SOV Twitter Spaces With Edan Yago, Alex Swan and Tone Vays – My Thoughts

In a recent Twitter spaces meeting with Edan Yago from Sovryn, Alex Swan from Swan Bitcoin and Tone Vays. We got to hear an in depth and heated (but friendly) debate about the project and some questions about it. Tone seemed to make some wild and crazy assumptions. As I was listening, I wanted to chime in on the call but I figured I would post my thoughts on it here on my site. I thought that both of Edan Yago’s and Alex Swan’s answers to the questions and arguments presented were very well articulated and logical. Edan and Alex shut down all of the arguments brought to the table by Tone Vays but I wanted to add a little bit to some of them.

Starting off

1:08:00 Self admittedly Tone admits that he was not fully familiar with the Sovryn project and just googled it right before the meeting. His main issue (like most maxis) is the fact that Sovryn has its own token (which I will address later in this post). He also assumes that “someone must be in charge” and that the SOV token functions as money and as a security. 

My Rebuttal

No one is in charge of Sovryn. Tone (as well as many other Bitcoin maximalists) need to understand what is going on here. They seem to be stuck on seeing bitcoin (and crypto as a whole) through tunnel vision. I can understand why because, quite frankly it is human nature. They bought bitcoin very early in the game and sort of get stuck in their ways with it. They understand what Bitcoin itself is, but fail to widen their horizons to the implications of what  bitcoin opened up in the grand scheme of things.

Just as Bitcoin cant be regulated, as Tone states that: “none of these agencies can go after Bitcoin like that”, the same statement is true for Sovryn because Sovryn has no central point of failure. There is no office, no CEO, no person in charge. There is no target. Sovryn is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). Which, is as I stated earlier the next step in the evolution of Bitcoin’s invention.

Sovryn’s Bitocracy works in such a way where people who stake SOV can vote on the operations of the Sovryn platform. You must have ventured interest to vote which is one of the reasons that the SOV token exists. It’s that simple. Now with that said, I would argue that it would behoove any Bitcoin holder to want to own SOV and stake it, being that the SOV platform is the 1st of its kind. A place where Bitcoin users can do business and actually use Bitcoin for what it was meant to do, be your own bank.

Regulation Concerns

1:10:00 Tone states that “If sovryn is being used by American citizens, then the SEC and FinCEN will feel like they have jurisdiction.”

My Rebuttal

Does the SEC and FinCEN feel they have jurisdiction over Bitcoin users? If so, they could attempt to restrict bitcoin users (as could any government) But the only thing any government could attempt to do is regulate its own citizens, and if those citizens don’t listen then what could they do? Attempt to put cameras on every persons computer, phone and tablet? It is impossible. Bitcoin cannot be regulated. Nor can Sovryn or its use thereof. In theory a country could ask every ISP to block a URL from being accessed (like the great fire wall of china) but this could be easily circumvented with a simple VPN. So again it’s a non issue.

Further

“If sovryn is used by American and say Iranian citizens and North Korean citizens they are really going to be pissed.”

My Rebuttal

What would the American SEC do if an Iranian used Bitcoin? Or someone from North Korea? Absolutely nothing. There is nothing they could do. This case would be the same for SOV as well as any cryptocurrency. How would they know? This argument is ridiculous. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are used by people all over the world. The SEC has no business with what they do.

Who is in charge?

At this point Tone insists that there is someone in charge of the project, suggesting that the person in charge is Edan. He implies that if the SEC went after Edan for being the face of Sovryn that the price “would tank”. He also claims that SOV is designed as money and as a security. 

My rebuttal

Decentralization

Out of all the projects out there, Sovryn is probably the most decentralized I have seen next to Bitcoin itself. I would argue that Sovryn was modelled after Bitcoin in a way, in order to provide an extension of functionality for Bitcoin users, it is a decentralized platform, there is no owner of the platform. Rather, anyone who wants to participate in the decisions of the platform may freely do so by purchasing some SOV tokens, staking them and voting on the development of the platform. Alternatively, if anyone wants to help develop the platform or contribute they are free to participate in the forums or telegram chats and find an area where they may contribute. Sovryn is a community just like Bitcoin is a community. The SOV token does not act like money but rather allows its holders to participate on the platform.

Seeing as there is no owner of the platform there is no one for the SEC to go after. I think the point made by Tone in the case that Edan could be liable is a moot point. There are plenty of people who are a part of various projects putting themselves out there with their identity known to the public and not getting any trouble from the SEC.

Bitocracy

In my opinion, at this point of the video Tone Vays is acting a little frantic, I’m not sure why. He clearly did not do his own research on the project and is throwing around assumptions. What he and any other maxi needs to understand is that Sovryn is an extension of Bitcoin. It’s like a decentralized bank for Bitcoin, which operates as a DAO. With it, a Bitcoin user can have an entire suite of financial products that they can use with their Bitcoin. There is no owner or person(s) In charge of the sovryn platform other then the sovryn holders who make up the Bitocracy that are staked and vote. It’s that simple.

