SIP-00XX The 3 Critical Price Impacting Changes Requested By The Community

[DMAN]

Dear brother, fellow SOV holder,

After huge majority in the Blockchain Whispers AMA provided support for it and discussing it with Yago, I decided to write down the 3 critical changes, in combination, powerful enough to reverse the down spiral Sovryn has found itself in.

Now bear with me if I make a mistake in the formatting of the SIP proposal, I will outline you the idea and the specifics, and then you can help me correct the format and put it to a vote.

Before we begin, I say, there is no point in putting it to a vote, if Yago and his insiders won’t support it. They hold the majority stake so without Yago replying here that he gave it thought (as he promised us after two long AMA sessions:

Blockchain Whispers - The Most Accurate Crypto Signals on The Planet |...

part 1
and two days later

Blockchain Whispers - The Most Accurate Crypto Signals on The Planet |...

the follow up part 2

Again, I am emotional I don’t know even where to begin, because, after clearly seeing multiple projects, and even in Sovryn case pinpointing the very price-impacting mistakes BEFORE they happened, and informing the leadership about them… I see this as clear as a day, if this SIP passes, Sovryn is a success and within 2 months (that Yago estimated he needs to get this implemented), I can see Sovryn only at 10x this price or higher, and the start of a new re-test/overtake-the-top trend.

Bear with me please.

Every token or economic tradeable asset has only two factors that determine the price:
SUPPLY and DEMAND, right?

If you can follow this far, you’ll understand the whole idea I am about to present.
Basically, we can come up with tens if not hundreds of little tweaks to Sovryn that are matter of interpretation… and the only things that remain that matter are supply and demand for us to see the glory of Sovryn success.

And please note, I am not only the money guy. I talk about marketing here as well.
Instead of wasting money on marketing and getting something non-promoteable, something that doesn’t catch the fire on… I have, with the help of Sovryn investors managed to isolate the three ways that will help every further marketing incentive, every move we make, every action we take, spread like a wildfire.

Here’s how.

We make money to SOV holders!
There is no better marketing in crypto than holders that did 10x, 50x, 150x or more. That word spreads. Then it is easy to sell an idea, a product.

Here’s how we achieve this, and for this, your vocal support here is necessary, because if you postpone or stay on the sidelines, the whole law of physics says: bodies in motion, tend to stay in motion and bodies at rest tend to stay at rest. So in other words, nothing will happen.

This sip is critical, because it comes from the fresh set of eyes, fresh perspective, from an investors point of view that can work in synergy with magnificent thing Yago tries to achieve yet had troubles lifting it off the ground reaching the critical mass.

My 3 change proposals are simple:

1. Strong token burn (or as suggested by Yago, 10 year lock):

The team tokens - 50% locked for 10 years.
Captain sinks down with the ship they say… I believe, Sovryn holders have suffered so many wrongdoings, that a mammoth 25% of all tokens held by the team are simply too much and don’t reflect the patience and suffering done by the loyal holders. I believe with this solidatirty, Yago and the leadership can show us: we are here with you. We share the same fate with you, and in the process make tokenomics way more attractive.

Entire development pool - 10 year locked.

Reasoning: It is used for ‘outside development incentives’. Basically, Sovryn has a lot of money raised, and collected by Sovryn team to finance the in-house development. What we need now is attractive tokenomics, not ensuring they have money that they don’t need at sacrifice of the value of the SOV token. If there will ever be need for outside developments: 1) it can be paid for with money already raised 2) made a win-win solution where the outside partner benefits in a way from developing it and 3) we will leave the ecosystem pool so it can be used in the remote and rare event something of such will be required. Let’s improve our tokenomics further.

Entire adoption pool - 10 year locked.

