Some great points regarding existing validators close to the bottom 
So many amazing ideas in here! I have read very little that I dis-agree with. I think that JCRâs plan of applying the delegations immediately to those in need, then evenly distribute the rest, is the best path forward. I would add a caveat, that ONE month from delegation, the funds would be redelegated in accordance with the communityâs decision.
That gives us a whole month to kick this around, try to poke holes in any plan, using our considerable decentralized pool of knowledge⌠and formulate a solid plan for how we win as a community.
This isnât about making everybody profitable. If we did that, then the barrier to entry for a new Validator would be 20 MM ONE!?! No bueno.
Also, we need to keep in mind, the team has a LOT on their plate right now. We need to minimize transactions. Whatever we come up with, it cannot require regular shifting of delegation around⌠initially.
What we choose to build with the funds earned? Thatâs up to us. Maybe we make a Bot like @SmokinJoe was saying, so that 6 months from now⌠itâs automagic, and able to adjust daily.
Buuuuut, before we get there, we need to stabilize the network, and put this ONE to work earning for us.
We need immediate action to rescue our Validators. Itâs not permanent. We can adjust it in a Month, after weâve had time to discuss properly.
Iâm excited to hear all the amazing ideas and input everyone has! 
4 Likes
I was not dictating anything on the space, the 6 month staking timeframe was a suggestion. As for fee increases, that is why I stated the community needed to consider what requirements should be put in place. The community could identify a max fee allowed and any validator who goes over the fee then loses the stake. Just an option. No one said anything about leaving any validator in the dust. The conversation revolved around boosting new validators and taking care of existing ones.
4 Likes
Ok I have read through all the posts and my notes from various discussions. After speaking with the core team we have decided the following is the best course of action.
The validator community needs to select 3-4 individuals to speak on behalf of the validator community, we ask that those individuals are identified in 72 hours. These individuals will be added to a chat with myself and core team where we will discuss the plan options the validator community comes up with. The community wants to ensure this is done correctly and this is the path to achieve that. Core team will have inputs on the action plan as well, with the intent of coming to solution that is fair/equitable for all and doesnât require heavy maintenance. Looking forward to working with the team to roll out a solution in a timely manner as validators need immediate support and the community revenue from these delegations needs to start generating.
Tim
7 Likes
In my mind, we should be going with @JCRâs plan, so I Nominate him as one of the Repâs
Additionally, I think @PeaceLoveHarmony would be an excellent representative. There are so many amazing Validators, itâs hard to choose!
@ben2k_Stakeridoo - a little birdie told me that you were able to set up snapshot for a vote. Any way you could be able to assist by setting up this vote?
I propose we take the next 36 hours to nominate people.
Ben then has 12 hours to set up the vote.
We spend the following 24 hours voting, and electing our representatives.
I propose that they should serve for 90 days, and must produce a charter within the first 30 days.
Can we agree on this, and move forward possibly?
We need to elect people to represent us, or the team might decide not to wait for us⌠the problem with decentralization is too few are willing to compromise, and progress grinds to a halt.
Can we please make a compromise, and move forward⌠so that we can actually be heard? 
6 Likes
Please reply only if the reply includes modifications to the proposed plan, or a new plan⌠or youâre nominating people, of course!
Everyone should be heard, but we must remain focused. For the record⌠I hope that there are several new plans and modifications.
2 Likes
I strongly believe one of our representatives should be @AffinityShard, along with @PeaceLoveHarmony as well. Both seem fit enough
6 Likes
Iâm happy to help if needed, though my time is a bit limited so I might not be as active as when I was a governor. I still havenât caught up with everything but will have some time to do so this coming week.
I agree with @CryptoTech - would love to see @AffinityShard and/or @PeaceLoveHarmony work on this program.
4 Likes
I understand that SMH has already updated everyone on what the next phase of thir process will be. Iâll add a few thoughts for the 3-4 validator representatives to consider moving forward.
#1:
It is my understanding that Li is involved in the management of the Harmony 2 wallet that currently is staking 90.4 million with 13 validators. If that information is correct, I would like to voice my concern with having him involved with the handling of this 200 million ONE effort. The management of the Wallet 2 funds and the lack of communication and transparency has been problematic, as presented in this thread: Harmony Team - Please Explain âWallet 2â Staking Procedures.
#2:
I like the idea of helping long-time validators out. Currently EMS is a little under 4.7 million. I think giving all currently elected and recently unelected validators enough funds to get to 5.0 million would be a good start.
Iâve asked around and been told that 5 million isnât enough to cover all server costs at ONEâs current price. But Iâm not sure that Harmony needs to be covering all server costs, either. Validators should all take some personal responsibility in how to promote, market, operate (including minimizing costs) for their nodes. If Harmony is able to ensure you are safely elected, that is more than fair imo. Providing additional funding beyond that could become tricky, and could be seen as playing favorites? Perhaps someone can come up with a good method to make it more objective/fair?
There are 50 elected validators below 5 million, and I see another 10 unelected validators over 1 million (9 of whom were elected prior to âwallet 19â unstaking).
