oxen-io / oxen-improvement-proposals

The Loki Improvement Proposal repository
MIT License
11 stars 12 forks source link

ORC-8 The Session Network Token #36

Open KeeJef opened 11 months ago

KeeJef commented 11 months ago

ORC-8 The Session Network Token

Introduction

It currently appears that KuCoin is moving to remove OXEN from their exchange. While this is an adverse development, it (in part) confirms concerns we have with the coin. OXEN isn’t working. While the network is stable, Session is reaching new all-time highs, and Lokinet is blazing a path, OXEN is struggling to keep up with the pace. We don’t want OXEN to get left behind — and we have spent a lot of time thinking and talking about how to get it back on its feet.

Earlier this year we knew that we needed to give OXEN some love. We planned a brand refresh that would clarify OXEN’s position in the space, create new, more reliable customer funnels, and freshen up our visuals. As the project progressed, we uncovered more and more problems — with our brand structure, our coin, and ever-increasing regulatory pressure. We needed to make moves to reunify the brands of our project, rework our tokenomics, and connect with the rest of web3.

However we kept straying further from our original goal, we realised we needed to talk to you. We are not done yet, but it’s time to start sharing our ideas with you.

Motivation

Branding

Session is on the rise. People know what Session is, they trust Session, and they understand why it is valuable. In the crypto world, a lot of people are already using Session as their daily messaging app. And yet, a lot of these people have never even heard of OXEN. Some of them don’t even realise there is a coin behind the app. Despite some efforts — like cross-channel promotion, Powered by OXEN, and official communities in-app, the cut-through just hasn’t been what we need.

We need a brand that is strongly connected to Session: in name, appearance, and theme.

Connection

OXEN is an island. While being a standalone chain comes with its perks, it also comes with devastating drawbacks. We are small, we are isolated, and nobody wants to work with a privacy coin. As exchanges turn their backs on coins like OXEN, we are left with limited fiat onramps, low liquidity, and dwindling opportunities with centralised exchanges.

Web3 anticipated this problem, and set out to solve it: but OXEN lacks interoperability and connectivity with the rest of web3. This leaves us managing specialised and unfamiliar wallets and lacking native support on dexes. These days people expect to swap for a token on Uniswap, hold it in MetaMask, and stake them straight from a website.

We need a token which can connect with web3 and its community.

Tokenomics

Our tokenomics made a lot of sense back when they were first conceived. We were following the Monero-model, whose economic structure was borne out of opposition to the Bitcoin fee-model. Back then, there were no considerations to be made about governance tokens, rebase tokens, or any of the other constructs which web3 would later concoct.

Currently, we are running with an inflationary model where coins are minted to reward nodes. As nodes receive rewards, they are also being slowly (but infinitely) diluted and creating sell pressure.

To offset this, we have monetisation — but with our standalone blockchain, most scalable monetisation models require a manual buy-and-burn setup. This is centralised, requires trust, and encourages unhealthy market dynamics.

We need a modernised tokenomic model which better suits the project and its goals.

Proposal — Session Network Token

Session Network Token is a reimagination of the original Loki from 2018. We’re not just changing the name — we are changing what we are, what the token is, how the system works, and how we talk about ourselves.

SENT will be the token behind Session, other Session-branded apps, and the network of nodes which supports them.

New token

Session Network Token (SENT) is a new token on a yet-to-be-determined alternate EVM compatible Layer-2.

This immediately opens doors to new liquidity, collaborations, and interoperability that has not been possible in the past. Session Network Token will be able to integrate with popular wallets like MetaMask, fully support hardware wallets like Ledger and Trezor, and make staking simpler and easier.

Importantly, this new token also allows us to transition to a static, capped supply, make on-chain value capture easier and more transparent, as well as opening the door to new tokenomic mechanisms, such as token pools.

The reward pool

All of the network’s value is captured and redistributed through the reward pool. The pool is filled with tokens from monetisation mechanisms such as Session Pro, Network Enterprise, and Session Enterprise. As these value capture mechanisms scale, the reward pool grows and incentivises new operators to join the network.

Our current working model for the reward pool is based on industry leaders — although its designs are still in flux. Importantly, the reward pool allows us to have a fixed supply for the network, preventing long term effects of inflation from impacting holders and node operators.

Lokinet

This transition also includes hugely increased focus and attention on Lokinet and the technology behind it. Lokinet will also be folded into the Session family — gaining stronger connection to the Session Network Token, Session, and being able to more easily leverage the value of those brands and userbases.

In the past, our token has been divorced from the things that make it powerful, instead needing to reference Session and Lokinet for proof of value. Now, Lokinet’s unique value can be re-communicated through the Session Network Token.

In the future, it will be possible for others to leverage the network just like Session and Lokinet. We have already had meetings with potential business partners, and people are already expressing interest in utilising the network for their own products, and this will likely be a key part of Lokinet’s success in the future.

Answers to Initial Questions

How is all of this going to work?

Right now we need to finish conceptualising and executing on our new branding and direction. We're bringing you guys in on the ground floor to help us work on some of the details so we can work together in the same direction.

Next, it will be a matter of bringing OXEN across to the new network. We have already started creating technical documentation for how the transition will work, and at the moment we are looking into leveraging wOXEN to bridge people across to SENT.

Where do I trade my OXEN now?

Right now we are planning to increase the wOXEN liquidity on Uniswap. Because Uniswap is a decentralised exchange, we will not be exposed to the same risks of regulation-related delistings while we transition towards a Layer2.

When will we find out more?

