I will vote yes for this SIP. Secure funding for the devs is a priority if we want to survive and evolve.
So I would like an answer especially for question 5 and 6. Bitocracy needs to be protected, for me Yago and the team has already too much VP. I care more about this than “tokenomics” and potential selling pressure from VCs.
The split must be clear for now it is not explained in this SIP so need to be updated and crystal clear.
Tinka
i dont support this SIP. burn these tokens like mentioned in previous sips and let them buy on the market.
After the Twitter Spaces call, I’ll be supporting this SIP and look forward to GC’s involvement over the coming years.
I cannot YET vote yes for this proposal in good conscience. My concern is not the economics of the deal which should be beneficial to Sovryn, but I am concerned about further centralization of voting power in the bitocracy, which is too centralized already. This has not been addressed sufficiently yet in my opinion.
I am 100% on board. GC is exactly what Sovryn needs right now.
Were the questions raised here answered on Twitter Spaces? I was late couple of minutes…
A Twitter space is fine but I would prefer a written response on this forum.
Don’t know what to make of their claim about wanting to be actively involved if they don’t even want to write a written answer to their own SIP.
My question 1 was reduced by the host to nothing and just got a generic answer.
Q2 also got an unsatisfactory answer.
For Q3 and 4, pretty much no new information was added to what is written in the SIP already, just that they will help Sovryn with marketing etc and are thinking long term even after 4 years.
Q5 and 6 were also combined and answered by Yago, apparently there will be multiple entities who will vote in Bitocracy but no information about who those are.
I don’t want to come across as hostile to the SIP but just want clarity and transparency.
I second this. Exactly this.
What is written - is written. The intention of forum is to discuss. It gives much more time to think and more people might be encouraged to write here. So - yes - I also prefer to have answers here too.
GC is exactly what Sovryn needs to go to the next level.
Aligned interests, resources, relationships and experience in buiding billion dollar projects.
We are a passionate bunch, but few of us know the best way to take this where we feel it shoud go
3 years plus cliff is very reasonable. For those that would want out before they can exit can have that abiliity on a fully vested investment. If it doesn’t work by then, it won’t be because of GC.
Hat is off to the team, my enthusiasm is rejuvenated. Much better proposition than I expected
I will support and add to my investment
I am of the same opinion, I would prefer to see written responses here for all the questions that people asked. I listened to the recording, at 22:30 the host referred to my name and asked my question, however the question asked to GC was different with the ones I wrote in here at the beginning of this post.
I dont think asking for clarity and transparency makes us hostile. It is very good that GC wants to get involved with the project. I find this as a perfect opportunity for them to be involved in the forum and answer questions directly so the community can have something to look back in the future for reference etc and also get to know the community better.
I would also want to see higher cliff period (2 years cliff at least) as some people mentioned above to avoid pressure further the early investors who hold/stake their SOV.
Hi All!
We’ve read your replies and condensed the Town Hall and the questions posed below for convenience:
Questions for General Catalyst (GC) from Townhall & Sovryn Forum
Community question:
How does GC intend to vote in the Bitocracy with their allocation of SOV given that they are philosophically aligned with the project?
GC answer:
We intend to be active members of the community like everyone else that’s on this Townhall right now. And so, as part of the token ownership, we have the ability to participate in governance and we will be very active participants going forward, and I think, make decisions as part of the community - we have our perspectives on things - we’ll use that right to be an active participant in the community. We’re not going to be passive members.
Community question:
Some people take the view that some crypto tokens are unregulated securities, and knowing that Sovryn is a fully decentralised project, what is GC’s stance on this subject especially if the SEC decides to “protect investors”?
GC answer:
We don’t really have a comment here. What I will say is that GC is an SEC registered firm and has a long experience of working within the bounds of the law and with regulators and we’ll be as supportive as possible to the community going forward.
Community question:
As someone previously asked, it would be great to have some details as to how GC plans on helping Sovryn’s growth, if this investment does go through.
GC answer:
We have a large host of bitcoiners at GC and we believe that the bitcoin ecosystem is one of the most significant, untapped opportunities in crypto. It has the largest network. It’s the most liquid, reliable asset. It has leading mine share and unmatched security.
We’re philosophically aligned with the goals of bitcoin and the Sovryn network to empower people, promote individual freedom and achieve broader financial inclusion. As a fund manager, we are long term thinkers. So how can we bring our network power to bear with Sovryn? There’s a number of ways.
One of the first things that we’re doing is on the marketing side. We have an awesome internal marketing and communications team that will actively help and support the community - get the Sovryn name out there and work with journalists and people that can tell the Sovryn story. Some of these pieces are underway, and I can’t necessarily touch on that quite yet.
Secondly, we have a real world network. There’s no crypto asset like bitcoin that can have the penetration and impact on the real world and real economy. We’ve experience of partnering and building businesses over the last two decades, that are quite large, multi billion dollar businesses. And, if there’s an opportunity for partnerships there that can be valuable, whether it’s with FinTechs, individuals or our extended network, we’re happy to be helpful. We’re talking to founders, where we may not be an investor, every single day and you never know where fruitful partnerships for Sovryn could come up.
