[DRAFT] SIP-00XX Origins subprotocol update

Bitocracy SIP | Sovryn Improvement Proposals
21

Also definitely opposed to this.

To me there is one silver lining to this SIP. The sub-protocols are not a good idea to start with (I stand by my points in the earlier discussion and haven’t changed my mind on any of them). People were warming up to the sub-protocols through this idea of a bonding curve. So, perhaps contrary to many others here, I’m happy to see the criticisms of the bonding curve in the SIP and I think they are correct.

I think the curve has clouded people’s judgement on the entire proposal for sub-protocols, getting too hung up on the idea that demand for the new tokens would translate to demand for Sovryn through the curve. I think this was being highly overestimated and would be a relatively minor demand, certainly not near to outweighing the costs of having sub-protocols. So I’m happy to now see reservations expressed in the SIP about the bonding curves and also to see that without it, community members are immediately sceptical of having sub-protocols. I think the SIP is correct in its reservations about the bonding curve. Yes, steep learning curves (and unfamiliar tokenomics, “what is the max supply?", no it doesn’t work that way, “what is the release schedule?”, no, no it’s a curve, go study it, and so on). And yes it may be an interesting idea, but it’s indeed experimental in the consequences it would have. In Ororo’s manifesto: “Ethereum is our testnet. Let it provide the radioactive pool where mutations are many. Let us observe it as it moves fast and breaks things. We will adopt it’s best tools and learn to defend against its worst.” Implementing the bonding curves was straying the course and moving too fast (and I think, would have indeed broken things), so I’m glad to see abandoned for now.

Sovryn should let go of the entire sub-protocols idea, for Origins and Zero, and find a way to draw Mynt back in as well.

One final point. I think this unexpected change to the SIP demonstrates again that the procedures in the communication between team and community is not right, something I mention in another grumpy post and during the call. There was a long discussion and then there was a vote (whose outcome I didn’t like but a vote is a vote). Then Christmas, talk behind the scenes, and then a quite radical change of plans. As community member, you just don’t know what’s really happening. This really needs to be avoided going into the future.

I hope that some good may come out of this.

12 Likes
22

As community member, you just don’t know what’s really happening.

Fully agree its a huge issue. Then we get Yago in saying “the more openess we give the less open it seems the more openes is demanded” orwellian comment on the last community call (it was the first time I was really offended by something Yago said and I hope he reels that comment back in) .

Currently there is zero transparency. We don´t know how funds are spend we don´t know what team is up to we don´t know why these decisions are really made. Its a total black box.

4 Likes
23

I understand why that could seem like an Orwellian comment. However, I did not suggest that we should not have transparency. Instead I was pointing to the fact that when you do have transparency, the price you pay is that all the messiness is exposed.
I think this is true and we should be honest about it.

For example, you say there is zero transparency on what the team is working on and how funds are spent. However, the what the team is working on each sprint has been visible in the Github until very recently. Most recently, sprint planning moved to Monday and we are working to see how to make that visible as well.

There is also work being invested in building out a treasury dashboard so that we will all have better visibility into the treasury. This has been months of work and is nearing completion.

With regards to decisions, the discussion we are having here is part of the decision making process. This process can be improved, and @Martin_Adriaan’s “grumpy” post helps outline some possible directions.

My sense is that the sub-protocol tokens and how they are to be created is an issue that is causing a good deal of confusion and controversy and I think it would be a good idea to have a moratorium on new token launches until we have had a town hall on this and related matter and an opportunity to come to a clear understanding as the Sovryn community.

5 Likes
24

I agree with you, Jocos.
The Bonding Curve proposal was the main incentive for me to vote in favour of the SIP.
Without the Bonding Curve, there is no ongoing link between OG and SOV, and I am most concerned about such a prospect.
If the BC interface is not ready, then take as much time as you need to get it right. We are not in a rush, we all know that we are in the very early stages of this project.
It is far more important to get this right than to get it soon

1 Like
25

Hurrah! Indeed good points. Definitely feels like the rug was pulled out from under the community.

I will wait to see what the community voices and then vote.

2 Likes
26

The number of wallets voting should also be part of the consideration. Just like the block size wars, there was big money/major exchanges fighting for BCash, while the power was in the hands of people via inexpensive nodes, this feels like an attempt to overrun the community.

27

I have offered my services multiple times. :man_shrugging:

28

Great points! I agree completely. SCRAP SUB- PROTOCOLS

3 Likes
29

Hi Yago, I like your idea of a temporary halt on new token launches, specifically for me sub protocol tokens. For me the issue is not how the sub protocol tokens are to be created, it is that they are being created.