We know you want to hear from us — and we want to hear from you, too. We will be doing AMAs to answer your important questions and get discussion rolling about decisions which are yet to be made. You can also comment on this ORC to add your perspective.

Keep an eye out for announcements about them on our socials.

What will happen to my OXEN?

You don’t need to do anything right now. We are still working out the details about how exactly we are planning to bridge OXEN to SENT. Once the transition is complete, all OXEN should be swapped for SENT, but right now, it is fine to continue holding OXEN as per usual.

Good news for those of you running a service node, we’re planning to have large incentives for staked OXEN during the swapping process.

Consultation

This is a proposal about what purpose OXEN serves and how it operates as a part of the wider network and project. We know many of you will have your own questions and contributions — we are opening this request for comment to invite all community members to participate in the process.

We know that there are still details we are finalising, but I hope this document will provide some clarity and insight into what we believe is the best way forward for the project.

Paul1804 commented 10 months ago

By creating a new token you guys scammed all the $OXEN supporters. Instead of adding new coins with the same, exact, non-feasible, failed (twice already) mechanism, why can’t you just maintain the same $OXEN coin (automatically make a 1=1 change with a new coin) and stop the issuance/reward program? Then use it for Session/Lokinet/whatever but at least you won’t scam people. The value of a coin is directly linked to its supply. You guys are making the same mistake over and over again while allowing people to waste their money on projects you cyclically abandon (just to pick them up few years later with another name). Also start accepting normal fiat to get a more stable funding if that is the problem. How can’t you guys understand the basic concepts of a business environment yet? WAKE UP!

I got 20 SN! This is the first sensation I have experienced ! I am interested in your opinion - what is the deception ? It seems to me that OXEN would have grown sooner or later. They should not deviate from the general line. Nothing good will come out of it( Only a headache for everyone. The team should quietly continue to work as per the roadmap adopted earlier. After being removed from kucoin, the exchange rate went up on Uniswap. This is great news! Token is gone from "weak hands", left only to those who understand. They do not need to change anything and then everything will be fine! Those changes that are planned, I consider a big mistake! I believed in the project as it exists now.

KeeJef commented 10 months ago

By creating a new token you guys scammed all the $OXEN supporters. Instead of adding new coins with the same, exact, non-feasible, failed (twice already) mechanism, why can’t you just maintain the same $OXEN coin (automatically make a 1=1 change with a new coin) and stop the issuance/reward program?

We aren't scamming $OXEN supporters in any way, we have been working on $LOKI/$OXEN for 5+ years now and will continue to do so, however it's quite clear what we are doing right now isn't working, we need to make some fundamental changes to the branding, tokenomics and privacy aspects of the coin. If we don't make these changes I think we will continue to see a large disconnect between the token layer and the app layer, which will be negative for app users and Oxen holders. If we stopped issuance all together as you're suggesting the Service Node network would be running without rewards, which would probably lead to mass unstaking and instability for Session clients.

The value of a coin is directly linked to it's supply. You guys are making the same mistake over and over again while allowing people to waste their money on projects you cyclically abandon (just to pick them up few years later with another name). Also start accepting normal fiat to get a more stable funding if that is the problem. How can’t you guys understand the basic concepts of a business environment yet? WAKE UP!

We are not abandoning projects, we have been working on the same basic vision since 2018, building out Oxen, Session and Lokinet, however we need to respond to changing environments and i think this ORC is an attempt to much better position the token/coin layer of the project and bring it's success in line with the success of Session and Lokinet.

I got 20 SN! This is the first sensation I have experienced ! I am interested in your opinion - what is the deception ? It seems to me that OXEN would have grown sooner or later. They should not deviate from the general line. Nothing good will come out of it( Only a headache for everyone. The team should quietly continue to work as per the roadmap adopted earlier. After being removed from kucoin, the exchange rate went up on Uniswap. This is great news! Token is gone from "weak hands", left only to those who understand. They do not need to change anything and then everything will be fine! Those changes that are planned, I consider a big mistake! I believed in the project as it exists now.

Service Node operators are very important for the health of the overall network and we are going to do everything in our power to bring Service Nodes across in any potential future migrations.

It seems to me that OXEN would have grown sooner or later. They should not deviate from the general line. Nothing good will come out of it( Only a headache for everyone. The team should quietly continue to work as per the roadmap adopted earlier.

The major Session parts of the roadmap would roughly stay the same, however if we do transition to SENT/Session token then the coin roadmap would change quite drastically. I don't agree with the point that Oxen would have grown sooner or later, as covered in my opening post, Oxen has a number of core challenges which are preventing growth (Exchange listings, interoperability, branding etc..) and ORC-8 is an attempt to address and resolve those challenges.

Paul1804 commented 10 months ago

By creating a new token you guys scammed all the $OXEN supporters. Instead of adding new coins with the same, exact, non-feasible, failed (twice already) mechanism, why can’t you just maintain the same $OXEN coin (automatically make a 1=1 change with a new coin) and stop the issuance/reward program?

We aren't scamming $OXEN supporters in any way, we have been working on $LOKI/$OXEN for 5+ years now and will continue to do so, however it's quite clear what we are doing right now isn't working, we need to make some fundamental changes to the branding, tokenomics and privacy aspects of the coin. If we don't make these changes I think we will continue to see a large disconnect between the token layer and the app layer, which will be negative for app users and Oxen holders. If we stopped issuance all together as you're suggesting the Service Node network would be running without rewards, which would probably lead to mass unstaking and instability for Session clients.

