[DRAFT] SIP-0035 Support for the Origins Subprotocol

[remedcu]

@dseroy

Can you confirm revenue would be any compensation or value that OG stakers receive?

Yes, that is the intention. Any revenue from Origins will be distributed as mentioned in the Draft SIP.

@LordElvic

There are clearly more opportunities to refine messaging and priorities

We agree, and we will indeed be working on that.

@SuperMoonMars

Community stake OG tokens, the yields generated are redirected to purchase other projects tokens launching in Origins

This is an exciting model, and we can discuss this with the Origins Bitocracy once this SIP passes.

@Jonezee

The devil is in the details of the what, how and when.

Exactly!

@yago

Additionally, we are likely to get the subDAO structure wrong with our first attempt at the model. We will need to iterate on it, to get it right. This is another reason to start early.

Thank You for trusting

@Sitizen

The Citadel they belong to would benefit greatly form having the blacksmiths doing the forging and the warriors doing the fighting!

Nicely put!

@Wilder

I do not want to give up 80% of OG profits for the current benefits outlined.

Do you have a number that you want to suggest for the revenue distribution?

@Sitizen

I look forward to the SIP update because I think that the SIP in the current form lacks some clarity.

Any suggestions on which part you think we should explain in more detail?

@Jonezee

More importantly to me, how do you make this layered system accessible to laymen?

When it comes to Origins, the simple answer is, Origins primary focus will be on the launchpad. Origins is related to Sovryn through the Bonding Curve and Revenue Distribution. A Bonding Curve can be considered as a 2-way pipe, which takes in one token, and takes out another, where the tokens involved are OG and SOV. In terms of governance, OG is the state court, and SOV is the Supreme Court.

And with time, Origins and Sovryn will be improving on the documentation, Wiki, and UX/UI to make it much easier and more detailed for a general user to understand everything involved in this decentralized system.

@Tricorn

Does it mean that SOV holders will have the opportunity to buy OG tokens early

We have a round only for the Sovryn Stakers to buy OG Tokens.

@Wilder

Down the line if we have all this wonderful utility of Zero , OG, and more , I want people to buy SOV. I do not want competition between SOV and it’s Sub Dao’s. (OG maxi, vs Zero maxi, Vs SOV maxi) .

The bonding curve ensures that if there are OG maxi, they need SOV to buy those, which makes them get SOV, which increases its price. Which should solve the problem of:

@Wilder

I want to see the highest possible SOV price like all of us.

Again, quoting what Yago said on another post:

@yago

In the short term, there will be increased demand for SOV from those interested in acquiring OG. In the long term, any appreciation of price in OG will translate to additional demand and value accrual for SOV, through the bonding curve.

@Darkblu92

Subprotocols ad tremendous value to the Sovryn ecosystem , they bring new talent in, they create new value and they add it to Sovryn through the bonding curve.

Well said!

@Darkblu92

If you think of Sovryn as an ecosystem then Origins is an organism that is part of the ecosystem. In this scenario the Ecosystem’s value is directly proportional with the number of organisms. The more organisms you have the bigger the Ecosystem’s value gets.

Awesome analogy!

@Sitizen

not burden “core Sovryn” with even more stuff!

I cannot agree more!

==================

These are fantastic arguments, and I liked how everyone is participating in this SIP. All the feedbacks will be considered for the Draft SIP.

[Wilder]

New utility for SOV: minting subprotocol tokens

There seems to be some restlessness among some SOV holders who are itching to do things with their SOV other than staking, voting, and providing liquidity in the SOV/RBTC AMM pool (see this thread, for example). While I am myself content with the current use of SOV as an incentive alignment and coordination token, I do have an idea that I think can add even more “utility” to this use case for SOV. Rather than have one token that governs every aspect of Sovryn, instead we can start to think of e…

The alternative he suggests seems more appropriate for OG.

@remedcu

Do you have a number that you want to suggest for the revenue distribution?

My earlier example trying an alt idea. Direct dev incentivizing(with power) to promote hiring, which is our concern.

@Wilder

I think that paying developers in SOV is that capture of current and future value.

