Hi
To sum it up, big NO. Absolutely not! I will detail further down below!
First let’s analyse some of the claims made in the new SIP proposal.
-
Bonding Curve - which was designed to link the SOV and OG token prices, and for us, it was an ‘experiment’ - How is a decision made by the Sovryn community an “experiment”? Nowhere in the approved SIP there was any statement that would make the voters realise the the Bonding Curve was optional. The Sovryn community voted almost unanimously to pass SIP 35 not merely because it wanted a new sub-token but specifically because of the way that it was going to be implemented, through a bonding curve, which would have brought a significant benefit to the Sovryn ecosystem in the long term. If the community would have been made aware that the Bonding-Curve was just an experiment, I am sure that the votes would have been cast differently than they have been.
-
it came at too high a cost to the project to implement. - This should have been discussed with the community openly. I am currently staked for over 3 years, and I did this to allow for this project to evolve to its best possible and to give it the time and the resources it needs to do so. If the cost is indeed to high for the project to implement, than it does not automatically mean that the project should separate even further from Sovryn to become more or less independent. Launching it this way it would mean that the success or failure of Sovryn or of Origins will have no real impact on one another. The incentive for the separate teams working specifically on developing a part of the ecosystem was that being bonded to SOV, their success would be SOV success, and their failure would impact Sovryn as well, and the other way around. Now they can be completely separate, and if Sovryn would go down(its not gonna happen) Origins would be well off without Sovryn, their success will be preserved. The idea is not go down together, but grow and aim high together. This is what the Sovryns voted for, and we are given the opposite.
-
the large raise can limit the remaining appetite for OG in the market after the sale, especially in the short run. - We the Sovryns are in it for the LONG run! This would actually be best. I think that the Bonding Curve actually does a good thing in doing exactly what you are trying to bring up as a disadvantage. Rather than pumping a separate token, it allows for SOV to grow organically using all its sub-tokens. This was the main selling point of the sub-tokens, that they would be launched in a way that would benefit SOV directly, and not create separate tokens, but bonded tokens: allowing for governance to function and offer the possibility of separate teams to concentrate on separate parts of the ecosystem. This would have been fair for the parts that were better developed and for the teams involved more, to be better rewarded, but all progress and success would reflect directly on SOV, as it should be. Origins belongs to Sovryn. While the new SIP can provide improved incentives for SOV stakers, the main benefit of even having any sub-token and the way they were going to be implemented, has been taken out, so if this is the only way, we should not have any sub-tokens at all.
-
a successful launch can add a lot of weight to early project adoption - and a failed launch can significantly hinder this adoption. - Agreed. Thankfully Sovryn already super-succesfully launched and is a great success! This is what it’s all about right? Sovryn success? Or is it? Isn’t this what Origins should be about? Seems to me like Origins wants to take advantage of Sovryns success to launch itself separately. Origins was and is a major part of Sovryn, from the start. It simply cannot be that it separates itself from Sovryn. It is Sovryn. If the launch is not possible using the bonding curve, it should not become separate at all.
-
Simplifying our go-to-market and making it more efficient and easy to understand will significantly improve points 1 and 2, which will enhance the launch success of Origins itself and subsequent launchpad projects. - I am curious how are you gonna market Origins. Are you even gonna mention Sovryn? How will you tie Origins to Sovryn? If its not fully dependant why would any user bother buying SOV and being a staker? They can just buy the OG token and this would have no impact on SOV or direct significant benefit for SOV stakers. Using the bonding curve, if a user would buy the OG token, even if he would not use other parts of Sovryn ecosystem, by buying OG, he directly impacted SOV because of the Bonding-Curve, and this would be the best benefit for SOV stakers and for Sovryn as a whole, even if that user is only interested in Origins. This way the SOV holders as well as OG holders would be directly rewarded by EVERY investment in Origins, as it should be, as all the hard effort put into making Origins what it would be was made by the Sovryn community and stakers.
6.** The UI to make using bonding curve + sov-bonded governance is still immature, and this can lead to a bad user experience - so while sov-bonded tokens could use this methodology for the future, it may be too soon to risk it for OG - given the short time period, we have before launching.** - So now we are in a rush? We waited patiently even after the launches have been postponed time and time again, but hey, we’re here for the long term, so no offence there. So why rush now? Do you need more time? Just say so and I believe the community will give it to you. But cancel the very thing that gave you the opportunity to concentrate your work as a team on a certain part of Sovryn ecosystem and be rewarded for it directly proportional with your success? How is that acceptable? Need testing? Allow users to test it. Launch Mint UI and improve upon use. But don’t cancel the basis upon which you were allowed to function as a sub-protocol. If this is too hard for this team maybe is a good idea for the initial/whole team to handle it. We overcome obstacles by working together not avoiding them and go our separate ways.
These are some of the main arguments that were given in support to this change. I believe we should review them carefully and thinking for the LONG term success of SOVRYN not Origins. This is why we are here for.
Cancelling the bonding curve is cancelling the technology which was the basis of the vote to have sub-protocols. IF that basis is removed, so should be the option of having sub-protocols in any other way, at least this particular way presented here.
I believe that if we go forward with this vote and will somehow pass, it will indeed be good for the short-term of Origins, of the Origins team, maybe for their long term as well, but NOT FOR SOVRYN’s. I believe that deviating this way will be a major blow to Sovryn and to everything that was built so far. We should tread carefully.
If this is going for a vote anyway, I urge the core team, the major holders of voting power to allow for the community to vote first, and for them to vote towards the end. This way they will see the true opinion of the community/SOV stakers, and then decide how they vote based on that. I believe that this way, a bit more of decentralisation will be demonstrated, and the will of the SOV stakers from the community will matter, and not be lost in the huge percentage of voting power that the team holds.
I know that this opinion may come across as harsh, but sometimes you have to step on the edge to see the danger that lies ahead! I am not aiming this at anyone personally. I believe that if we ALL have Sovryn interest in mind, we will all agree on most of the points made above. Opinions may differ but the core principal should be the same. Conflict may arise where personal benefit is above Sovryn’s benefit. This is my opinion. Please take the time to state yours!
We are Sovryn! Let’s STAY Sovryn!