The value of a coin is directly linked to it's supply. You guys are making the same mistake over and over again while allowing people to waste their money on projects you cyclically abandon (just to pick them up few years later with another name). Also start accepting normal fiat to get a more stable funding if that is the problem. How can’t you guys understand the basic concepts of a business environment yet? WAKE UP!

We are not abandoning projects, we have been working on the same basic vision since 2018, building out Oxen, Session and Lokinet, however we need to respond to changing environments and i think this ORC is an attempt to much better position the token/coin layer of the project and bring it's success in line with the success of Session and Lokinet.

I got 20 SN! This is the first sensation I have experienced ! I am interested in your opinion - what is the deception ? It seems to me that OXEN would have grown sooner or later. They should not deviate from the general line. Nothing good will come out of it( Only a headache for everyone. The team should quietly continue to work as per the roadmap adopted earlier. After being removed from kucoin, the exchange rate went up on Uniswap. This is great news! Token is gone from "weak hands", left only to those who understand. They do not need to change anything and then everything will be fine! Those changes that are planned, I consider a big mistake! I believed in the project as it exists now.

Service Node operators are very important for the health of the overall network and we are going to do everything in our power to bring Service Nodes across in any potential future migrations.

It seems to me that OXEN would have grown sooner or later. They should not deviate from the general line. Nothing good will come out of it( Only a headache for everyone. The team should quietly continue to work as per the roadmap adopted earlier.

The major Session parts of the roadmap would roughly stay the same, however if we do transition to SENT/Session token then the coin roadmap would change quite drastically. I don't agree with the point that Oxen would have grown sooner or later, as covered in my opening post, Oxen has a number of core challenges which are preventing growth (Exchange listings, interoperability, branding etc..) and ORC-8 is an attempt to address and resolve those challenges.

Thanks Kee! Convinced ! I'll stay with you with my 20 SN.

b006 commented 9 months ago

I think it would be wrong to issue $SENT on Ethereum, to keep fees low i think we should issue on an Ethereum adjacent EVM L2 or L1, average transaction fees on most L2s have never peaked past a few cents for simple token transfers.

I fully support everything proposed except for this.

If this is a marketing rebrand to increase exposure and networking why wouldn't you launch on Ethereum? Ethereum is a $200B L1 whereas the top two L2s Optimism and Arbitrum are both valued under $10B. That alone tells me people would be more inclined to support and speculate on an Ethereum token rather than a L2 token. Even if you consider a L1 like Avalanche I just don't see people caring as much as an Ethereum based project. You state "OXEN is an island." so why not start the rebrand with the most effective tactics available?

Uniswap started as an Ethereum project and ERC-20 token but is now tradable and deployed on multiple EVM L1s and L2s. Nothing is preventing SENT from being issued on Ethereum first but protocol transactions all being done on a L2. This also ensures the security of SENT as the main contract will be on a larger/harder/more expensive chain to exploit.

To put it more bluntly. Ethereum or bust.

KeeJef commented 9 months ago

@b006 We expect some of the operations nodes need to do onchain will be quite expensive in terms of gas used, these operations will be solely related to Service Node staking and consensus, if these operations were done on the Ethereum chain it could be gas prohibitive to stake or claim rewards from a node, we are still validating these assumptions. If our initial analysis is true its going to make sense to have a L2 somewhere in the stack, its possible that the Session Token could be issued on Ethereum and then bridged to the L2 for users who want to stake, but i would be worried that this could split liquidity across the chains. Open to suggestions here.

KeeJef commented 9 months ago

Hi everyone,

Thanks for sharing your feedback on this issue with us over the past few months. This post will summarise our responses to the primary comments and questions brought up in this ORC and provide insight into our direction as we move forward.

Will the Session Token / $SENT be private?

Our current thinking is that $SENT will be an ERC20 token, which by default does not offer privacy features. However, we want to explore integrating with third party on-chain privacy projects (eg. Railgun) in order to give more privacy enhancing options to token holders. I was actually on Twitter Spaces with some of the Railgun team a few weeks ago https://twitter.com/RAILGUN_Project/status/1686371307959590912 .

This decision is necessary to ensure the ongoing success of the project for several reasons:

We are as dedicated as ever to privacy. But in order for our applications to continue to grow and be able to offer privacy to millions of users in the future, we must make a concession to the privacy of the token that powers those applications.

Would it be possible to maintain a dual stack where both Oxen and the Session token continue to exist?

We want to double down on our strengths. If we continue to run Oxen alongside the Session token, we will only become less competitive with other privacy coins, and our users will obtain less privacy overall due to a smaller anonymity set.

What incentives will be in place for Service Node operators and Oxen holders?

For legal reasons, there is limited information that we can share about prospective tokenomic plans at this point in time.

However, one of our top priorities at the moment is to effectively facilitate the transition to our new network for Service Node operators and contributors, and we are actively investigating how to do this in a way which is favourable for our community.

We will release further information on how the migration process will proceed as soon as we can.

Which Layer 2 will you be choosing and how will Service Nodes operate on top of it?

We are still making assessments as to which layer 2 we will launch on, we are looking at a number of options including Arbitrum, Optimism and Polygon. How the network will operate on the L2 is more complex.

To give a broad overview: the Service Node network will maintain an internal consensus using the existing Oxen workchain. This internal consensus will determine all Service Node state, such as owed rewards, deregistrations, decommissions etc.

Periodically this Oxen workchain state is snapshotted and collectively signed by the Service Node network. This signed snapshot is submitted to the EVM blockchain where it is validated inside a smart contract. Validated stakers can use this state to claim funds or withdrawal from the network.