If we could have a call specifically related to these tokens and why they are being created. I cannot get my head around it. Why on earth would sovryn stakers give up the full rewards for staking from the sovryn launchpad to some other alt? Why should we have to invest in some other shitcoin to retain access to these rewards. I cant speak for all but I am here and invested in sov because it would let me govern and earn on rewards from bitcoins first real defi. But it feels like time is being spent creating shitty pointless alt coins. One to take fees and control of SOVRYNS launchpad and one to handle zero from SOVRYNS interest free loans… if you could please explain why we should have these new alts when we already have sov. I dont get it…

3 Likes
30

I don’t think you have to get so conspiratorial.

I think that this SIP reflects the opinion of few and a hard fork of Origins is very unlikely.

I feel like a few voices are taking this opportunity to be disrespectful towards the Core Team which have been very gracious towards the community so far, and they are part of the community.

Many of us are very loud on Discord and the forums when it comes to criticism but it gets really quiet when it comes to actually doing the work.

Very few are even bothered to attend a Community Call or maybe promote Sovryn on SM, or even follow and like. You can see the numbers for yourselves. It is really sad to see that we are thousands on Discord and Telegram and the Sovryn Tweets get only 10-30 likes on a good day. It is really pathetic from us, the community, really! That is my criticism towards the community! I feel like the community is very lazy in doing their part and very vocal when numbers don’t go up!

I have waited a little bit just to chew on this update a little bit before I post a detailed oppinion.

In terms of having Origins as a Sub-Protocol without the bonding curve I stand by my earlier comment. “No Bonding Curve = No OG Token”
Even if The SOV Staker is still pretty much at the center of the SIP , I feel like the monetary incentives are outweighed by the philosophical/moral implications/aspects of it.

I remain in favor of SUB-Protocols still, as I feel like this is the way to grow the Sovryn Universe.

If the Bonding Curve in its current form does not fulfill its purpose, then I feel like a launching separate tokens does not make sense.
The solution should be found as @yago suggest by having a discussion in a Town Hall format and move forward in the direction dictated by what has been decided.

Until then I think that it is best that these products are Launched under Sovryn’s Bitocracy governance an issue separate governance tokens when the boding mechanism has gotten mature/thought through enough and makes sense.

We have voted the initial Sub_Protocols and we accepted this novel idea and the fact that we might have to iterate multiple times on it until it gets to where we want. Even if this idea is scrapped , If you voted for the initial proposals , you are a REAL PUSSY if you point fingers now.

7 Likes
31

@JesusJuice agree - will organize a discussion.

4 Likes
32

I agree with the overwhelming dissent expressed be everyone above.

Also, if we’re going to rewrite the agreement from the previous SIP, let’s reconsider a proposal that existing SOV holders retain 100% of Origins.

7 Likes
33

I voted for our current approach. Improving the UI and other usability elements is a great recommendation. Unfortunately - that is not what is being recommended here. We are very close to bi directional Fast BTC and emerging from Alpha and -therefore - likely to be more in the spotlight. Ecosystem integrity is more important than ever and I feel abandoning the bonding curve undermines core values we have and will continue to present to the broader community. I will not be approving this approach.

7 Likes
34

Firstly - let’s look at what the main purpose and benefit of Origins is supposed to be - to allow more projects to launch into the Sovryn, and wider RSK ecosystem, bringing in new users, and awareness of the ecosystem (which benefits SOV more than having a bonded token). So in that context let’s look at the major concerns raised by the community.

  1. The bonding curve - the reason why we have SIPs is to enable community discussion and by no means is this being steamrolled through the community without debate. However, the reasons behind the teams’ decisions have been discussed in the SIP and will be elaborated on here.

The amount we would need to be contributed by SOV stakers, and public participants in the sale would be massive - roughly around $7M USD in order to maintain a proper reserve ratio - while the long-term tethering to SOV may yield benefits (there is no argument there) but the capital requirements will be large as the SOV community would need to fund that.

To reiterate - the purpose of Origins is to bring new participants INTO the Sovryn/RSK ecosystem, so that the entire ecosystem benefits, while also benefiting SOV stakers - this is another reason why we chose a simpler method for OG/SOV transactions which moves to the next point.

  1. User Experience. There have been a few comments about how we should ‘just do better UX’ the points we raised in the SIP were that users wanting to transact OG/SOV would need to commit 3 transactions - including a 10 block wait time, rather than the 2 transactions usually required in a usual AMM (with almost no wait time) this is not something that User Interface/User Experience can fix - it is a property of a bonding curve, think ‘its a feature not a bug’ and if we want to attract new users to the ecosystem, this will be a major hurdle that they will face, and potentially turn them away from participating in the protocol.

  2. Origins being independent of Sovryn - A significant amount of token supply and ongoing revenue is rewarded to SOV stakers - and this cannot be changed (due to Sovryn’s Veto voting power in OG) Origins will always be a subsidiary of Sovryn - however, the function of Origins is to benefit the ecosystem not only from rewards, but by bringing new projects, and users into the ecosystem - which will benefit EVERYONE.

