Drafting a SIP for BabelFish

I think the amount of SOV staked should not matter. The date of staking should matter. If being an active telegram/discord/forum reader and interested in Sovryns future, you should have been discovered Babelfish a long time ago and that you must stake SOV to take part of the sale. Its in their first SIP draft.

5 Likes

Yes, I totally agree. Amount shouldn’t matter much, but date of staking (and the length as well) is the most important metric imo since this shows who are really commited and believe in the project(s) and who are staking just to get allocation and make a quick buck.

Regarding BCW getting the 1st day sale allocation - imo that’s okay since they were really early and are very commited as well.

1 Like

Thats a good concept. I would ask you to take the Sovryn aspect a step further:

In effect the SOV token holders own Sovryn. Why? We can vote for or against anything. So if Bablefish wants to use our platform (which is awesome btw) they still need to get the ppl to agree. Otherwise theoretically I could rally the digital-nomadic-troops and we could create a SIP to block them from launching.

This is why discussion is important. When it happens the people are happy. Also why the delegate system is so exciting. These sitatuions may occur daily in the future. Side note → we may one day have delegates with a payment system. Like I hired full time politician. But that’s a whole other idea.

No particular comment , great project guys !! Love it!

Completely agreed , I second this!

I love your pseudonym, but I’m not in the habit of trusting Unholy Lizards, hahaha! David Icke was right! Lol! @UnholyLizard 's perspective is VITAL for all of DeFi to hear, understand, and accommodate. If this first explosion of DeFi turns out to be a “bubble”… then it will have been because market-makers losses popped it and liquidity runs dry. That’s actually what caught my attention about Sovryn in the first place was the DAMM innovation. It is certainly not sustainable for Bitocracy stakers to profit from the losses of Market-Makers in AMMs. That model fails so quickly when liquidity dries up and then Bitocracy stakers sell-off because you can’t run a DEX with no markets. But how do stakers even sell if there’s no more market-makers? Sovryns must remain a unified front which democratically rewards the respective risk taken & utility provided by each aspect of the platform… Thor, Loki, and Odin. We’re not trying to create “equal outcomes”, we’re trying to correctly value and reward the respective risk and utility of actions taken on the platform.

So I’m with the Lizard Peoples on this one. I’m “OKAY” with treating the Bitocracy stakers and market-makers equally for this $FISH sale, but I think we need to do something separately to recognize market-makers. I wish the Bitocracy stakers who aren’t staking the AMM could really understand the certainty of IL which market-makers (like me) willingly and knowingly accepted in order to help grow the platform and make the first market. So yes, I’m okay with equal access for FISH sale, but I do think we should issue a rare NFT to our V1 SOV market-makers. We didn’t make “bad investments” or “wrongly evaluate the risk-reward potential of Market-Making”. We literally said, “Ok, we’ll hopefully break even in order to help the platform”… and then because so many market-makers showed up and diluted down the rewards, I don’t think any market-makers will get their SOV principal back out of the AMM.

So, it’s right and correct that market-makers like me are seeking recognition and fair treatment from Bitocracy stakers (also like me). I allocated about 50% of my SOV to Bitocracy and 50% to AMM, and I’m still participating in both. I really do really want to see Sovryn community approve a SIP to commemorate the first SOV market-makers. Maybe it’s something like a space badger planting the SOV flag on the moon. I don’t know, but it would be nice to see that this community understands and appreciates the value and sacrifice of our first SOV market-makers. If we don’t show appreciate now at the beginning, we risk losing liquidity and loyalty. If we issue a rare NFT, it costs us very little and has potential to dramatically offset the heavy IL V1 market-makers are taking for the team. Just my 2 SOV… Thanks for your thoughts, Lizard! I guess man and reptile really can live together in harmony.