All token transfers, staking, and trading will occur natively on the EVM L2 blockchain, and wallets will be maintained on the EVM blockchain too.

Oxen wasn't given a sufficient chance to succeed, don't we need to make more changes to Oxen instead of moving to $SENT?

We have not made this decision lightly, and we believe that if this was the case, that we wouldn’t now be facing the problems which have led us to make these changes. Our experience has taught us that a dollar spent on the development and marketing of Session and Lokinet offers greater long term return for the project and our community than a dollar spent on development and marketing of $OXEN.

In the earlier stages of the project, a lot of resources were allocated to $OXEN through features like Blink, Proof of Stake, batch payments etc.. We explored several different options in order to allow the project to succeed with $OXEN functioning as Sessions base layer, and these avenues were ultimately not successful. This was a process which took place over several years, and at this stage it seems extremely unlikely that more time spent developing $OXEN would be beneficial.

The direction that the crypto space is moving is undeniable, and it is now time for us to move with it. We deeply believe that this decision is a very positive one for our community, and we are excited to see what we are capable of once we have solved the problems that we’ve identified with our ecosystem's incentive layer.

Where are we going now?

We have been working towards the changes brought forward in ORC-8 for several months, and given that most community feedback has been positive, we want to keep moving in that direction.

I will be keeping this ORC open so that we can continue to gather our feedback and so that you can push us to execute this pivot to the best of our abilities. The team is very optimistic about these changes, and our future is looking very bright. We have been engaging with a variety of organisations over the past few months and external feedback on these changes has been extremely positive.

You can check out this video if you would like to learn more. Stay tuned for further announcements about our progress, we will be able to share additional information soon.

venezuela01 commented 9 months ago

Would it be possible to maintain a dual stack where both Oxen and the Session token continue to exist?

There's a practical issue that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. If the plan is to phase out the Oxen chain entirely, how will we deal with those Oxen holders who may not be closely following the project, have not voiced their opinions, and might miss the migration window? According to Theoretical Analysis of Oxen Wallet Counts vs. Top Ethereum ERC20 Token Wallet Counts and an Alternative Approach to Increasing Oxen Holders, currently only 41% of Oxen is staked, with a large amount of Oxen owned by thousands of holders not participating in any service nodes. How can we ensure that every holder is notified before the Oxen chain is shut down to prevent anyone from losing their funds on the obsolete chain?

venezuela01 commented 9 months ago

given that most community feedback has been positive, we want to keep moving in that direction.

I am concerned that there might be miscommunication and misinterpretation between the team and the community, as my observations suggest otherwise. The primary issue is that ORC-8 encompasses several aspects, making it challenging to provide binary feedback (positive/negative) as a whole. This is because one might agree with one sub-topic but disagree with another. Regardless, I have decided to volunteer myself to count the valid comments in this thread and manually classify them as Positive, Neutral, or Negative—either as a whole or specifically concerning the replacement of Oxen with a transparent EVM token. My classification is based on my subjective interpretation of community feedback. If anyone disagrees with any specific classification, please quote the specific row in the following table and make a suggestion. My statistics do not support the conclusion that "most community feedback has been positive." The team might have different criteria for rating a comment or a different perception of feedback; however, feelings can sometimes mislead us. If you believe my statistics significantly differ from your perception, I recommend engaging in the same practice and reviewing your conclusion again.

I have identified 32 valid comments in the thread:

If you have a better methodology for aggregating community feedback, I would be happy to volunteer for the work.

Distribution of sentiment over ORC-8 as a whole

Distribution of sentiment over the replacement of Oxen to a transparent EVM token (v2)

Poster Sentiment over ORC-8 as a whole Sentiment over the replacement of Oxen to a transparent EVM token Note URL
venezuela01 Neutral Neutral Link
crypto-ali Neutral Negative SENT token being a transparent token. That would severely impact the privacy aspects of Session Link
Lucifer1903 Neutral Negative Remove private transactions completely would be a grave error in understanding of who Oxen holders are. Link
dis7ant Neutral Negative I don't think "nobody wants to work with a privacy coin" or "regulation-related delistings" are going to be received as winning arguments. Link
crypto-ali Neutral Negative Link
Paul1804 Neutral Neutral Link
dread-end Negative Neutral Link
KeeJef
huyahuai Neutral Negative Oxen's privacy construction combined with stellar's compliance will have unlimited development potential. Link
Paul1804 Positive Neutral Link
Agorise Neutral Negative You do NOT have to obey. Stay focused! Build Lokinet, Session and the OXEN coin monetization the way it should be, NOT how "they" say it needs to be. Do it right! #nofear Link
bungoboingo Neutral Neutral Link
Dormage Negative Neutral Link
dis7ant Positive Positive Link
Lucifer1903 Neutral Negative Link
Danmcg86 Positive Positive Link
seoeunju1 Positive Positive Link
KeeJef Link
Agorise Neutral Neutral EVM? Gas fees? Smartcontracts? Privacy? Just curious why noone has even mentioned DERO. Link
KeeJef Link
Onion84 Neutral Neutral Link
henk717 Negative Negative I don't support this direction to replace oxen, I held oxen because I believed in the need for a coin like Oxen. A coin that is inherently private, not an energy waste and allows for fast transactions. Link
Lucifer1903 Neutral Negative Link
Lucifer1903 Positive Positive The last thing I'm going to say on the topic. If the community isn't interested in the compromise I wrote above (that would be my proffered option) then I'll support this ORC-8 as is. Link
TrampledF Positive Neutral Link
torsionion Negative Negative Sold for a massive loss, but I've lost trust in the direction of this project. It will now just be yet another messaging app like all the rest. Actually, probably far worse since it's linked to a coin. What's the value prop for a user now? Link
CallMeCreadev Positive Positive Link
torsionion Negative Negative To me, this new direction does make it feel like a scam now. At the very least, I've lost trust that it won't become a scam in the near future. I don't think the Oxen team intends for it to be a scam, but it's like I said in my previous comment, the entire reason it had value/potential to me was the privacy aspect. PoS and speed also differentiated it from Monero. Take that away, it's just like any other crypto project in my eyes. Link
CallMeCreadev Positive Positive Link
pnr777 Neutral Neutral Link
Agorise Negative Negative The #1 reason why we came here is privacy. Kowtowing to what the cex's, banksters and governments want is well, dumb. MAN UP!! Guys, leave the coin alone and build. Link
Sage0wl Positive Positive The Globalists are at war with privacy coins, playing dirty, better to take our winning parts, Session and Lokinet routing – go for scale and adoption, with a healthy bulky user base - in the future we can circle back and beef up privacy tokenomics. Link
pnr777 Neutral Negative I think Agorism meant that discarding pravicy is really unnecessary step. Look at XMR, look at NYM on Cosmos, they survive pretty good while maintaining privacy at its core. Link
degenrocket Neutral Negative save core values of the community like privacy-by-default, decentralization, and censorship-resistance. Link
KeeJef Link
b006 Positive Positive Link
venezuela01 commented 9 months ago