We believe that bringing new projects and users into the ecosystem, outweighs the benefit of having the token bonded to SOV - this is our main motivation behind this move. We want to grow the ecosystem, engage more projects and more users - and we see this as the best path forward for the benefit of all existing and future participants in SOV.

Happy to continue the discussion on this so that we can reach an optimal solution not only for Origins but the wider Sovryn community.

2 Likes
35

I agree bringing new projects into the system is a massive benefit for sovryn. And the launchpad then should be hugely beneficial to sovryn and sov stakers. We launched babel fish, origins, genesis, mynt all of which without having to purchase and stake some other alt shitcoin. When you launch this new coin that governs sovryns launchpad you are going to give sov stakers what? ~25% of the rewards they deserve 100% of for being sov stakers. Why should the other 75% go to some new altcoin we are forced to invest in to maintain a good amount of rewards from sovryns launchpad. Why cant SOV govern sovryns launchpad. Why must you launch a shitcoin? Surely you can have your raise in rbtc or sov without creating a new shitcoin.

7 Likes
36

I suppose though without a new shitcoin there wont be a big chunk of tokens the team give themselves so they get a nice payday

3 Likes
37

I agree with the current sentiment of the rest of the community, either use the Bonding curve, or just use SOV. At this point, just using SOV as the governing token for origins actually sounds better.

Honestly, just proposing this update feels scammy, and I’m pretty perplexed dev is still pushing it after seeing the community’s reaction. After a whole page on forum and discord of people saying it’s shit.

And just so people know I’m not just being a twat, please read through the 100+ comment thread about the og token, where people were complaining about the idea of another shitcoin, and devs basically saying “But the Bonding curve makes it fair” which is funny in context, now that they want to remove it.

7 Likes
38

  1. Creating an additional token will not bring new participants into the sovryn ecosystem. Using SOV for Origins will do for sure. MYNT was able to raise the requested amount.

  2. If the use of the bonding curve is cluncky due to higher block requirements and more transactions, just use SOV instead. This should have even less transactions than an additional OG token, right? If that’s not appropriate, use rBTC or xUSD. No need for any other token.

  3. Bringing new projects and users into the ecosystem is great, but how does this justify buying OG out of the SOV ecosystem? Because this is what you propose. You are cutting all bonds to the SOV governance token with this proposal and buy out SOV stakers.

We need a better solution. If this goes forward, Sovryn will loose more users than it will gain.

7 Likes
39

This is not addressing the major questions and criticisms.

Why is a massive amount needed? Sovryn has a development fund; why is another large reserve needed?

Also, if this is about rewarding the development and/or maintenance, community members have suggested an alternative. As @D2Man suggests above, a percentage of funds raised for projects launching on Sovryn could be used to reward devs for their development and maintenance.

No one is doubting that the Origins launchpad is beneficial to Sovryn; members are doubting the need for a new and separate token. It would be as beneficial without it.

And they would be without a separate token as well. Is the suggestion that there is either a launchpad with a separate token, or no launchpad at all? If so, why would that be?

This is not a convincing cost-benefit argument. To interpret this charitably, I think what is meant is this: a smoother and less complex fundraising mechanism outweighs it’s being bonded to SOV, as it would be a better experience and hence more successful in bringing in new projects. If that’s the real argument, it’s not the right comparison and turning a deaf ear to the points raised by community members. It would be just as smooth and simple if it was simply within Sovryn; in fact, going by the same argument, having the launchpad as it is, in Sovryn with SOV, is the simplest and easiest mechanism, simpler than having a separate token. Also, in terms of publicity, new projects would want to prefer to raise under the banner of Sovryn than under the banner of Origins.

6 Likes
40

Thank you for replying to my comment. Yes there is github. I think I am a more involved member then a lot I would say I read the audit channel on discord and click in the github (notice my comment on “why are funds beeing used to create a animated comic book” )

Yes you expose messiness - every project on earth is messy in some ways - especially in these times with people working unscheduled remotely not being able to see each other freely and regularly etc… I don´t want to read personal drama but some honesty… Like "Hey community we are really trying hard but there is a huge backlog at the audit stage - we see this bottle neck and work on a solution by adding another auditor " (think this has been resolved now but was an example that I could see happening by reading audit channel daily)
There are people way less involved because they do not have the luxury of so much time on their hands reading through 100 commits a week and beeing able to understand them too (not everyone has programming experience) As said honesty - not drama… Its good to see that problems are beeing seen and worked on and not just downplayed or actually not percieved as problems at all… This might be a fine balance - maybe take little steps in that transparancy direction and see how it works and feels for everyone and how its percieved by the community…

There is also work being invested in building out a treasury dashboard so that we will all have better visibility into the treasury. This has been months of work and is nearing completion.

that would be awesome thanks for letting us know!

g a good deal of confusion and controversy and I think it would be a good idea to have a moratorium on new token launches

+100

3 Likes