So is it safe to say that although there was constant argueing over tokens etc and positive feedback ln gimps proposals. That they wont be going to vote ?? Just a waste of his time writing?
Hi @TheGimp . Is there any update on any team follow up on your sips? Or are we still just ‘discussing’ and not going ahead with any of the suggestions
I would also be interested to hear any feedback @TheGimp. Any update on when it can go up for voting would be appreciated.
Agreed, would really like to see some serious effort to get this proposal to a vote. The Gimp put in hard work to publish this and now there is another SIP about investment first.
That feels little like as if we’re standing outside, watching a burning house, ordering new furniture to decorate the house with.
Let’s bring this to a vote pls.
guys…there are some sips coming our way as learnt in the last community call. The Gimp is close to finalising some of the SIPS. PLease have a listen to the call…interesting stuff in there
The Draft SIP is now almost 2 months old. Did anything happen yet? Do we have a final SIP to potentially vote on?
any new on this? Would be great if at least some of @TheGimp proposals make it to a SIP. We got SIP48 approved, now what?
So still nothing? What is going on in the management of Sovryn? Why isn’t that SIP being openly discussed? Heck it already has been discussed. I think a good part of the community does want the changes mentioned here. So why do we not put it up for a vote? If it is being accepted then we can get to work and make Sovryn better. And if not we can finally leave it behind.
And don’t say this SIP is too copmlex to vote on it too quickly. It is already 2,5 months old.
Hey guys still no update on gimps potential sip for over 8 weeks. Is there just no team interest or something? Is anything here going ahead @TheGimp
This might not be directly linked to the Draft SIP’s here, but i suggest you check out the Circle of Tokens section. There is work ongoing to significantly reduce SOV supply and reduce future SOV emissions. Some work got already implemented (latest AMM reward changes) and there will be more changes soon. Recently, we published a proposal to reduce SOV rewards for the XUSD lending pool.
Just because a SIP was proposed, does not mean that it will get voted on. For a SIP to go to a vote, someone needs to bring it to a vote. Thus far, nobody has done this for these four SIPs. Why?
I think part of the reason is that these SIPs are trying to do the work of a scalpel with a butchers knife. There is ongoing, well reasoned, and deeply analyzed work being done on token emissions schedules. This work is primarily being done by the Circle of Tokens. The result of this work is reduced emissions and more effective rewards distribution.
The SIPs proposed here would not accomplish the same.
Gimp’s Package - SIP 1: Lock 10% of Total SOV Supply
The SOV supply is already locked. Tokens that become available from the various pools are not automatically being spent in market. They are locked until the Bitocracy provides them to the Exchequer. If this SIP passes it will have no practical impact on tokens in the market, or even an appreciable impact on rate at which tokens can reach the market. The exchequer is currently in the process of reducing rewards independently of the SIP.
Gimp’s Package - SIP 2: Locking Future SOV Emissions
As above, this will have no near term impact. It would however require significant development. Technical SIPs need code to be presented to be approved. Otherwise they are not executable.
Gimp’s Package - SIP 3: Locking Founder Tokens
This is not something that can be done by a SIP. Sovryn cannot lock, confiscate or otherwise corrupt user balances. The Founders can choose to do this voluntarily. Some of us have discussed this. Some of us are in favor. However, it requires dev work and so there is a real question of priortization.
Gimp’s Package - SIP 4: Incentivize Governance Participation
Again, this is a technical SIP that requires executable code for an upgrade - that is absent. Additionally, it is seeking to introduce changes to Bitocracy, the holy of holies. I and most of the founding team have been looking to implement something like this from the beginning. If there was an easy and obvious path, it would already have been done.
There is one major reason I could see to implement these SIPs as a whole, or something like them. That would be to create a sense of security that token distribution will slow. The reality is that the token distribution is slowing but these SIPs would provide a “Big Announcement” feel that is currently absent. In other words, I think the main value of these SIPs is optics. While optics are important, I think that given where we are - a young, small community in a bear market, their impact NOW would be minimal. I would rather keep the optics for later, when they can be more effective.
Hey Yago, first I want to thank you for the general answer. I appreciate it highly and it gave me much more insight. Secondly I guess I want to apologize? I could have simply gotten all the info myself, but I was too lazy and/or to caught up with the SIP proposal from Gimp. So I wasn’t really paying attention to other SIPs or the other incredible work from the Circle of Tokens. I will certainly correct that behaviour.
My comments mainly were fueled by frustration because of the missing “Big Announcement”, that you mentioned. I would have liked something in that way. But I guess great change can also start small instead of with a big bang. So I will see how it goes from here.
Your comment shed some light on the “unresolved” situation of Gimp’s proposal, which I am grateful for. Thank you
Nothing to apologize for. Glad my post was helpful.