Would it be possible to maintain a dual stack where both Oxen and the Session token continue to exist?

Another potential benefit of keeping the Oxen chain alive is that, if a bidirectional communication between Oxen and EVM is successfully established, we might use the same technology to convert stablecoins like USDT, USDC, or DAI from the EVM chain back to the Oxen chain. These would then become privacy-centric stablecoins, which could potentially become a killer feature of the project.

Paul1804 commented 9 months ago

Kee wrote in his last comment that there is not enough money to develop privacy coins. And that it is a very time-consuming and complicated process. I think that is the main reason. He never once asked the community to help with money for development! You can only kill this project when you are sure that no one is interested in it. After no one supports it financially. Privacy is being pushed to the periphery because it is a threat to the globalists and must exist on people's donations. Otherwise it won't work. It looks like they have already made their decision. (However, nothing prevents them from postponing it for a few months and trying to collect donations from people. Why not? Why don't we ask the team to do it?!

The fact that privacy coins are delisted from exchanges is not a bad thing, on the contrary - a good thing! It shows that we need to evolve and not give up!

venezuela01 commented 9 months ago

Kee wrote in his last comment that there is not enough money to develop privacy coins. And that it is a very time-consuming and complicated process. I think that is the main reason. He never once asked the community to help with money for development! You can only kill this project when you are sure that no one is interested in it. After no one supports it financially. Privacy is being pushed to the periphery because it is a threat to the globalists and must exist on people's donations. Otherwise it won't work. It looks like they have already made their decision. (However, nothing prevents them from postponing it for a few months and trying to collect donations from people. Why not? Why don't we ask the team to do it?!

Philosophically, another approach could be to donate the entire Session/Oxen/Lokinet code base and branding resources to Monero Research Lab, allowing them to handle the Oxen privacy chain development and anti-censorship battles.

Paul1804 commented 9 months ago

Kee wrote in his last comment that there is not enough money to develop privacy coins. And that it is a very time-consuming and complicated process. I think that is the main reason. He never once asked the community to help with money for development! You can only kill this project when you are sure that no one is interested in it. After no one supports it financially. Privacy is being pushed to the periphery because it is a threat to the globalists and must exist on people's donations. Otherwise it won't work. It looks like they have already made their decision. (However, nothing prevents them from postponing it for a few months and trying to collect donations from people. Why not? Why don't we ask the team to do it?!

Philosophically, another approach could be to donate the entire Session/Oxen/Lokinet code base and branding resources to Monero Research Lab, allowing them to handle the Oxen privacy chain development and anti-censorship battles.

I support and fully agree!

Lucifer1903 commented 9 months ago

@venezuela01 I would like both of sentiments changed to positive.

venezuela01 commented 9 months ago

@venezuela01 I would like both of sentiments changed to positive.

@Lucifer1903 Thanks for the feedback. I have revised the sentiment of your last comment as you requested and updated the charts accordingly, without altering the sentiments of your previous comments.

To clarify, I've recognized a flaw in my methodology:

Some members' opinions might change over time, some members might supply additional arguments to emphasize their previous positions, as a result we need a more advanced way of accounting for or disregarding historical opinions. If the community is serious about these statistics, please feel free to initiate a separate discussion, and we can contribute further to the new thread.

Rather than proposing a perfect solution for aggregating community feedback, my attempt has revealed the difficulty of measuring community feedback. I'd like to invite the team to share their methodology on how they conclude that the majority of community feedback is positive. If they are confident in this conclusion, there is likely some clearly defined methodology which would be widely accepted. If such a methodology is hard to establish, as my previous attempt shows, then we should reevaluate whether the conclusion itself is reliable.

pnr777 commented 9 months ago

Kee wrote in his last comment that there is not enough money to develop privacy coins. And that it is a very time-consuming and complicated process. I think that is the main reason. He never once asked the community to help with money for development! You can only kill this project when you are sure that no one is interested in it. After no one supports it financially. Privacy is being pushed to the periphery because it is a threat to the globalists and must exist on people's donations. Otherwise it won't work. It looks like they have already made their decision. (However, nothing prevents them from postponing it for a few months and trying to collect donations from people. Why not? Why don't we ask the team to do it?!