Reasoning: Staking rewards, ‘incentives’ and other BS only waters down the token. We don’t want people who make your investment less worthy by just selling on the ‘cheap thrills’. I’ve witnessed, and I am sure you have too, many projects that died as soon as their strong staking rewards did.
We don’t want the same fate in Sovryn. Instead, we want to remove staking at all, and focus on ongoing, consistent, exchange fees shared with Sovryn stakers/holders.*

• I’ll get back to this at part 2/3 of this SIP

If you agree and support this, let’s move to Part 2/3

2. SOV staking lock removed; introduction of loyalty bonus.

What we don’t want is continue the idea of locking people out of their ability to move their tokens freely, only to later those frustrated holders reward with more tokens they are going to dump at dissatisfaction. What I have witnessed working at another protocol, and I am not sure it’s appropriate to name it, because I can easily explain to you the process, what they do is you stake tokens, and you are during the time you are staking getting the share of exchange fees, 30% stakers, 70% liquidity providers. You can unstake at any time, but during the staking (and how we motivate WILLING long time stakers), you earn extra loyalty bonus to staking which you lose in major part when you unstake. That bonus is not bonus in extra tokens but bonus in % of the 30% of the fees you are getting. So let’s say I earn $100 a day from staking fees, and if I hold it longer I start earning $110 a day or $110.5 tomorrow. If I unstake and re-stake again, I again start at $100, thus incentivizing me to WILLINGLY continue loyal staking program while having my tokens free to move whenever I want to.

Reasoning: this will focus on the most important part: adding value to the SOV token as sov token must be centralized part for the entire sovryn ecosystem and MUST EARN from every single good thing Sovryn ecosystem does.

I was the first to stop and voice displeasure with Mynt and other extra token money raises… and luckily it was accepted by you and the core Sovryn leadership so now the upcoming ZERO protocol will be yours to benefit without any extra purchases. Again, adding value to the SOV token, as it should be the whole key.

And if you agree with this, and accept it, we are moving to the final part which is
Mass acceptability

UX (user experience) and UI (user interface) simplicity

We must have a so simple and intuitive user interface that even new people, who are not deep into the community can start using the very functionality Sovryn is building, start leverage trading their bitcoin, etc. This brings more fees, and fees bring more earnings to SOV holder, and earnings bring more interest for SOV token, and interest brings demand which as a result appreciates the price and rewards the early loyal SOV holders.

I hope you are following my logic flow here.

Sovryn website, must contain everything:

• every important update notification
• an active roadmap with dates and accountability which clearly shows at which stage we are currently
  – when the date is missed an update with leadership commentary
• a simple and intuitive explanation on what sovryn is and how to use it.

Sov DAPP must have (because of expected future complexity and richness of features), a super simple intuitive design. The best I have seen is the of BitMEX. The comic book layout simply won’t cut it for Sovryn because it’s too deep project, it must be fast, it must have space for a lot of things, and in trading, see shouldn’t ‘fuck around’ with anything that might mess the precision or stimulate a mistake.
Bitmex even had simple red for short and green for long. The design must be in service of functionality. It doesn’t need to be beautiful. It should be useful.

Finally, if you agree with all these, the grand finale, we should DELAY Zero launch until this above is done, here’s why:

If we launch a good thing now when the system is confusing, tokenomics unattractive, and token non-rewarding… we are risking a MUCH smaller effect than in 2 months from now that it takes Sovryn team to complete these things and then to launch it all in a sequence, a sequence that makes word spread.

Imagine, a new ux, interface that’s newbie-friendly. Easy to understand what Sovryn is and what Sovryn does.

EASY ON BOARDING with both btc, and eth and off boarding.

Intuitive use of the app.

Then the new investors / supporters check the tokenomics… wow, attractive.

And then they go deeper to check the potential and they see Zero launching in days (and it’s fully ready, two months longer than needed tested)… so that the launch is a mega success. Can you notice the synergy effect we are talking here versus the continuation of launching things in a confusing manner on non-optimized system.

Basically, ideally, I would be just a passive bystander, but the Sovryn idea is so attractive, and is failing so miserably, I felt forced to make these simple, actionable three steps process that are almost guaranteed to make things happen.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see 10x journey kickstarting immediately after this SIP is approved, rapidly ignited by even the Blockchain Whispers extra $5 million market buy. Only to start seeing real trend expansion when the three changes mentioned above are implemented and start attracting like magnet to metal new investors, new sets of eyes, new Sovryn citizens.

