[DRAFT] SIP-0035 Support for the Origins Subprotocol

I will quote you in this answer :sweat_smile: “subprotocol of Sovryn”, so if there is a revenue share of that subprotocol, a part of it should be shared with Sovryn, and not Origins. How much, and how that arrangement will be with Sovryn will be decided by Sovryn and that Sub Protocol.

So, we are looking at the different paths we could take for the Bonding Curve, and how to implement that best to provide the best value.

Higher the reserve ratio, lesser price fluctuation. In a normal AMM, the price fluctuation is based on the liquidity provided by the LPs. Similar to that, here the liquidity is the reserve, the higher the percentage, the better the stability. Providing better stability is an aim, but the price will always be decided by the community.

Currently, in the GovernorAlpha Smart Contract, we have a guardian address, which will be the Sovryn Bitocracy’s Timelock Contract Address. So, to paint a picture, let’s say Origins Community wants to list a scam project XYZ. And the voting started on 1st January.

Origins Voting will also take 24 hours for voting, and let’s say due to greed or any other reason, the Origins Voting passed on January 2nd. The voting then will take 3 days for execution in Origins Timelock Contract, which will be purposefully delayed as 3 days, as opposed to the 1-day rule for (lower) governance in Sovryn Bitocracy. Thus the voting can only pass on 5th January.

Now, anyone from the Sovryn Community can make a vote in Sovryn Bitocracy on 2nd/3rd January, and if the vote passed (which will take 1 day) on the next day, it will also go to the Sovryn Timelock Contract, where the delay is also 1 day, which brings us to 3rd/4th January, well before the vote gets executed on Origins Bitocracy.

Thus Sovryn Bitocracy will always remain a step ahead of Origins Bitocracy.

The smart contract is written in such a way that the guardian (Sovryn Bitocracy) itself can revoke the right to be the guardian. Unless Sovryn Community decides that, Origins cannot do anything regarding that matter.

I think the above process mentions that in detail.

Hope this clears the doubts.

@remedcu – Can we dig into the “revenue” of Origins?

  • What are all the possible ways you see Origins earning revenue? Is revenue only fees from sell transactions on bonding curve (can you confirm that means selling SOV into bonding curve for OG token, or does it mean redeeming OG token back for SOV or both)? What about airdrops on future projects, is that considered revenue? Or possible consulting fees charged to prospective Origins projects? Are there other forms of revenue in the future?

  • How did you determine 20% revenue allocation to SOV stakers as reasonable?

  • Have you done any rough projections or analysis to assess how much revenue Origins could bring in?

5 Likes

I think you bring up a valid point in noting that SOV should add value relative to sats. SOV is building off of BTC, so relative to sats is good. However, I’m not inclined to measure based on ATH. ATH is subject to too much market speculation. The flip side is that measuring based on value added since community sale would be measuring against a ridiculously low endpoint. We definitely SHOULD measure SOV based on value added. That number isn’t ATH though. That base number is the summation of SOV supply x (Market price - Average acquisition cost). There is a case to be made that the cost of capital should be deducted as well (interest rate, and risk). That’s an academic question akin to calculating “real value added”.

At the current system, we can have transaction revenue earning from bonding curve. And we could also charge a certain fee on Project Owners based on the amount raised, or part of their token, etc. The exact details will change between projects based on different circumstances like the amount raised, etc.

In the future, there will be other sale types, and revenue from those are also considered in the same revenue distribution scheme.

So, how I see this is how much revenue Origins could make if a dedicated team is working behind them as opposed to making Sovryn do all the work for everything, and just be able to do average.

The 20% of a bigger pie will always be more than any higher % of a smaller pie. And in the long run, it will be much more valuable with a Core team.

So, right now we went with a $30 Million valuation for the tokenomics based on the revenue I hope Origins could make in the next 5 years. Obviously it is based on assumptions, but we are thinking realistically, or could even say pessimistically, so a better valuation is received by the community, and there is room for growth for OG.

1 Like

I’m not clear. What does this comment mean?

Post listing, any new token would be in the Sovryn AMM’s with swap fees and trade fees accruing to LP and Stakers, right?

This SIP has spurred excellent community debate. One thing it made me realize is that much of the conversation rests on our view of what Sovryn is, how it creates value and how it should scale. I have whipped up 3 short videos on my personal take on these:

4 Likes

When you refer to stakers, do you mean voluntary stakers or all stakers including vesting stakers as well?

hey Sovryns.

I used to work as a projects manager for a construction firm in London, and me and my boss have always argued which is better, managing employees under one monolithic system of management (his argument was that it will result in a bigger proffit for the company) or subcontracting. We ran the experiment, in one we had team leaders managing teams and the other we subcontracted works to subcontractors. We discovered that the project that had subcontractors doing works has been finnished before deadlines and the budget was much better managed - better profit. The difference between the two was the finacial incentives.

One of my biggest worry in the recent days was the ability to expand efficiently. In my oppinion managing all these parts under one umbrella is nearly imposible , and in this sort of system if one wheel creaks the whole thing does not function properly.

Going for sub-protocols is a no brainer in my oppinion, and a solution that will sort things out in the short term and the long term. This sort of approach will bring even more teams eager to build on sovryn and so expanding the ecosystem bringing in even more revenue for Sovryn and the stakers. More users will come for the staking, more sov will be locked in staking and bonding curve and will create a sov supply squeze quickly. Not really worried about the price as i have staked the majority of my tokens for the maximum period but this will push the price up exponentially mid-term.

