Dear Sovryn Community,

As I bid farewell to the Sovryn project, I reflect on my journey and the factors that led to this decision. The recent pump provided an opportunity for me to recoup my initial BTC investment after engaging in Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) over an extended period. While I acknowledge the potential for future gains, the uncertainty surrounding Sovryn’s performance compared to other assets prompts me to consider opportunity costs.

Bitcoin, the pioneer of cryptocurrencies, faces renewed challenges with transaction fees due to the inscription of ordinals into layer one. The discourse among Bitcoin maximalists has shifted towards the controversial idea of transaction censorship, dictating how individuals should spend their own money by limiting transactions.

Unlike the 2017 censorship confined to social media accounts, the current narrative extends to the blockchain itself. Bitcoin maximalists’ reluctance toward embracing DeFi, drivechains, or sidechains, as evidenced by their opposition to BIP300 and BIP301, further complicates the landscape.

The Sovryn DeFi on Bitcoin narrative appears to be at an impasse, primarily due to Bitcoin maximalists’ resistance to DeFi. Their preference leans toward centralized corporations issuing stablecoins for trading on centralized exchanges, diverging from the vision of projects like Sovryn and RSK that necessitate BIP300 and BIP301.

Edan Yago’s proposed narrative, BitcoinOS, introduces BitVM and roll-ups as potential solutions. However, the inherent uncertainty arises from the fear that these innovations may face a fate similar to ordinals, subject to censorship. This apprehension stems from Bitcoin maximalists’ resistance to adapting the block size to a more reasonable range, such as 32MB to 128MB, given current hardware capabilities.

In parting, my decision to exit the Sovryn project reflects a broader concern for the evolving dynamics within the Bitcoin and DeFi space. The rift between the vision of projects like Sovryn and the preferences of Bitcoin maximalists raises questions about the future trajectory of decentralized finance on the Bitcoin blockchain.

The need for 1Mb legacy or 4Mb SegWit is a lie because hardware already can allow for 32Mb blocks without compromising decentralization.

The centralization of Bitcoin nodes because of block size is a lie.