Regarding SIPs, Team And YOU

I will not participate here actively. I help on the macro scale and here I simply don’t make big enough impact. But I’ll say this:

  1. Sovryn founders and the team should vote LAST. Their mammoth amount of vote power should be used only after you see how the community breathes and wishes it to be. Otherwise, every proposal will be 99% and makes no sense in voting.

  2. the community should read proposals critically with: “is this good for Sovryn” in mind?

For example now Origins protocol was voted FOR with 99%+ votes. You’re fools for multiple reasons:

  1. Babelfish launch proved successfully Sov can launch it without Origins
  2. Sovryn value should be empowered, so that SOV token grows
  3. If you are as Sovryn community dispersing power to a new token, you should GET that token, airdropped… to every single one of you in a fair 1:1 ratio of holdings.
    Again, no need for new token.

Voting closed. I didn’t interfere on this one.
I won’t interfere in future ones either, because the community must awaken.

Without this, we will vote yes to everything and soon our kid is doing bad stuff.

Let’s school this adolescent a bit :slight_smile:


I get your first point. The proposals are look like they do because the “normal stakers” also vote in favour of the proposals. You’d see quite a difference in the number of adresses voting against a SIP if some community members like myself don’t like a proposal (although it might still pass). This would bring a lot of discussion on the forum and it is already very transparent.

I think there’s a fair amount of discussion on each SIP and i have never met a Dev team that is so interested in their community’s voice and let’s it influence their decisions.

OG will have a bonding curve with SOV, so SOV price still profits from OG’s success. In addition, new launches bring attention, provides incentives for new dev’s and the subprotocol-design makes Sovryn more resilient to attacks.
While you may be correct that initially, SOV looses a bit of value, in the mid-long term this may very well boost SOV’s price a lot by locking up more and more supply and increasing the platforms growth and reach. People want token sales.

Otherwise, i really appreciate your stance on Sovryn, thank you!


I have been preocupied about this issue and researched it a bit and there is one thing to note:
The SIPS are discussed until consensus is reached and whent it comes to voting prettty much everyone is on the same page. There are a few wallets with big voting power but If the comunity decides to go against OG adresses it can overwhem them. I feel like the Bitocracy is one of the most democratic(democratic might be the wrong word - fair might be a better one) and transparent governance systems out there.
You might disagree on the outcome and that is fine.
The truth is that the community has a heavy input in the governance , proof is the sips that better aligned the incentives for stakers(staking rewards and concentrating and distributing the fees to liquid stakers).

The protocol belongs to everybody . It is only logical that the contributors with the most skin in the game should have the most voting weight.

If you are a member of the bitocracy feel free to participate in future discussions and I am sure the community will find your input valuable.

Thank you !

1 Like

We all know that in conventional democracies one person is one vote.

But this is not about governing a country together, it is about creating a decentralised protocol.

Users will validate votes using the protocol. If they are not happy with the policies implemented, they will go elsewhere.

However, I would like more transparency in the communication of results. I would like to know how many individual wallet votes there have been, compared to the total. I would also like to know how many votes were cast by voting power. For example: The favourable vote among those with so and so much voting power was this one, among so and so this other one, etc…

We would probably discover that the direction of the vote is the same for any voting power, but we would see it with our own eyes.

1 Like

I do agree there is democratic value in letting the big founder and team wallets vote after smaller contributors have had their say. With virtually every vote so far, by the time you’ve checked the proposal there’s a vote block of 99% in favour - which is kind of offputting. It stimulates the feeling of ‘why even bother contributing’ - even when you agree with the position.


As a new user of the Sovryn app, must say that those driving the project have done a pretty good job.
Whole point of crypto is Decentralisation, so point well taken that if all the voting power is in a few hands than that is not a great system.
Can not expect those with a large voting power not to vote ( they also may be doing a lot of the heavy lifting that benefits us all ) though it is fair that the more eyes looking at a problem , the better the solution.
Thus it is not unfair to ask for proper discussion prior to going to voting then a representative proposal put to a vote.
If you do not contribute then you can not complain.

1 Like

I completely see where the suggestion comes from, yet I’m not sure whether I agree with this. One also doesn’t want surprise ‘sways’ of the vote at the end, nor do I think it’s really desirable to reveal any discrepancy between founders and community; that’s not good for community cohesion. Community and founders are equal in the Bitocracy.

On this topic, another issue. I have been quite vocally and actively sharing my opposition to the sub-protocols (and in the end, I didn’t feel my worries were adequately addressed, and I still have them; I hope to be proven wrong). When I checked, only 4 addresses voted against the proposal. I felt uncomfortable putting my address on that list. The combination of contributing here on the Bitocracy and the tiny number of votes against some proposal, can be a bit of an unhappy mix and be a deterrent. Note sure this needs active solving, but I like to mention it nevertheless. I hope this will be solved when the community grows larger and more diverse.

By the way, sometimes, one would like to have a sense of the percentage of users who are in favor of something, instead of how much voting power is in support. Discourse has the option to build polls, but I haven’t seen it used much here so far. Might be good to use it more, to gauge this kind of support for things.

1 Like

I am fully with you with the voting on the subprotocols showing some weakness of the bitocracy process where most of the tokens/voting power is held by the core founders/team who have a vision for the project but do not seem to be too interested in views that are in opposition. I also feel the dissenting voices for the Origins SIP have been swept under the floor in the discussion.
I had a short discussion with @light on discord about making the vote count “hidden” until the last vote ist cast. This would pretty much represent normal voting in democratic countries where you are not allowed to count or publish votes for the exact reason that one side is intimidated to even go cast a vote if the the other side is casting all their votes in the beginning - this can be rigged and has been used thats why you have the hidden vote.
@Light mentioned the technical difficulties of hiding the vote directly on the blockchain and then reveal it later. I am no blockchain tech person but his explanation sounded still doable its one more transaction or some such.
I still think it worth exploring how this goes. We are also seeing less participation in the bitocracy process - the number of Votes shrinks from SIP to SIP quite dramatically - I think this is also a result of people opposing a SIP not even voting because the overwhelming vote count in favour of a SIP right at the beginning deters them and also people thinking “hell this passes anyway why spend gas here”. So you left with the just the team voting at some point - not really what we all signed up for.
So I really hope we can explore a hidden vote however that looks - this could be as simple as just hiding it from the interface until the last vote is cast - I think few would actually look directly at the blockchain and since we are talking about a psychological problem mostly - this might be enough…

The other thing is how SIPs are actually put forward .- right now its someone deciding “oh we have discussed this enough and there seems to be consesus”. That person wields the power over the SIP beeing put up for a vote. I don´t know how we can decide which SIP is done discussing, but I think that surely also needs some more thoughts in the furture.


The " Core Team " for quite some time to come, have the voting power. How you determine when a project Is or Is Not ready for a vote is simple. The community has the power to "Vote with their feet " thus if as a community it becomes evident that your voices are not being heard than move your money. Remember that those with the greatest voting power also have the greatest financial incentive, so if the community stops supporting the app then your voice will be heard.
Not sure why anyone would be worried about their vote being known. Your Opinion is as Valid as the next persons. The fact of not agreeing with the majority is your right & nothing to be ashamed of.
Having said that, just looked at the latest proposal being voted on & the address amounts in the "yes " side are smaller than the 160k in the “no” side. Maybe the community is speaking.