I am not worried of fragmentation, i do not see it that way. I never thought of Sovryn as just a lending borrowing and trading for bitcoin in the first place. It is importat that we do not cage ourself with limitations out of fear, I am excited of the potential direction Sovryn is taking. It is a huge opportunity that if missed it’ll take a lot of time to recover.

As long as the marketing will not separate Origins from Sovryn, I’ll be a happy man and i strongly think that the public must know that Origins is SOVRYN’s Origins, NOT a separate entity, the same for all the other sub-protocols.

If we get to voting I will vote yes with all my heart.

PS. I love the Origins Logo, mythical and meaningful!

Let’s get it Sovryns!

10 Likes

For the revenue distribution to Sovryn, I was thinking of the Liquid Stakers, in a similar fashion to Staking Reward is currently distributed.

2 Likes

Can you confirm revenue would be any compensation or value that OG stakers receive? I want to make sure SOV stakers have identical revenue privilege as OG stakers have. We need to avoid a scenario where we identify 20% of XYZ revenue source included to SOV stakers, but does not include future unknown revenue from ABC source (like airdrops, etc.) which aren’t explicitly identified.

6 Likes

I am also in agreement that founders should absolutely vote. They have more knowledge on the projects and what is in the pipeline that we don’t know yet, for obvious reasons. But, with that said, it would be great to have transparency on who is voting for the SIPS and who is against them. Not the specific person, but a tally between founders and by others, just two categories would be great. That way if the community votes overwhelmingly against something but the founders vote for it and it passes, we know the limitations to the community vote / result of concentration in the voting power.

I like transparency and I think this would go a long way to helping us with this controversary votes like this may become.

3 Likes

@yago and @exiledsurfer as well as many others - I appreciate this level of engagement and insight. Since I am seeing SOVRYN as much more than a single purpose, single community segment platform - I think that the argument for Origins makes sense, the bonding curve makes sense, and the general approach to revenue allocations makes sense. There are clearly more opportunities to refine messaging and priorities but - overall - this looks like it will be good for the the broader and long term vision.
Since I am hoping to see even more innovation and use cases supported sooner -rather than later - this is exciting to me. I believe the team is doing amazing things but that we are in a quantum condition of both a sprint and a marathon at the same time. It seems, then, that being able to scale activities across sub communities is the only rational way to do this.

My 2 cents!

2 Likes

Support origins launchpad as a sub-protocol.

Side note on the staking rewards mechanism for Origins, instead of giving the yields in OG tokens, can we model it similarly to Pylon Protocol?

The concept is simple, focusing on “lossless investment”. Community stake OG tokens, the yields generated are redirected to purchase other projects tokens launching in Origins. Principal asset is protected.

In this way, community will be able to enjoy allocations to new projects without committing more capital.

I wrote this blogpost due to the Origins discussion. I think it helps frame my support for Guilds - or the subDAO idea:

4 Likes

Wow!, I found that thought provoking, profound and wonderfully aspirational.

I joined this community relatively recently, attracted by “DeFi for Bitcoin”, but this is a much bigger and very compelling vision!

Thank you for this blogpost and the 3 part videos on the same theme.

I’m looking forward to responses from other (more experienced) members of this community to gauge whether this is already a shared vision, or the beginning of a fascinating discussion on the fundamental question “what is Sovryn”.

2 Likes

“Bitcoin is rules without rulers. Ethereum is politics without process.”

Eloquently put.

2 Likes

Really enjoying the big-brained discussion in this thread. Subsidiarity principle is the right approach, I have no doubt. The devil is in the details of the what, how and when.

Despite all the (great!) discussion so far and these (awesome) blog posts, I’m unable to extract from these discussions and interesting reflections answers to the simplest questions about the need for sub-protocols. Compare two outcomes of this Sip.

Scenario I : Sovryn has a flat governance structure, without baked-in structural fencing in terms of separate protocols that marks off one sub-group like Origins from other such sub-groups

Scenario II : Sovryn has a hierarchical governance structure, with a separate protocol to mark off Origins and a special token one needs to obtain to enter this sub-community.

We imagine decisions about what to launch and the launching itself in these two scenarios. Despite all the discussion, I still struggle to see any good concrete answers to the most basic questions, such as what problems does Scenario I have that do not show up in Scenario II? Will better decisions be made in Scenario II, better tokens be launched? Why should we think that? Will the launching go smoother in Scenario II? Again, why should we think that?

These questions are not requests for high-level metaphors and analogies, nor for abstract principles about property rights or the nature of governance (which is not say that I don’t love to discuss these, I do!). These abstract considerations simply don’t answer these most basic questions. They are also not questions decided by details about revenue or implementation. It’s simply: show me the concrete hands-on problems with what we have, so that I see the need to complicate things.

Sub-protocols are a cool gadget, and they offer a model of governance that is of intrinsic interest (technically and philosophically). Sure. But why do we , given what we have and how it works, need it?

5 Likes

@Martin_Adriaan I agree. I know @remedcu is working on an analysis of this. I am also working on responses to some of this, but felt I need to provide context first.

2 Likes

@Martin_Adriaan - does this not answer a big part of part you are asking?

1 Like