Philosophically, another approach could be to donate the entire Session/Oxen/Lokinet code base and branding resources to Monero Research Lab, allowing them to handle the Oxen privacy chain development and anti-censorship battles.

I support and fully agree!

Right on! I think that's a great idea. Let Monero folks do it, as it seems only they can and want to pursue the privacy path. If Oxen can't or too much trouble for them, let Monero do it.

pnr777 commented 9 months ago

Hey folks. With the pending "migration" to EVM or conversion to Session token, why is nobody talking about WOXEN? This is something we already have - ethereum.oxen.io/#/about Do we really need another one and abandon oxen blockchain? Can rename it to session and wsession if u want, but at least oxen PRIVATE blockchain would be preserved.

KeeJef commented 9 months ago

There's a practical issue that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. If the plan is to phase out the Oxen chain entirely, how will we deal with those Oxen holders who may not be closely following the project, have not voiced their opinions, and might miss the migration window?

We are still working through the details of the migration process internally, when the migration occurs we will be using every communications channel we have available to communicate the migration process, this includes non traditional channels like using banners in the wallet and on the websites, as well as traditional channels, like Telegram/Session updates channels and Twitter

I am concerned that there might be miscommunication and misinterpretation between the team and the community, as my observations suggest otherwise.

This was based on a broad analysis of not just public comments on this ORC, but comments in Telegram, Session and other social channels, including personal communications which we have had with investors, and Oxen holders.

Hey folks. With the pending "migration" to EVM or conversion to Session token, why is nobody talking about WOXEN?

wOxen is cool but its centralized in its issuance and fragments liquidity across both the Oxen and Ethereum chains, its also unrepresentative of future Oxen tokenomics and uses an older token standard. We want to move towards a unified vision around a new token which ties back into the Service Node network

venezuela01 commented 9 months ago

We are still working through the details of the migration process internally, when the migration occurs we will be using every communications channel we have available to communicate the migration process, this includes non traditional channels like using banners in the wallet and on the websites, as well as traditional channels, like Telegram/Session updates channels and Twitter

What criteria will determine the closing of the migration window, in terms of the percentage of the Oxen market cap being migrated? Currently, with around 64.9M Oxen in circulation, after what proportion of Oxen has been converted to the new token will we opt to phase out the old chain?

If the goal is achieving a 100% migration, this seems unfeasible given the difficulty in reaching every stakeholder. We might overestimate the efficacy of our marketing channels, if they were truly so efficient, Oxen would be more widely recognized by now. This situation brings to mind the historical Bitcoin investors who only recovered their lost private keys many years following Bitcoin's significant rise.

Should we establish a threshold, perhaps at 99%? Has there been any forecast regarding the time and effort required to reach almost every holders, aiming to convert more than 99% of the market cap? Furthermore, by doing so, we'd inadvertently be excluding certain stakeholders, much like leaving someone out of a lifeboat. How can we ethically reconcile with such a decision? And how do we intend to assist an Oxen holder who comes back after the migration window, alleging their assets are now inaccessible on the obsolete chain? If we don't uphold our commitment to previous investors, how can we inspire trust in future investors? When criticized for leaving someone out — and possibly being labeled a scam project that reneges on promises and mismanages individuals' funds — how will we respond?

I am concerned that there might be miscommunication and misinterpretation between the team and the community, as my observations suggest otherwise.

This was based on a broad analysis of not just public comments on this ORC, but comments in Telegram, Session and other social channels, including personal communications which we have had with investors, and Oxen holders.

If you are genuinely considering the feedback from Telegram, Session, and other social channels, could you share the methodology and findings of your broad analysis? Otherwise, I'd be willing to volunteer and publish my own broad analysis report using public data. It may or may not align with your conclusions.

b006 commented 9 months ago

@KeeJef

The first thing you should consider is what each move does for the community. Right now you kind of see there is a rift happening from the vocal minority. This is why being an ethereum project is paramount. You'll easily triple the session community size the moment you launch on ethereum when the various eth communities see a new and interesting project is launching on their favorite chain. Ethereum will also bring on board a diverse pool of new node providers. I just dont see that happening with any other chain during this bear market.

Next is networking. Vitalik is a huge proponent of privacy. He was even one of the first supporters of tornado cash. see https://decrypt.co/155278/vitalik-buterin-pushes-for-privacy-pools-to-balance-anonymity-with-regulatory-compliance to read about his current stance. Being labeled ethereums new privacy messenger will be huge for marketing and networking. Each update will be watched/read by thousands as they curiously keep up to date on their new privacy app. Finding and aligning yourselves with privacy minded people and communities is crucial for the success of session.

Finally speculation/trading will greatly benefit session on ethereum than on any other chain. right now theres over 100B of potential capital floating around on ethereum while between opt/arb/polygon theres at most 5B. The importance to market cap of being an ethereum project alone should be enough reason to have the main contract on ethereum. On day one I see millions flowing into SENT on ethereum. Polygon? Opt? not so much.