2 Likes

I like the elegance of NFT drops as a mechanism to reward Market-Makers and offset IL. It’s a really neat potential solution because Market-Makers incur an uncertain risk of IL and dropping NFTs creates an equally uncertain reward. I think we need to be careful not to pit Market-Makers and Bitocracy stakers against each other because it will cause a rift in the community and tons of conflict and indecision form our Bitocracy. Focus should be staying unified and aligning objectives. Didn’t more people do half and half like me? I’m surprised to see a lot of people seeming to take the position that, “everyone who did whatever I did should get the juiciest reward.” That’s just silly.

It’s undeniable that I took way more risk in the AMM than I did in the Bitocracy and I’ll lose a bunch of the SOV I deposited there and receive perhaps half of its value in rBTC. I don’t even know where I stand right now, and there aren’t completed metrics or visualization tools showing V1 AMM LPs where we stand. Many of us are in the dark. All we know if that the price of SOV went up considerably against the price of rBTC which is what we desire to happen, but also know will diminish our potential bottom line due to IL. A very special and rare NFT drop to V1 AMM LPs would go a long way to boost LP morale. However, I anticipate that Bitcocracy stakers who aren’t also V1 AMM LPs will complain that they want an NFT too. So, why not issue some NFTs all around to boost morale and celebrate the launch of this awesome platform and community? Well, we don’t want to water down the potential value of NFT drops by dropping a huge quantity. How about we drop very rare NFTs to V1 AMM LPs and we drop rare NFTs to Bitocracy stakers too… but ONLY to those Bitocracy stakers who voted at least one time. That would reward Bitocracy staker participation which LPs value more highly. That seems like a good way to balance the scales and keep our interests aligned.

The solution I’m proposing would reward people like me the most because I would qualify for both NFT drops because I participated in both of those parts of the platform. I’m a V1 AMM LPs and a Bitocracy Voter and I can enthusiastically support this sort of approach. But I don’t think we should be trying to work out our internal incentivization model via tiered access to FISH sale and future presales. It’s better to use NFT to balance these pressures. This project has inspired such extraordinary graphics and community art… it’s the perfect community to leverage NFTs this way. I would like to see V1 AMM LP NFT drop that’s much more rare (and potentially much more valuable) as compared to the NFT we would drop to Bitocracy Voters.

1 Like

Incentivization, reward, and gamification are all aspects of the nft platform we are planning. As i note in this post, it takes time to do these things:

3 Likes

The weight of hearts on this post from @exiledsurfer says a lot. Let’s support and acknowledge our SOV-rBTC AMM LPs ourselves. I don’t understand why some people are looking to another project to address that for us. It should be discussed though, just not in the context of what Babelfish can do for Sovryn’s LPs before and up to the Babelfish sale. It’s 100% Babelfish community’s perogative to incentivize or drop to any wallets that engaged in any actions they want to select for… and it shouldn’t change Sovryn community members’ perception of the Babelfish team or the Sovryn team.

The 75k Lootdrop didn’t stretch as far as I had hoped based on my back of the envelope calculations, because of huge market-maker turnout. So we’re not “owed” anything at all from Sovryn or Babelfish communities… but we need to communicate about how to build the best thing that provides sustainable incentives for everyone. NFT drops to LPs sounding very enticing to me. But what about bumping up the 75k lootdrop a bit to counter the high TVL dilution? I don’t even want to suggest a number. I couldn’t say what would be a reasonable increase, given the dispersement schedule and SOV allocation. Could raise it to 100k AND drop a very sexy NFT to V1 AMM LPs? I’m sure it COULD be done, but certainly that sort of adjustment would require a SIP.

2 Likes

Novax, I completely agree with you. I’d like to discuss that with you and draft a SIP for that. If we don’t stablish the rules for future projects, then we will always have the same discussion.

We like it or not, centralization is happening - via whales or pools (BCW). The bigger these whales and pools get, the less will make sense to participate in the Bitocracy - consequently, less value for SOV (a governance token). We MUST define the rules for future projects and I like your suggestion for the NFT.

