@yago recently posted his thoughts about using SOV as the “currency” for purchasing assets using the Origins platform, for example the recent FISH sale. I want to share my thoughts about this as well.
Generally speaking I think projects should be able to fundraise using any asset they want. My personal choice would be RBTC, because I think BTC is the best monetary asset ever invented and it’d be a shame not to use it as money, particularly on a platform where BTC is a first-class asset. Some projects may prefer to raise in a stablecoin, because usually at least some funds raised in BTC are traded for fiat to lock in runway anyways. But if some projects prefer to raise SOV for whatever reason, that’s their decision to make.
Regarding whether Origins projects should be required to use SOV, I would be against such a proposal for two main reasons:
It impedes people’s freedom to raise in the asset of their choice. This will just drive business to other platforms that don’t restrict freedom in this way. Personally I myself would not want to launch a project on such a platform.
The purpose of SOV is not to be a currency or “money” like BTC, its purpose is to align the incentives of Sovryn governors (SOV stakers) with the long-term health of the protocol. This long-term alignment of incentives should make Sovryn a more stable, well-run protocol, which over time as the protocol proves itself will attract users looking for those qualities. Forcing projects to accept SOV in exchange for their token is forcing a square peg into a round hole. I simply don’t see this as a compatible use-case for SOV.
I’m happy to see that Babelfish chose to accept RBTC in their sale, and encourage other projects that launch on Origins to do so as well. This is exactly why bitcoin was invented, for use as electronic cash in commerce. But for any who choose to raise in a different asset, that’s fine too, and I hope projects continue to have freedom in the choice of asset they raise with using Origins.