Zero on Ethereum will work with WBTC as collateral as those tokens will only be native to Ethereum and its sidechains where WBTC is the main form of Bitcoin value available.
Remember RBTC is no more actual Bitcoin than WBTC or Stacks XBTC is. They all are value representations of actual BTC locked in a smart contract in one way or another.
Obviously, WBTC is not RBTC and there is no need to bring WBTC to Rootstock or RBTC to Ethereum. There is no need to convert people from either camp to switch the way they wrap their Bitcoin to use in DeFi. Sovryn just needs to bring utility to Bitcoin in whatever way one has chosen to wrap it.
Rootstock has had no success convincing WBTC holders to buy RBTC so why would Sovryn succeed where Rootstock has already failed?
The whole idea of “bridge(ing) RBTC onto Ethereum and create(ing) an RBTC lending pool that allows WBTC as collateral.” is inefficient and would most likely be cost-prohibitive as an alternative. It already costs at least $53 bucks to bridge back to Ethereum, If the gas to mint a DLLR on Ethereum using WBTC as collateral is more expensive, then I could see the feasibility of wrapping DLLR and bridging it out to Ethereum. But with that solution, we still have the problem of “convincing” people to sell WBTC for RBTC which appears to be a losing proposition.
If we bridge RBTC onto Ethereum and create an RBTC lending pool that allows WBTC as collateral we create a lot of friction. Users have to deposit WBTC (transaction fee), borrow RBTC (unnecessary interest expense), and then bridge RBTC back to Rootstock (another fee to get native on Rootstock), where they can borrow DLLR (another set of fees) to be bridged back to Ethereum (another fee). Quite complicated and even if simplified in UX still potentially very expensive.
As far as governance goes, I don’t see a problem with governance for the Ethereum iteration. Maker, UniSwap, AAVE, GMX, and many other protocols have deployments across various chains and handle governance through their primary governance model. The same governance model currently used by Sovryn can be applied to the Ethereum deployment.
As far as not having a unique selling proposition because of DAI’s existence I think one needs to broaden their view of the narrative that can be promoted. While DAI does allow WBTC as collateral, MakerDAO only offers “multi-collateral” stablecoins.
No protocol currently offers a dollar-value token (DVT) backed exclusively by WBTC.
Sovryn’s USP is that it is the only protocol that offers this unique value proposition.
Sovryn can pioneer a brand new category of “stable-coins” US Dollar Value Tokens. We can switch the narrative to the backing of the token and make the “dollar peg” less relevant. Sovryn can emphasize that their DVTs are not backed by any dollar-denominated assets yet are always exchangeable for $1 worth of satoshis.
Mint today for 3,226 sats payback for whatever the future sat value of $1 in the future.
Bitcoin dollar price doubles, burn your tokens for half the sats!
Sovryn’s objective should not be to just “build ON Bitcoin” Sovryn should build FOR Bitcoin wherever that Bitcoin may be, in whatever wrapped form the Bitcoin may take on.
Are there different risks with WBTC that are not inherent with RBTC? Sure. But the market has chosen WBTC by a factor of +40 to 1 (4.88B to 98M). Sovryn needs to offer more decentralized Bitcoin-backed DVTs built on whatever network has Bitcoin liquidity be it Rootstock, Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, Arbitrum, or Polygon.
The whole “But not if it ultimately uses WBTC.” argument is short-sighted at best and pseudo-maxi prejudice at worse.
Let’s keep the discussion going…