A couple of ideas to be discussed:

  • Copy format used by polkastarter or MakerDao, where amount staked gives better opportunity for token sales?
  • Support early adopters with the NFT in a earlier round
  • if a project is developed internally (by Sov team), what will be the criteria to support them?
  • if a project is developed externally, same question…

Stay Sovryn.

2 Likes

This is a great SIP for BableFish. I have personally know BCW which is a classic group - with the willingness to hold and lock tokens for years (literally). How many of you if given round 1 would be willing to lock yours for 1 year ? Its not about getting first - its about the commitment - not dumping. All those crying belong to one group and are all dumpers when you have those gains.

This would be in favor of the TEAM BABLEFISH to protect their project from such crying dumpers. BCW is a supreme option both from security and price.

I would vote for BCW for Round 1 100%. And will try to join in Round 2 happily.

Thanks to Yago and BableFish Team.

2 Likes

This is a great SIP for BableFish. I have personally know BCW which is a classic group - with the willingness to hold and lock tokens for years (literally). How many of you if given round 1 would be willing to lock yours for 1 year ? Its not about getting first - its about the commitment - not dumping. All those crying belong to one group and are all dumpers when you have those gains.

This would be in favor of the TEAM BABLEFISH to protect their project from such crying dumpers. BCW is a supreme option both from security and price.

I would vote for BCW for Round 1 100%. And will try to join in Round 2 happily.

Thanks to Yago and BableFish Team.

1 Like

There is no need for teams or trust when we have contracts. Vesting is safer that relying on a group

Right on @tneves! I like your input on MakerDAO / PolkaStarter structures. That is something that @yago alluded to in BabelFish’s third community call as a qualified possibility: 3RD COMMUNITY CALL [MAY 3, 2021] BABELFISH.MONEY
(Sorry I didn’t time stamp)

I don’t feel super confident drafting a SIP alone. I need more community engagement to refine my rough ideas. But here’s a doc I just set-up so we can begin word-smithing a SIP like I suggest:

Seems like some components of the SIP we would propose would pertain to NFT issuance which may not require a SIP, even though I think it probably should and it’s at least interesting to start using the Bitocratic process more actively and directly. Even if our ideas are denied, it’s worth it to try.

Hopefully specific agreement with regard to the NFT drop could be reached and we may be able to resolve some of the confusion and frustration being expressed in our Sovryn community (presumably mostly by LPs). We’re hearing this discontent enough that we shouldn’t dismiss it. But I also think it’s muddying the waters a bit to try to resolve Sovryn LP discontent by shifting that burden onto the BabelFish community. How is that reasonable?

If Sovryn LPs are discontent (which I am… and I also slightly am), then it is our Sovryn responsibility to communicate our discontent in a simple and substantiated way and to propose a solution that we would agree to if the roles were reversed. Everyone hates burdensome slothful bureaucracies and that’s what we become if we fail to assume our Sovryn responsibility to proactively create and suggest the solutions which seem most relevant to us… or if we only say “Yes” or “No” but never involve ourselves in crafting the proposals. So let’s get to the business of being Sovryns.

That’s how we build a strong governance and how we develop a successful token launch platform. Props to BabelFish community (which I’m now an active part of) and @wolverine for posting the draft proposal here for Sovryns to hash it out and consider. BabelFish has done a fine job receiving feedback, engaging with possibilities and suggestions (no matter how much they may deviate from the original plan Dark Knight originally laid forth), and making adjustments and accommodations for new considerations raised here and within the BabelFish Discord… and presumably among the BCW community.

One thing this SIP has made clear to me is that I want to be a part of BCW. So I’m wondering if we as a Sovryn community can also make a proposition to BCW? I’m not sure how democratic BCW is or how they are structured. I literally have no clue at all. Who would I even talk to about this? I want to propose to BCW community that we Sovryns (and potentially the wider BabelFish community that’s not already part of BCW) be offered an opportunity to join BCW premium, perhaps even at a reduced rate. If we’re going to make concessions and negotiate terms, we shouldn’t leave that off the table… because I know I for one would love to have access to that community. I have so many ideas that I would love to incubate with that crowd.