Polygon is probably your main choice right now when you look at the gas fees. Theres nothing wrong with polygon but its important to note its not a true L2 and is already kind of bloated with an archival node size larger than Ethereums. I see polygon as a cheap but temporary solution on a long enough timeline but should suffice in the short term as session is able to establish itself. Golems payments are currently being processed on polygon (main contract on Ethereum) and Ive seen no problems with it. Even though Golems protocol txs are on polygon it is still seen as an Ethereum project to the community which is why the market cap is still relatively high. I view opt/arb as a better tech solution but their higher gas fees obviously factor in right now. If session had deeper pockets I'd recommend them or even building your own EVM sidechain but you'll get the same performance on polygon. But if opt/arb offer some sort of partnership involving funding or grants that obviously changes things.

This bring up the point that issuing on Ethereum first will allow you the flexibility of easily switching L2s in the future without compromising the stored value of the project. I see at least 66% of SENT tokens being stored on ethereum between locked team/reward tokens, speculators, exchanges and LPs. If you first deploy on polygon then a year later you decide to move to a better/cheaper L2 that comes out it could seriously harm the future of session shifting the entire $ of the project to another chain yet again. People may decide to drop out or view it as poor decision making. Whereas migrating to a new L2 while already established on Ethereum to save on gas fees seems like a big brain move.

The OXEN migration to the new chain is another factor I can see why you would want to issue straight on a L2. Doing a "free" swap will be viewed more favorably than charging everyone gas fees. I would issue all migration tokens on the L2 and just give people the option to bridge to the L1 or send to an exchange if they want. If you launch only on a L2 there will be serious questions if others will dump when game theory kicks in. But if people see the main value is stored and secured on ethereum its more likely there wont be a panic to dump tokens. Being anchored on Ethereum eases all qualms of SENT failing on a L2 or being immediately dumped after the migration. Managing a bridge to the L2 may be seen as a pain but will be worth it in the long haul.

hopefully this helps you in your decision making good luck

TLDR; launch on Ethereum first then manage Session protocol txs on the L2 launching directly on a L2 is a lateral move and will not improve the community, networking, or market cap tapping into the Ethereum ecosystem is essential to the success of Session

crypto-ali commented 8 months ago

@KeeJef just want to say that I agree with @b006's reply above. The SENT token contract should be on Ethereum main net and then have all the staking and governance logic contracts reside on an L2.

Lucifer1903 commented 8 months ago

@KeeJef I also think @b006 makes some good points. Is having the token on Ethereum and the contracts on a L2 a possibility?

crypto-ali commented 8 months ago

@Lucifer1903, Many projects have their token contracts on both Ethereum main net and one or more L2s. For example, Synthetix was one of the early projects to migrate complex business logic to Optimism for gas savings. Things such as staking, minting/burning sUSD, claiming weekly staking rewards, and governance votes for the different councils. That said, since they are an older project, all those same functions exist in smart contracts on main net too, it just costs a small fraction to do the same functions on Optimism, so a lot of smaller holders migrated their SNX to Optimism to handle all the weekly staking related transactions.

So, with that being said, the SENT token contract could be deployed to main net so that some people can keep their tokens on main net for holding or providing liquidity to pools such as on Uniswap. The team could then deploy the necessary business logic related contracts to an L2 so that users could migrate SENT tokens to the L2 for holding, trading, LPing, staking for a snode, claiming snode rewards, unstaking, etc etc.

I think if they did it like that then they could possibly offer a choice when a user migrates from OXEN to SENT. They could choose to get their SENT on the L2 or main net. Though, that may involve additional complexity so it may only make sense to allow migrating the main net then the user would need to use an L2 bridge to migrate to the L2 to then stake their SENT tokens.

keybreak commented 7 months ago

I have read explanation and a lot of reasoning in this thread + Q/A videos... And my conclusions are such:

Full support

GRAVE strategic mistake:

I can elaborate extensively on why, if team is interested (which is not likely, coz decision is clearly already made), but anyone who operates in first principle thinking surely figured it all out by now.

There were many people in this thread who has already outlined some glimpses of mistakes while making such moves.

Paul1804 commented 7 months ago

There's a man on the team who has influence. And a fan of anonymity and privacy. We have to "keep knocking on the door".

venezuela01 commented 7 months ago

I'd like to quote a message from the Oxen telegram group:

@ 500KG [23 Nov 2023]: Whatever their choice may be, the most important way for me is to raise the price of $OXEN. So I am in favor of migrating to $SENT. I don't want to miss this bull market. I'm going to throw away all the $OXEN in this bull market 6 years is a long time. I'm exhausted.

I replied with:

I understand your frustration and appreciate your honesty. I trust that this is what you and some other supporters of transparent Session tokens feel and think. Sorry for being on the other side, this is why I oppose the migration of the privacy coin to a transparent token. The most significant reason someone supports the migration is so they can dump the coin and abandon the project. Is this really what the core team desires?

I have tagged this message @KeeJef and @Crypto_mc in the Telegram channel. Surprisingly, shortly after I sent my message, my post was deleted by a moderator in the group and my account was restricted from posting. This is not the first time I've been restricted from posting, despite not using any offensive language, straying off-topic, or making statements that distort the truth.

@KeeJef, could you clarify if this kind of banning of candid community members reflects your perception that most community feedback is positive? Is this positive feedback a result of suppressing dissenting opinions, or is the recent banning an isolated incident of individual moderator misconduct that should be reassessed for its legitimacy?

Shooting the messenger will not lead to the success of the project.

KeeJef commented 7 months ago

@venezuela01 I'm not aware of your banning in the channel, wasn't something i did, and i don't understand why that post would result in a ban, might have been accidental, please contact https://t.me/tophut to clarify

venezuela01 commented 7 months ago

@venezuela01 I'm not aware of your banning in the channel, wasn't something i did, and i don't understand why that post would result in a ban, might have been accidental, please contact https://t.me/tophut to clarify

Thanks for clarify. This is what I get from @msgmaxim

yes looks like it's telegram (spam bot) ban, it should be lifted after some hours

I trust that this was not intentional, but unfortunately, it has been a really poor experience for me since I've been banned multiple times in the past few months and I gave up posting many of my opinions because of that. I'm still unable to post anything, I'll wait a few more hours.