Here is one approach that uses OG that seems like it wont be a large risk to current holders.
If there is lets say 5% launch revenue gained in a OG launch
2.5% in underlying token
2.5% btc raised

25% to OG (dev incentivisation token, has no more than 40% control in voting for OG). Concentrate token to the devs, which we need, and not a public sale. Dev guild tokens. SOV can still control OG with excellent consensus
75% to SOV holders. We are retaining a substantial value.

The launchpad has many organic sources of income.
I see Origins as a piece of the current SOV valuation.

For Zero or Mint I beleive the proposed bonding curve makes more sense. I am much more comfortable experimenting on those features. This is still short term enough to lead the way and learn the best/perfect way of a Sovryn spinoff/guild

I would like to try the bonding curve on Zero as our first trial/experiment!

[remedcu]

Hello Everyone,

Based on the feedback we received from the community, we have updated the SIP and the Tokenomics.

New Links:
SIP Link: Origins Draft SIP - Google Docs
Tokenomics Link: Origins Token Allocation Draft - Google Sheets

For knowing the things updated in 5 minutes, check the below image:

[dseroy]

Great proposal, thanks for your considerations.

However, I’m confused on how Sovryn is receiving 40% revenue share, particularly the claim that 20% is from in-direct revenue. That section doesn’t make sense.

The direct revenue is straightforward, 20% of future Origins revenue goes to Bitocracy stakers, regardless of whether they own or stake OG.

Then separately you explain token drops, which is totally separate from revenue but considered in-direct revenue share? How does 6% airdrop to stakers, 33% airdrop to Sovryn treasury, and 1% to Sovryn team translate to another 20% of in-direct revenue?

I’m also wondering what is the point of Sovryn treasury having 33% of tokens. What will this be used for?

[remedcu]

This might help you to visualize and answer the question.

All that is green is ultimately (directly + indirectly) coming to Sovryn Community.

[magicmike]

Thanks for the update. I have several questions:

1. How does the Sovryn veto work? Does there have to be a Sovryn vote every time there is an OG vote, in order to determine if there should be a veto?
2. Will Origins, in some cases, be compensated by issuers with tokens of the newly issued token? If so, how will this be handled for the revenue distribution? Will SOV stakers be compensated with 20% of the tokens received? Will Origins sell the tokens on the open market and flow proceeds to revenue when sold?
3. As dseroy asks, what is the 33% airdrop to Sovryn Treasury for.

[remedcu]

1. Sovryn Bitocracy won’t have to make votes each time an Origins Bitocracy Vote happens. Sovryn Community only has to propose the Sovryn Bitocracy if the Origins Bitocracy finished a vote, which may badly affect the Sovryn Community.

2. Yes, the project listing fee can be in the project tokens, ultimately depending on the OIP. And in the OIP, it will be mentioned how the protocol will handle the tokens (distributed as tokens themselves, or any conversion will happen). But in any case, this is still fee, thus will be distributed as mentioned in the Origins SIP.

3. It is not an airdrop but an allocation.

[Sitizen]

I really like the look of this updated Draft. Thanks Shebin. Looking forward to get this SIP approved! Cheers

[TM1]

Thanks for the update and provided information.

Is there any deeper outline on the business model?

ie how Origins will make money in a sustainable way?
Of course it’s from listings, but wouldn’t that favour a vote of the like:
“it’s shity, but let’s catch the fees”?

[dseroy]

@remedcu but do you know why Sovryn requested or is being granted that allocation? I’m fine with it and the whole proposal, but will those funds just sit on Sovryn balance sheet? Are we going to dump them into bonding curve, are we dropping them to stakers?

Who and the Sovryn side negotiated or came up with that allocation.

Perhaps someone from team or exchequer can explain the plan we have for holding 33M OG tokens?

@yago @Ingalandia @light

[magicmike]

@remedcu

Sovryn Bitocracy won’t have to make votes each time an Origins Bitocracy Vote happens. Sovryn Community only has to propose the Sovryn Bitocracy if the Origins Bitocracy finished a vote, which may badly affect the Sovryn Community.

So is there some extended time period after OG SIPs pass before they are implemented, to allow for a potential veto?

@remedcu

It is not an airdrop but an allocation.