This is why, I introduce this SIP as one, because all these 3 changes are critical in package to reach the desired effect. Failure at one thing is a failure at expansion and having the wildfire-spreading effect.

If you followed and understood the critically important point in this: reducing of supply (making tokenomics more attractive and your SOV more valuable), making focus on everything in the ecosystem earning for SOV while not having any sorts of bribes and cheap gimmicks in long term visionary project like Sovryn and finally the UX UI optimization so that a new person can easily be onboarded… I invite you to approve this SIP and see our long-deserved Sovryn magic happening.

For Sovryn,
D Man

P.S. Unfortunately, this SIP will not pass if Yago and the leadership choose to. They currently hold so much influence over the voting that a vote cannot pass without their OK. Luckily, after the two long AMAs, Yago showed as a man who is willing to listen to the community and promised us a compromise (instead of burning his team tokens, and other pools he suggested the 10 year lockup). I agreed. Within 10 years we should have plenty of time to reach the stars. It is not as good only in the perception for new investors as it will still mention the fully diluted marketcap, and the BURNING is preferred, however… I accepted this as a compromise because I believe if possible, all parties must be satisfied. Cheers!

EDIT: Since Yago offered a compromise, that he is willing to support the sip if 10 year lock happens, and later he withdrew it, I move, for the benefit of Sovryn to the ideal solution which is a BURN instead of lock, because it will change the tokenomics for every new potential Sovryn investor in the future, for more favorable. Thank you.

[WIK]

I support this SIP and I think DMan has addressed some key points for the Sovryn team to consider.

[Neviolo]

Totally agree with Dman. I’ve seen too many very promising projects, failing miserably exactly for the reasons mentioned above. We are now in a slow death spiral and Sovryn must radically change what it is doing now to escape it and deliver the succes it deserves…

[Yellowbeard]

I support this SIP. I have seen a similar situation on BZRX: started cool and sinked with a year of rebranding

[nml]

I support this SIP and could not agree more.

Thanks Dman for your thoughts and input!
Guidance is obviously needed, SOV tanked so bad.

I think without these changes applied, the SOV token will soon be under $1 and then gone.
Lets steer the titanic away from the iceberg.

[mieke]

I fully support this sip !

[Objetif_lune]

I totally agree as well, I follow the project since day 1, I believe in the project since day 1, Yago is a great leader and the vision he has is amazing, but changes need to be implemented. The token burn would be the best option, but a 10 year lock up is a good alternative and would be in the interest of everyone here. Developing an easier UI/UX is also a must to get more people onboard. After all that the marketing would be easier and the word to mouth would do the work as well, bringing SOV to the front page where it deserve to be, looking forward to reading the feed back from the other, lets stay sovryn my friends

[Bash]

I fully support this sip, have seen plenty of projects fail and don’t want SOV to end the same!

[Thorshammer]

I am in agreement with this proposal. A change of course is needed. I especially like the emphasis on making the experience easier in order to get more people to use it. Burning/locking tokens and making the Sovryn token more beneficial to just hold is needed too.

[cryptohijack]

Thanks @DMAN this was long due and it is exactly what is needed for Sovryn to recover from the downward spiral it has fell into. Only a strong change in direction and more appealing tokenomics can obtain new investors interests or convince existing one to reinvest on a project that, in particular with regards of marketing, community acknowledgement and decentralization of governance has failed in a way that was truly concerning given the core principles outlined initially.
I think that this set of action could have an effect that will exceed our wildest speculation, because the protocol is amazing, the dev team incredible and I truly see @yago as a visionary that, given time, means, and the will to accept external influence when necessary, could change the world!

Please @yago I know it is hard to see a project you built from the ground up to steer away from the direction you see fit, but there are reasons the greatest leaders where surrounded by counselors, or the wisest philosophers found illumination only through dialogues, one man’s vision as great as it goes is always limited by having a single perspective. @DMAN is your greatest ally and brings in a strong and loyal community of supporters, the same that helped you bring Sovryn to life initially and are ready to make it shine as it deserves.