Third is our institutional experience of building multi billion dollar long term businesses and doing the basic blocking and tackling that you need to do for communities and products to grow. This is a very young space. There’s a lot to be done and these communities and products in the space will evolve over the next two decades, and we have the experience from our partners and operators that we have around the table to actually build sustainable products and communities and navigate things like marketing, product competitors and doing the basic blocking and tackling.
And then fourth, I think there’s an opportunity to continue to invest in the Sovryn ecosystem outside of how the tokenomics and the ecosystem fund are structured today, and maybe a separate pool of capital to invest in people that are building on Sovryn, can make sense in the future.
Community question:
As we know, this investment proposal involves a four year vesting scheduled - what happens after these four years?
GC answer:
Our view is that we’re long term investors. Most of the companies that we invest in, the communities that we’re involved with, are seven to ten year plus time horizons. The vesting schedule is designed in a way that we can custody assets over a four year period but signals no intent of when we would “exit”. We have a long term view on where this is going and we are not in the business of making a short term decision or having a short term view.
I understand a lot of folks will be focused on vesting but the four year period is not a signal of where our involvement with Sovryn would end. This is just the beginning of a very long term project and we’re excited to have the opportunity to potentially join the community and be involved.
We aren’t in the business of flipping like active firms.
Community question:
Thanks for proposing this SIP and do you envision your portfolio companies to use upcoming Sovryn products as Zero, Perpetual Swaps or Droppr NFTs?
GC answer:
As the product suite expands, there’s an opportunity for Sovryn to certainly be embedded in companies that may not even be GC’s or that may be our portfolio companies in the future. But, I certainly think that there’s an opportunity for companies to use products that Sovryn has created in the future. This includes companies that we’re talking to every day that may not be in our portfolio, but where Sovryn might be a great solution for them.
Beyond that there are a lot of untapped partnership opportunities (applications, exchanges, companies, etc.) and we are excited to start those conversations and move the community forward.
Community question:
What kind of thought went into the formatting of this proposal with the four year mark and the one year cliff? And, why do you see that as a fitting arrangement between GC and Sovryn?
GC answer:
From a traditional venture perspective, we take custody or ownership of equity on day 1. I think we’re trying to be aligned with the community and the ecosystem and to how these things are structured. And, we felt this was a fair structure. We’re not able to stake our tokens in year one and earn those staking rewards, which would be quite significant given the current APY (and the price appreciation on tokens earned through staking). So, we felt this was a very fair way and a community friendly way for us to get involved. This is just the beginning in a potentially decade long story.
Community question:
How do you or other GC investors feel towards the Gimp’s package proposal?
GC answer:
We’ve certainly seen Gimp’s package, and it’s a comprehensive proposals. There’s a lot of good points in the proposals - some of which we agree with. There’s four, soon to be five and they absolutely merit discussion.
Given the breadth and various topics covered, we feel it’s best to address these proposals separately from this Town Hall.
Community question:
When you guys went through your due diligence, were there any parts of Sovryn that gave you guys pause, that made you consider the investment a little more deeply?
GC answer:
I would say that in any investment there is due diligence and there are risks/concerns involved. But one of the most important things about crypto generally, is you have to have awesome products and you have to have an awesome community. We felt that Sovryn is building very important, technically sound products, on bitcoin, and has one of the strongest bitcoin communities. Those were the two things that were encouraging for us and why we decided to get involved. There was nothing that was a red flag, but there are always things that can be improved and we’re eager to get moving on those.
I totally support this SIP! Let’s do it!
Wow I have to say the whole time I was watching the Town Hall I kept having to pinch myself… I couldn’t believe that we are building a decentralized ecosystem, that we all own, and a VC was pitching an investment to us through the internet… Sounds like something out of a science fiction movie.
I think this is truly a historic time, not just for Sovryn, but for Bitcoin, and the world! So excited to be a part of this and I believe this will bring a lot of respectability to this institution in the making.
Let’s go for it… and STAY SOVRYN!!!
@ArtOfTomas - thanks for your message. In the trenches, it is sometimes hard to take pleasure in what we are doing. Its hugely elevating to be reminded how epic this effort is and how much progress we are making.
Bitcoin was a revelation. It is a privilege to be able to play a part in extending its technological capabilities, as well as the impact it is having on our social fabric.
Onwards!
event hough I wanted a longer vesting period for the SIP, but overall I am going to vote for it. #StaySovryn
I support the SIP.In bear times a major investor wants to push money to the project.Money is money guys!Simple!We can’t be closed to these kind of opportunities because in the end we will become a lost and not found project.The team is great.Yago will 100% put the money in good use.He loves this whole sovryn thing he created with his team.He wouldn’t support anything bad for the project.That is my thinking.
I ended up voting yes, even though I have SEVERE concerns regarding centralization of voting power with this. Sadly,the project needs the money to keep developing,and in a severe bear market like the one we are in, it is difficult to raise money. Bluntly said, it is a “beggars can’t be choosers” situation for most crypto projects right now, and “no” might cripple the team we all depend on.
One suggestion for the future: we should have not only “yes” and “no” options, but also an “abstain” option,so that we can help the quorum while showing we are not fully on board. I would have chosen that had it been available. Maybe something for a future SIP.
I lost all I’ve put into SOV, so I’ll use my votes againts any proposal on this platform. ‘salty’