Strategic Investment Twitter Spaces

Yesterday, General Catalyst published their Proposal to lead an investment round in the Sovryn Protocol alongside other strategic investors:

Sovryn will host a Twitter Spaces tomorrow (May 13th) at 4pm UTC:

This forum post serves as a venue to raise all questions BEFORE the call occurs, so that they may be addressed properly on the call.

Stay Sovryn

1 Like

The Programmatic Sales Fund was 6,801,201 SOV.

Of this, 2,641,000 was allocated to Genesis, 2,000,000 to Origin, and (i suppose) 1,500,000 to Pomp.

Where will the sov needed for the current investment proposal come from? If they were to come from the Adoption Fund, is there no conflict with the natural purpose or destination of the Adoption Fund?

Most people have already posted their questions under the original SIP post, please add those to the list of questions.

1 Like

In relation to my question Yago said that the SOV would come out of the Adoption Fund.

I went to wikipedia to check the tokenomics where the Adoption Fund is described. And it goes like this:

Adoption Fund: 38,646,017 SOV

“The heart of Sovryn is in the users who employ the product for the utilization of their funds. SOV will be distributed to users and contributors of the system via rebates, referral fees and liquidity mining. Tokens distributed via liquidity mining will be the incentivization vehicle for bringing new users and funds to Sovryn across multiple DeFi ecosystems. With the release of new products, the adoption can be used to reward the first users and testers to ensure their optimization and success.”

I repeat my question: Is it possible to use the SOVs of the Adoption Fund for this round of Investment taking into account what is described in the previous paragraph?

(edited) As Bon says in the reply below, Bitocracy can decide how to spend the Adoption Fund. Then I wonder: Is there anything to prevent the Bitocracy from doing several rounds of Investment in the future that would further reduce the Adoption Fund?


The Wiki page about “Bitocracy Setup and Token Allocation” says the following:

“Adoption fund, ecosystem funds: pools that vest over 5 years, where the bitocracy can vote on how to spend them. bitocracy can also change the vesting schedule. bitocracy can send all tokens (also locked ones) to a new contract if required.”

So I guess Bitocracy can vote to sell those tokens too.

1 Like

Someone from telegram brings up a good question. Is it a conflict of interest to use adoption fund for development instead of development fund, specifically because developers and founders hold the voting power? Why not use development fund? If adoption fund pays for development, what does development fund pay for? Is this just embezzlement with a different label?

Exchequer’s general stance is the original designation of different funds can be changed by Bitocracy based on what it deems to be in the interest of the protocol. By voting on the GC SIP we’re effectively signaling we acknowledge these buckets have to be modified based on new information. Much of this new information is based on our current Treasury which you can get a breakdown in from Armando’s post last month on the forum which shows the historical and projected forward budget.


Thanks for the clarification!

One of the things that Sovryn did was provide for an exchequer to be able to modulate how funds were spent. This has proven itself - if the Adoption pool funds had been deployed at the predetermined rate of release, we would have had far higher inflation and much less bang for our buck.

Once funds are out of a specific pool, they can be assigned by Bitocracy to the exchequer. The exchequer and Bitocracy should make use of them in whatever way is deemed to best promote Sovryn.