If we assume those 60 validators need an average of 3 million apiece (I didnât do the actual math) to get to 5 million, that would require the use of 180 million ONE. There would still be ~20 million leftover to play with.
It is also important to acknowledge that these validators who will be receiving Harmony funding are going to be dependent on that funding the same way they were reliant on wallet 19. It seems doubtful that will ever change, and if/when the time comes for Harmony to remove funds, we will be having this same issue all over again.
So when @StrongMindsHold asks how long of a period should these validators be funded by Harmony, I honestly donât know how to answer that.
#3:
One thing I think Harmony should avoid is funding validators who are not active on social media (i.e., no interaction with their delegates) and/or who donât have any contact information available on their Harmony staking page. This should be an automatic disqualifier for funding imo.
I also think Harmony should avoid funding validatorâs whose namesake projects have left the ecosystem.
#4:
I think all validators receiving Harmony funding should have to agree to bidding on the least number of keys required to maintain their stake between .65 and 1.35*EMS.
I think any validator that is receiving Harmony funding and bids below .65*EMS should have their funding withdrawn immediately. Itâs that same type of behavior that has exacerbated the fallout from wallet 19âs unstaking.
(For example, Harmony Rocket is currently receiving Harmony funding from Wallet 2 and has routinely abused the BLS key bidding process with impunity.)
Harmony needs to pass a HIP to prevent abuse BLS key bidding. I know @ONE4All and @CryptoTech have proposed ideas in the past.
#5:
I would prefer that validators must be running adequate servers in order to qualify for funding. I understand that this may be impossible to enforce and verify, but I would still prefer all validators, on record, stating what they are operating in order to receive funding.
#6:
Probably needs to be a limit on commission, like @PeaceLoveHarmony mentioned. Since 5/6 of all validators are at 5% commission currently, I think it would be unfair to allow Harmony supported validators to charge more than 5%.
Like @realcoinchowder said, we also need to consider how to handle poor signing rates and/or if the node operator goes radio silent.
#7:
I like the idea of having a small portion of the funds being used to bootstrap previously unelected validators in a similar manner to how Harmoforce has been doing it. A âsign upâ of sorts for unelected validators would be necessary, I think. And theyâd need to agree to #3-6 above.
Because we canât simply fund these validators straight into stable election. If we do that then theyâll never receive the early rewards boosts (<.65*EMS) that early validators receive. And those early high rewards are vital to organic growth. Otherwise nearly 100% of these validatorâs funds may likely come from Harmony, and as soon the funds are withdrawn, these validators will become unelected again. (Look at most of the validators who have funding from Binance. Many of them have the same dependency on Binance that smaller validators had with wallet 19.)
It would likely be most effective to only bootstrap a few unelected validators at a time. As was already mentioned, otherwise theyâll just be competiting with each other for delegations and may inhibit each other from becoming stable.
However, the biggest obstacle to this method is abusive BLS key bidding behavior that some validators exhibit. We must pass a HIP to restrict this behavior in order to provide a more hospitable environment for these new and small validators. Relying on the kindness of others to not overbid on keys and to âdrop keysâ has proven to be a largely ineffective method to assist validators into election. Human nature dictates that some validators will always take advantage of the situation if given the opportunity. So letâs not give them the opportunity.
#8:
If a HIP were to be passed that limited abusive key bidding, Iâm not sure any of the 200 million ONE would even be needed to bootstrap new and previously unelected validators. Many of them would be automatically elected
This 200 million ONE is a bandaid. A needed bandaid, and as a community member/investor, itâs one Iâm grateful/hopeful for. But itâs still a bandaid. It doesnât solve the underlying causes. And we donât know if these funds will always be available.
I believe Harmony/the community must use this situation to fix governance voting and pass HIPs that would fix issues that this 200 million fund is attempting to alleviate. If validators werenât allowed to aggressively low-bid on BLS keys, would any of the wallet 19 validators have gone unelected in the aftermath? We know there were enough keys to go around since they were already elected. But some validators took advantage of the situation, either for personal greed or because they couldnât be bothered to check on their validators/auto bidders. Neither is something that Harmonyâs future should be relying on imo.
#9:
Might it be beneficial to reserve some of the 200 million ONE as an âemergency fundâ? Perhaps 5%, that could be used to quickly assist a validator who might abruptly find themselves in danger of election given the current market conditions and still fluid post-bridge sentiment.
#10:
Is this going to be voted on by the community? If so, how? Governance voting has been non-functional since February.
#11:
I support @PeaceLoveHarmony @AffinityShard @Jimbo_JCR.one in being the validator representatives.
#12:
@Maba078 said I needed more emojis haha. So I present my favorite one: 
13 Likes
I also think @PeaceLoveHarmony, @AffinityShard, and @Jimbo_JCR.one would be great choices to represent
5 Likes
Iâve been looking at the oasis web site lately and I think their delegation policy might be a good starting point for harmony to create their own delegation policy.
5 Likes
Looks like a good reference.
Something like that is what I was asking Harmony for in my Wallet 2 Staking thread.