Aside from the terminology, what is the thinking behind the 33% allocated to the Sovryn treasury. I’m not opposed to it, I would just like to understand the rationale.

[dseroy]

One idea I’ve already suggested to Shebin is forking Olympus Pro and leveraging their bond model. I am really excited about the prospect of that. Liquidity mining via bonds has proven to be very lucrative and its perfect product to offer for new token launches and frankly even as a service to sell to Sovryn!

The concept is called Protocol Owned Liquidity or PoL. The purpose is to reduce mercenary LP’s. Most liquidity in DeFi is only there as long as the protocol is offering juicy LM rewards (like Sovryn is doing now and like all future Origins projects likely would have to do prior to PoL). As soon as those stop then there is a mass exodus of liquidity which really leaves the protocols in trouble. This means the protocol has a near perpetual expense of air-dropping tokens to feed and maintain that liquidity. It’s not sustainable. With PoL, the protocol can buy that liquidity and turn it into an asset on the books. Instead of air-dropping rewards weekly you can offer bonds and tell users they can sell their liquidity and in-return receive discounted tokens. Once the protocol owns the liquidity you eliminate the perpetual air dropping expense and also ensure the liquidity will not leave the system. This creates healthy protocols, stronger price action and attracts long-term holders. And the protocol now owns the liquidity so they earn revenue themselves as actual LP’s.

Aside from being an incredible sales pitch to launch on Origins, it’s a revenue generator as currently Origins could collect 3% on every bond sale.

I’m not sure Origins road map but i’d like to push this feature to the front. It’s immediately useful and revenue generating.

[remedcu]

So, as you said, the primary earning will be from the listing only. But in the future, we could provide more services alongside listing, for example, what @dseroy was mentioning (It is still in discussion) here: [DRAFT] SIP-00XX Support for the Origins Subprotocol - #116 by dseroy

To answer the second part, the beauty of our platform is that it is not the Core Team that selects which project to be listed, but the community. And let’s say Bitconnect 2.0 comes into Origins and make a proposal that promises a hefty fee for listing. They have to convince the Origins Community to list it, which is highly unlikely to happen (because the short-term gain won’t matter if, in the long term, everything goes to dump).

[remedcu]

@magicmike

So is there some extended time period after OG SIPs pass before they are implemented, to allow for a potential veto?

Yes, the Origins implementation period will be of 3 days to accommodate the Sovryn bitocracy voting, if a need arises.

@magicmike

Aside from the terminology, what is the thinking behind the 33% allocated to the Sovryn treasury. I’m not opposed to it, I would just like to understand the rationale.

We worked on the Tokenomics 100 different ways, tweaking all values, making sure that we take in all the feedback from the community, consider the seed investors as well as don’t forget Sovryn. And after days of work, we came up with this number which we believe makes sure everyone is in a win-win situation.

[Jonezee]

OHM bonds do seem to work exceptionally well. I agree it’s a model that should be considered. A variation on protocol owned liquidy I also deeply love, is that of GMX.io. Their GLP (liquidity) token functions as an index fund consisting of a basket of weighted BTC/ETH/UNI/LINK/USDT/USDC tokens. And all those tokens in the basket can thereby be spot and margin traded on GMX with very low slippage, and fluent execution. Prices depend on chainlink oracles. All fees accrue to the protocol, stakers and GLP holders, and all liquidity is held by the protocol, and those fees are vast compared to AUM. It’s a beautiful model as well, with big advantages over the traditional ‘vampire-risk’ liquidity system you outline. I expect there are lessons in there for Sovryn.

[yago]

@dseroy I too have been thinking that we should be looking to PoL for Sovryn. I don’t understand how you envision this as it relates to Origins.

[Ingalandia]

This sounds super smart. I’m really down for this and would like to help if there’s any way I can.

[remedcu]

SIP is merged to the SIPs Repo: SIPS/SIP-0035.md at 04baceb9dc9e593b0666eca57735d4bc6ddb2613 · DistributedCollective/SIPS · GitHub

[remedcu]

Make your votes in: Sovryn Bitocracy

Origins

[karabela]

why we have SIP 35 voted before SIP 31? Is SIP 35 necessary to launch the MintLayer and Niftify projects on the platform?