I think the BCW premium memberships were $500 per year a while ago and I heard they went up to $2,500 per year before they stopped accepting new premium memberships. I’m a pretty small net worth individual investor, but I would pay what is for me big money to have access to BCW. So I respect BCW for I want to join. I’m also okay with them having early access to BabelFish. As a Sovryn and a Non-BCW BabelFish, I’m fine with it. But I would also like a little sweetener from BCW to the Sovryns. What better way to align our interests than to offer us mutant space badgers a reduced price ticket to have a seat at your table. What is that worth to you?

Alright @tneves I’ll copy and paste my post into the google sheet and we can start working on language.

1 Like

Simply because I do what I want with my tokens because they belong to me. When I participated in the Genesis, there was no chart that said I had to ask anyone’s opinion. But fortunately the world is not run by mentally limited people like you. A person who has SOV in his wallet should have the same value as a person who stakes them. If not, tell the community publicly and let’s see what they think about it.

2 Likes

Oh and last point, I still own all my genesis SOV unlike some who staked from the beginning to resell later :wink:

1 Like

Basically, first of all, thank you for your contribution and for being so involved in the community.
I haven’t read your draft yet, but I will do so and will be happy to leave comments if I feel the need to do so.

However, I would like to address some aspects of your post.
I like your view of reciprocity/interaction - a very interesting suggestion with the preferential right in BCW Premium. The person to discuss this with would be D Man. (@lovenatashas on TG) BCW is his work, his group - a group that until recently anyone could buy into and is governed by his rules. He makes this positioning loud and clear time and again.
With BCW, he can look back on a long history, at least 2016, and for that alone he deserves a huge amount of respect.
Premium currently has around 400+ members, some of whom have been with the group for a long time, but the majority have only been with the group for 1-3 months, as not all are able to maintain membership or leave the group after some time for some other reason.

However, the membership rate is a little different from what you have quoted or what you think you have heard. They are as follows.
0.042 BTC for one month, 0.094 BTC for 3 months, on top of that there is/was an annual membership which is/was in the range of 0.35 BTC ( Not 100% sure about the prices anymore - except for the monthly membership). To be fair, it should be mentioned that you can extend your membership before it expires and get a 50% discount.

I appreciate your proposal about a preferred affiliation, but I don’t think your wishful thinking will come true.

If you want so much to give firstday to BCW, then give second day to sovryn stakers (which includes BCW members!!!) exclusive and not public, increase the airdrop cause 1% is a joke and for your safety make second day sale and airdrop totally vested.If this was the deal it would be a nice comprise for me and for the people saying no i think.The airdrop in my opinion should be 5% divided to all wallets with stake prior to may 1st equally.Vested for 12 months.And the second day should not be first come first serve!We should have the benefit of the first day buyers which have a guarantee allocation.So both 1st and 2nd day guarantee allocation per wallet and 3rd day public sale.
And something else I don’t have a hate towards BCW members.I am a free membership BCW.I appreciate Dman alot and MrY especially.But my interest here is this.I don’t want to struggle to buy little or no portion of this new wonderful project and then sell it .I want to buy and hodl.Everybody here I believe want to buy and hodl.

So all these days there was absolutely no reason to debate the sentence.Reason?The SIP changed twice for the worst.Ok.My bad.As I see the voting is clear! I mean for god’s sake guys!Give us poor minority mates a break!!! One thing is clear. BCW premium heavily paying members and Whales run the project! Why? Cause the first group will have a guaranteed allocation and the second group will take everything in the second day! In seconds! That’s why the 50% invested!So nothing for us!No,no,my bad 1% of airdrop nothing!Ok.Fair enough.Everybody happy!!!

3 Likes