[Satman]

I fully support this SIP. Somewhat similar action regarding token distribution was recently done for Hydradx (for different reasons)

[Gatslag]

I have been in SOV since Origin sale and has held onto a “stunning” investment in a solution that does for BTC, what every other exchange has done for ETH and SOL.
The continued deflation and the OG level skills needed to navigate the DApp has had me worried and has also been reflected in the SOV price and the adoption rate.
I believe this proposal addresses some of the easier aspects of solving some of that.
It would certainly support adoption and introduce a “deflationary” aspect to the SOV token.
It should also be just in time for the anticiapted adoption cycle at a macro scale.
I would support this should it be submited for a vote.

[Brs]

With all three ideas into one it seems like it is written to fail.

The first, 10year lock, should be discussed and perhaps other ideas come out of it. Maybe another SIP to vote to release some at 2.5 years, 5 years, 7.5 years…

Second, UX/UI. D Man himself said this is first priority and should happen first.

Third, change staking rewards? Sure. They can be discussed. Maybe something like Terra where you lock up for 6, 12, 18 months. Can unstake at any time but you lose all rewards earned. Rewards can only be claimed at the end of the staking period. Check out the farms on LOOP and the staking on LOOP. You get no rewards until the end of the stake period. Free to unstake at any time but all rewards earned are burned when you do so.

Grouping all three into one is a bad idea. Each idea should be discussed and voted on their merits.

Also, grouping all three into one pushes any meaningful launches well into 4th QTR 2022 or 1st QTR 2023. Just the contract redesign on #3 and logistics alone on migrating all current stake holders pushes this one action to being complete around July / August 2022.

[Phrygian12]

Are you fucking kidding me? Getting rid of staking rewards from locked stake? Gtfo. I will never support this. Not until this part of the SIP is removed. I dont have a whole lot of voting power, but I will spend everygod damn one of them going against this unless the staking mechanism remains.

This is what a lot of us where sold on. I will never agree with rug pulling this feature.

[gylumvlcm]

I fully support this SIP. It seems so logical and so simple that wondering how didn’t we come to this months ago.

Maybe it’s even better to approve it now, after bear phase.

Anyway, that’s how Sovryn should develop. Bravo Yago, Bravo D Man!

[nml]

read it again, the proposal gets you more than what you get now

[Moeloe]

i will not agree completely on this SIP. i would like to see some additional parts taking care off before voting yes. this is not covering everything and raises questions to me.

1. how will current stakers be compensated? will i as a 3 years locked and already staking for a full year start on a higher tier than others that never staked? like you for example?
   because if not, anyone that did not stake will have more advantages than current stakers.
   current stakers should start on a tier that new stakers are never be able to catch up again on.
   cuurent stakers took the risk of locking and being illiquid, that must be compensated.
   this should be calculated by total time being staked + total amount of SOV during that time of being staked. so not only current VP, but also taking into account the VP in the pas.

if this will be done properly, i’m fine with the new loyalty bonus system.

2. why do we need to lock the adoption funds and deverlopment fund for 10 years? will this be set in stone and not able to change if needed? lets say in 5 years there is a major need for a part of the funds, can we create a new SIP to get some of the funds liquid for what ever purpose is needed by that time?

if yes, i will support it. because the funds must become available if there is no other solution (via a SIP of course)

[DMAN]

Again, it’s in human nature to care for themselves first, and so do you and it’s okay.
Current stakers will be counted on the bonuses they are owed to this date and paid.

Going forward the rewards, the fee share that goes to SOV stakers will be in non-native currency, meaning in rbtc or usdt or something like that, you can choose. It’s time we don’t just give away SOV tokens but start treating them as valuable, so they become valuable.

Cheers!

Thank you all for supporting this SIP, I am pleasantly surprised with the support and understanding of this critical change needed.

And this change must come in the pack of 3. One alone won’t do much. All three, gets us ready to the rocket-fueled climb upwards.