Tone, as a Bitcoin holder why would you not want a platform where you can use your Bitcoin as a financial tool? If Bitcoin allows us all to be our own bank, and Sovryn can be a decentralized platform where one can actually be their own bank in a decentralized way, using their own keys to lend, stake, take loans, trade, invest and so on all in the form of an un-censorable DAO why would you be against this? This after all, IS the purpose of Bitcoin and crypto as a whole is it not? We need to decentralize and this is precisely what Sovryn is doing. The same thing Bitcoin is doing.

More questions on US jurisdiction

“Ok so my view is your chances of getting nailed by the American government really depends on what passport you hold, if you don’t have a US passport you can like, delay that for a while but if you do it kinda gives them jurisdiction over you”.

My rebuttal

Again, the Sovryn protocol exists “everywhere” just like Bitcoin does. The USA only has jurisdiction over its citizens. Bitcoin is used and traded world wide. I do agree that the SEC likes to *think* that they are global but they most certainly are not. Just like the SEC cannot stop Bitcoin, they also cannot stop Sovryn. There is no server for them to shut off, no office for them to raid, no person for them to arrest, nothing for them to seize.

The Sovryn Platform

At 1:18:00 Tone asks who coded the platform and claims that whoever coded the platform would be in charge. 

My rebuttal

Im my opinion this claim/argument is a far reach and a logical fallacy. Following this logic, whoever wrote Bitcoin would still be “in charge” and this whole market would thus be at this person or groups whim. Vitalik would be in charge and in control of Ethereum and so on. The Sovryn platform was developed by a team and a community of contributors and anyone can look at the Github here: https://github.com/DistributedCollective Again Tone should of done his homework before coming on to the meeting and throwing wild assumptions everywhere.

My (long) Conclusion

Let me conclude by saying this. The basis of crypto space is to DYOR Do Your Own Research. This market is predicated on this. We all know it if you been here for over a year. I like the fact that Tone asked the hard questions and brought the heat in this meeting but it is more than evident that he did not do any research what so ever. Rather, he assumed and concluded with statements that were almost seemingly attacks at some points of the meeting.

Bitcoin Maxis

I witness over and over Bitcoin maximalists in many cases act as if every project with a coin or token is an attack on them. Im going to call these maxis out and say that: Deep down they just think that any coin is taking money out of their gains, because it takes potential market share out of Bitcoin’s market cap and thus out of the pumpamentals of their bags. I will also add that these maxis probably want any and all projects to make additional products for the Bitcoin network and just make it free for them to use with no benefit to the creators and their investors what so ever.

In reality these maxis need to understand that the market is more than just Bitcoin. This is a new global decentralized market for all kinds of products and services. Things that anyone and everyone the world over is free to invest in if they choose to with no friction and with no government telling them “you’re not allowed” or “you have to be accredited”. Again, isn’t that the point of all this? We want LESS regulation remember? Over regulation is the reason the rich are getting more rich and the poor have no way out. This is the reason Bitcoin exists. I think Tone and many maxis alike have lost sight of this and the vision of Satoshi. Maxis, think of the bigger picture. New (good) projects benefit and help build the future of Bitcoin and crypto at large.

Securities and Crypto

As for the whole security argument. I agree with Yago. Bitcoin was never made to be compliant with the US government. It was made to fight the US government and all governments for that matter. I have stated before in past posts that rights and freedoms are not something you ask your government nicely for like a sniveling, groveling peasant begging for crumbs. It is something that you TAKE. Cryptocurrency is just that. People choosing to TAKE back their freedom and storing their money in digital assets.

Bitcoin and crypto fight against regulation

The point of decentralization is to in one action, craft both an offence and defence so that there is no way for over-reaching governments to stop it. So who cares what the SEC thinks? Why do you care? We are not asking here, we are doing this wether they like it or not. With that said, I also agree that the SOV token is NOT a security. If it was then every other token in the market would be. It’s really that simple.

They go on to discuss why the SOV token exists (which I have already outlined above) and they discuss amazon stock as an example. Let me dive into this.  If Stocks let anyone invest in a company. Cryptocurrencies can act the same way per-se, but also have functionality/utility. Which as explained above SOV has. Again the ENTIRE crypto market is predicated on this.

It is time for us to recognize the larger vision here. Sovryn and its token SOV is a compliment to Bitcoin. A place where Bitcoin holders can transact and unlock more of the potential of their Bitcoin in the TRUE way it was meant to. It was never meant to be traded on centralized exchanges. It was built and meant to be a decentralized asset and used on decentralized platforms. I believe we need to open our minds, work together and see the bigger picture here.

Categorised in: Education, Fundamental Analysis, Politics

This post was written by BlockAdvisor