Edit: still unable to send any messages after 24 hours. admin has no idea what's wrong. Edit 2: Finally unbanned 5 days later. It's a false positive from the telegram spam bot, no one can explain why. Edit 3: Banned again after sending 4 messages. Edit 4: Still banned on 3 Dec (10 days since initial ban). Moderator believes its a telegram bug. Edit 5: Still banned on 13 Dec (20 days since initial ban). Moderator believes its a telegram bug. Edit 6: Unbanned since February 9th. I'm convinced it was a Telegram bug, assuming good faith.

telegram ban
venezuela01 commented 7 months ago

In ORC-8 The Session Network Token, @KeeJef acknowledged, "This is not to say that Session monetization wouldn't be successful on Oxen; however, I think it would be to a lesser degree."

I'm glad that the CTO of the project agrees that Oxen with Session monetization is feasible and potentially could be successful. However, it appears there is a trade-off between being so called "more successful," with quotes, and having more privacy. Have you consulted the community about whether they prefer a "less successful" Oxen project with more privacy, or a "more successful" Session token with less privacy?

In the previous comment, I presented my statistics showing that the majority of comments are against a transparent token. You argued that comments from Telegram, Session, and other social channels are positive. Then, I asked you to show your methodology and data for the feedback you collected, but you didn't respond. Do you still insist that the majority of community members support a transparent token, even if you clearly inform them that Session monetization with Oxen could be moderately successful but not "more successful"? Could you share your data on feedback collection to substantiate this claim? Note that Telegram supports exporting chat history; I can provide you with a copy if you like.

Have you consider a vote, given that Token Migration Case Studies shows that voting is a feasible practice to some projects, especially when the migration is not trivial? If you haven't consider a vote, it's good to discuss about it, even thought experiement is good, because we might have other big changes in the future. If you believe voting isn't a good solution, please explain why we are different than other projects who conducted a voting like Helium, Unibot and Threshold Network.

pnr777 commented 7 months ago

Good points!!!

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023, 4:55 AM venezuela01 @.***> wrote:

In ORC-8 The Session Network Token https://github.com/oxen-io/oxen-improvement-proposals/issues/36#issuecomment-1667344381, @KeeJef https://github.com/KeeJef acknowledged, "This is not to say that Session monetization wouldn't be successful on Oxen; however, I think it would be to a lesser degree."

I'm glad that the CTO of the project agrees that Oxen with Session monetization is feasible and potentially could be successful. However, it appears there is a trade-off between being so called "more successful," with quotes, and having more privacy. Have you consulted the community about whether they prefer a "less successful" Oxen project with more privacy, or a "more successful" Session token with less privacy?

In the previous comment https://github.com/oxen-io/oxen-improvement-proposals/issues/36#issuecomment-1738595076, I presented my statistics showing that the majority of comments are against a transparent token. You argued that comments from Telegram, Session, and other social channels are positive. Then, I asked you to show your methodology and data for the feedback you collected, but you didn't respond. Do you still insist that the majority of community members support a transparent token, even if they are clearly informed that Session monetization with Oxen could be moderately successful but not "more successful"? Could you share your data on feedback collection to substantiate this claim? Note that Telegram supports exporting chat history; I can provide you with a copy if you like.

Have you consider a vote, given that Token Migration Case Studies https://github.com/oxen-io/oxen-improvement-proposals/issues/62 shows that voting is a feasible practice to some projects, especially when the migration is not trivial? If you haven't consider a vote, it's good to discuss about it, even thought experiement. If you believe voting isn't a good solution, please explain why we are different than other projects who conducted a voting like Helium, Unibot and Threshold Network.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/oxen-io/oxen-improvement-proposals/issues/36#issuecomment-1840413312, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBND5JMCWBY5XBZFNIRE4P3YH3VSRAVCNFSM6AAAAAA2WXBU4SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNBQGQYTGMZRGI . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

keybreak commented 7 months ago

However, it appears there is a trade-off between being so called "more successful," with quotes, and having more privacy.

I think the premise of that statement is false dichotomy. Riding waves of short-term success does not equate to being "more successful" in a long run.

Only thing that determine any crypto project long-term - is it's real world usefulness and how it will stand against attacks on freedom (having independent infrastructure), great examples:

How i personally see successful token should be:


I'm sure that actual real choice presented here is between:

  1. Being as hardcore as possible (like right now, apart from devs not being anonymous)

  2. Enjoying short-term gains that comes with:

    • Tight integration with "legit" / KYC exchanges
    • Tight integration with hardware wallets
    • Offloading development of complex things (fork of Monero) to Etherium itself, by using L2.

Those 2 things clearly can not co-exist - because it's quite literally a frontline. I think that there is no grey zone to jump into, there's right and wrong.

Right thing to do - is being as hardcore as possible, perhaps even more hardcore (becoming absolutely anonymous on devs end, like ThinkPad + Whonix type of OpSec for publishing code :smiley:). Because it will make world a better place, we've seen enough looses for freedom lately...

My hope is Oxen / Session / Lokinet devs understand exactly why it's on the frontline of war and won't compromise or back down in any way, coz otherwise...well it won't end well for anybody. And i really wish you well!