The main thing is that we are now in the conflict of interest between so called fundamental and hype.
Fundametal part as hodlers and long time believers and hype part the degens flipcoiners.
But we need both. Sovryn has strong fundamental already but also cannot be greedy and cannot ignore to miss the correct timing and the future is now! Either we want it or not the the bull will lose its momentum at some point.
Listing on Uniswap is one of the strategic points in order to bring more users and help to
spread the word and I see this right now as the strongest marketing move it can be done.
What will incentivize people to send rETH to the Sovryn?
And to answer this:
“Should Sovryn postpone launching SOV on uniswap, and instead use the recently completed ethbridge to draw ETH liquidity to our platform instead?”
I would love Anthony Pompliano’s opinion on this. Is there a way to ping him to get his involvement? He is a part of this community as much as any others, along with the Syndicate
I want to add this part regarding sovryn platform and improvements they need to do:
People seeing potential in an unfinished product is way more attractive than a perfect one imo. They see and think they’re really early in the project.
But it has to be a smooth enough experience to make it comfortable to put trust in the protocol.
To conclude my stance on this:
I will vote NO POSTPONEMENT OF THE UNISWAP LISTING. I believe that SOV team and community members in the TG and Discord are competent enough to deliver the message on the incentives of holding SOV and use SOV on sovryn’s platform
On point. Thank you for bringing this up @Nakameowdough. We should try as much as possible to stick to SOV’s core vision of bringing defi to bitcoin network. We all are fans of Ethereum but eSOV dilutes that vision very early on. I am open to ideas on how we can bring users & liquidity to SOV without compromising it’s uniqueness of being on bitcoin network. rETH/SOV is a proposal we can look into.
“hardcore users, speculators, investors,” - Everyone of these groups are either “in it for the tech” or “in it for the profits”. Everyone here who owns SOV tokens (including myself) are speculating that this platform and token will be worth more next year than it is today for a variety of reasons. People are here because the tech is good and they can make and transact money. No question about it. Please stop thinking that people have other motives besides making a profit; whether today or in 10 years. No one would be staking or providing liquidity for free.
I hope that I don’t sound cynical but look at most of the posts… People want to know what the staking rewards are for the pools and when they will receive those rewards for what they provided.
Uniswap won’t “come to us” as stated by @Bitcoin-Thunderfury. I work in telecom and have direct contracts with Verizon, CenturyLink, and AT&T. Even though they are separate entities, they still work together. They lease each other cell tower space, fiber, and even old copper. They all work together to help build a better-connected world. Sovryn will/should end up working alongside the other majors to help the overall crypto space.
As @Octopus posted, “As fellow Sovryn investors, we are invested in the vision”. As @yago posted, “timing is everything.” I believe in the dev team and believe that if the bridge is ready, they will know when it’s right to release it: Either this bull market or the next.
I agree. I’d vote eyes to uni launch if there was some mechanism buyers of esov were made aware of that incentivises them to move liquidity onto the platform. I don’t see that as "forcing " them or leaving them without choice. If they prefer to keep the Sov asset on eth, no problem. But if they choose to move to rsk then they get the on top
I will contest that profits are the only thing people care about. Very strongly, actually.
I am deeply interested in dethroning fiatlords and centralized entities. I care very much that I can have my wealth in a currency that is not inflated irresponsibly, that I can transact freely, and that is in my own custody.
This is fundamentally attractive to me, and that is why I speculate/trade/invest in crypto - to accumulate more of this, and to improve it.
Listing on Ethereum (or any chain) only provides additional interoperability which is a major strength.
Users should want to use RSK because of the various major benefits we’re all very aware of. If we’re gate keeping where and how $SOV is listed that shows a major lack in confidence in our core offering. We need to open up the liquidity doors everywhere we can and with time people will understand why RSK matters so much.
Saying $SOV shouldn’t list on Uniswap because it will attract speculators is a terrible argument. I joined Bitcoin years ago as a “speculator”, as did most other people in the space, I stayed for a magnitude of other reasons. We should list eSOV as another offering, with time and education they will move over to RSK… but what if they don’t!? Find out why! Resolve any concerns, offer incentives, educate - make them want to. Todays “speculators” are tomorrows Sovryn Mutants.
Sovryn must be treated as a start-up. We must move incredibly fast and get as much exposure as we can, as quick as possible. RSK while amazing, is still niche. Most users don’t know what the fuck it is. Even as someone technically advanced - I had my doubts at first and it’s still very raw in some places (wallet support, resources etc). eSOV will introduce users as “speculators” and they’ll end up doing the research and figure out what they’re holding.
As someone who genuinely cares about this vision (I wouldn’t have staked 90% of my SOV for 3 years if not) I believe we should continue and let things happen naturally. There are some good arguments both ways but to me it’s clearly a net positive to go ahead.
(PS. @Dr.Bitcoin (With respect to Pomp) his opinion doesn’t matter any more than anyone else’s in a Sovryn world. I don’t think we should be prodding people to give their opinion - if they’re interested in sharing they should take initiative)
on top