[Waypoint1]

I totaly agree. If you took the wrong road… thats ok… as long as you are willing to ask for and accecpt the help to get back on the right track.

[yago]

Happy to see strategic ideas floated and the initiative taken - I don’t agree with everything, which is great! We should look to synthesise a broad range of perspectives - that is the essence of creativity and innovation.

This SIP is very beefy and to be passed it will need a higher level of specification. It likely will also require more than one SIP.

Putting that aside for now, here are some initial thoughts on the proposed:

A. Tokenomics - Team tokens burned as well as tokens from the adoption and other pools p.
B. Remove time-locked Staking (and also “SOV holders should earn fees”)
C. UX and, in particular, first time user experience must be improved.

—-

Let’s start with A. - Tokenomics.

It is not possible to burn the tokens of the team, the investors or anyone else. The smart contracts have been designed to make this impossible, as it would provide too much power, centralization and opportunity for manipulation. The vast majority of team tokens are in vesting, so even the owners themselves cannot burn them - they can do nothing except vote with them.

Mr. Y. (from BCW) was a chief proponent of making an early change to tokenomics, that was implemented in the middle of last year (SIP 30). Since that SIP was implemented, team and early investors do not even earn fees while staking.

With regards to the Adoption (and other pools), there is a similar problem, the emission schedule is written in stone. This, again, is to avoid the possibility of manipulation.

However, most importantly, I think this is an extremely bad idea even if it was possible. What this would do is reduce the stake and incentive of the people most dedicated to the project. At the same time it would double the stake of VCs like Bitmex, Pomp. etc.

We have been very clear from day 1 - the best projects and startups succeed because they are shepherded by the founders and people most dedicated to the vision. Those are EXACTLY the people who I want to have a large, long term stake in the project.

However, I think this can be an opportunity. I think we can do three things:

1. We can slow the emissions schedule. This has already been done.
2. We can look to lock up tokens to provide transparency around what is likely to be a slower emissions schedule.
3. We can provide more token incentives to SOV stakers, to make staking more attractive and lock up many more tokens.
4. We can potentially build a mechanism that creates much more protocol-owned liquidity, by distributing tokens to those who lock up SOV, in a new, fully liquid staking process.

If we do the above with intelligence and creativity, we can create new and compelling token incentives.

I would like to propose the creation of a tokenomics DAO - a taskforce similar to the Sovryn Whispers marketing DAO - so that we can quickly formulate a new tokenomics plan and execute on it.

—

Point B. - Remove time-locked Staking (and also “SOV stakers should earn fees”)

First, there is a deep reason that the stake is time-locked. It is the central protection of the protocol against governance attacks. It is designed to align the incentives of stakers with the LONG TERM good of the protocol. It is supposed to be expensive by design, just like PoW.

With regards to SOV stakers earning fees, this ALREADY happens. SOV stakers ALREADY earn 100% of fees + additional incentives.

Additionally, last year, after conversations with the community (and in particular the BCW group and D) two changes were introduced:

1. SIP 31 provided SOV stakers with a portion of liquidity mining rewards (modelled after Sushiswap)
2. SIP 24 provided additional SOV rewards to SOV stakers providing for a base APY of at least 30%.

I think we should learn 2 things from this:

1. We need to advertise this yield better
2. Following on from point A. we should improve the rewards here so they are more compelling

With regards to the idea that SOV HOLDERS not stakers should earn fees - I think this is a great idea. But it would need to be accomplished without diluting the earnings of stakers, which suggests to me that these fees would need to be sourced from elsewhere.

—-

Point C. - User Experience.

We have broad agreement that this is something to improve as a priority. Since January we have shifted our focus to delivering improved UX.

It might be that the fastest way to introduce a streamlined interface is to build a new one from the ground up. This would be a parallel UX designed specifically for new users. Over time we can merge the two interfaces.

I would also like to create a UX/UI taskforce so we can more efficiently galvanise the expertise of the community.

---

I am very glad to see community members taking an active role and initiative. We should examine the proposals seriously and specify exactly what it is we are looking to change.