2 Likes
- Wallet Management
As mentioned, 200M ONE is simply a temporary band-aid. Considering the issues due to Harmonyâs ineffective management of Wallet 2 & a lack of on-chain reputation system, itâs better that the amount is held in an escrow account with trusted signatories from the validator team, Harmony team.
2a. Fee Model
There is little to no protocol revenue atm. In the spirit of maintaining operations, all validators should bump up the network fees from 5% to X% (10|15| 20) temporarily & start charging increased network fees on a temporary basis for every tx, to account for storage costs.
The validators can be requested to send this extra X% from block rewards could be collected in an escrow account managed by signatories, in addition to the 200M ONE allocated. This amount can then allocated randomly to unelected/at risk validators near EMS thresholds to increase network decentralisation.
2b. Interbank interest rate
To an creative incentive for high stake validators to contribute to the escrow account, the validators that are unelected or near unelection threshold of effective median stake can pay a variable percentage of network normalisation fee back to the high stake validators, based on the proportional stake rewards, high stake validators are willing to commit to the escrow.
Think of it as an interbank interest rate or an accretion swap done over a fixed period (if the projected market turbulence is projected at 2 years).
Maybe this can create an incentive for POS whale validators of other projects to kickstart Harmony nodes too, which would factor as an additional opex cost, than a new capital expenditure.
Announcing Sui Tokenomics. Earlier this year, we publicly shared⌠| by Mysten Media | Mysten Labs | May, 2022 | Medium - Storage fee model by Mysten Labs
- On-chain reputation system & Goal Setting
As other folks have suggested, having an on-chain governance & reputation system is paramount.
- Voting participation
- BLS key bid monitoring
- Slashing
- Effective signing rate
While Harmonyâs governance token is still in the works, better transparency & infrastructure cost optimizations can be obtained if validators start publishing expense reports on a weekly/bi-weekly basis & have routine conversations with Harmony liaisons working on infrastructure, related-optimization tasks.
I hope their milestone management atleast looks as good or close to Dash in theory. Understanding Dash Governance â Dash latest documentation
- Reasonable goal-setting targets for decentralisation should have been the goal (i.e. Grow from 150 to 300 validators by Q2 2023, temp/permanent hiring of X infrastructure & Y OpSec engineers, that would benefit other incoming useful projects in the ecosystem as well (i.e. liquid staking protocols).
Price depression is going to persist atleast for 1-1.5 years, the plan ideally could work in theory as commercial activity & on-chain utility gets built (which needs to balance itself between B2B & B2C ventures - With Emphasis on B2B products).
Capital injection within the ecosystem is necessary & non-negotiable, & much work is required than sitting on cash.
3 Likes
Jimbo I can make a separate thread about creating Hardware servers for at home set up. We can all chime in there to get this rolling
4 Likes
My nominations for at the moment are @Jimbo_JCR.one, @ben2k_Stakeridoo, @PeaceLoveHarmony, @TrickLuhDaKidz
I have seen a lot of ideas from all 4 of you personally. I believe you will do a great job working with @StrongMindsHold and the rest of the core team involved in this discussion.
8 Likes
Totally agree with these nominatios. Is there going to be a vote that was already proposed earlier?
5 Likes
A HIP proposal (#22) was passed to have ALL validators shown as the default. Whoever did the update didnât do it correctly on the staking portal and had to revert it back.
6 Likes
I really like @Jimbo_JCR.one idea, itâs the simplest and it solves the current problem at hand. Given the urgency and time restraints, thatâs what we need.
Now, if I were to change something, I would also push up to EMS the top 8 eligible unelected validators that got recently unelected.
With whatâs left, Iâd allocate:
- 10 millions to bootstrap new validators. I think Harmoforce could really do some magic with this amount.
- 12 millions to be delegated amongst the 4 people that will represent validators.
- All thatâs left is to be distributed across the validator core. BTW, @Jimbo_JCR.one , what do you mean exactly by âvalidator coreâ? hahaha.
Restrictions/Requirements:
- Your commission cannot exceed 5%.
- Validators currently funded by Harmonyâs âPangaea Validator Academyâ arenât eligible, since they are already being bootstrapped by Harmony.
Timeframe:
We should reevaluate this strategy after a month. One month from now weâll probably have a way more sophisticated plan.
Representatives:
I nominate @PeaceLoveHarmony , @AffinityShard , @Jimbo_JCR.one and @HankTheCrank. I also think that @OgreAbroad would make for a great representative.
5 Likes
I think, if itâs possible to get this injected today to boost small validators on the edge, and those recently unelected, then take an epoch or two to assess what impact this has on the other small validators (since theyâll take the most pain from this, large validators wonât see much change and may not drop keys as code is law) and go further boosting some of those pools that would be the ideal route.
I donât think we need complex schemes to know who to help out. We all know whoâs active, has servers that are ready to start up next epoch and are active around Harmony.
The team that makes these choices should have stuck to Harmony internally but if theyâre looking for an external team of people to do this it should be validators who arenât even close to being at risk of election loss due to one large undelegation. Iâd suggest this be run by mid/large validators 40+m currently staked so they arenât recipients of these funds.
7 Likes
Hello,
It would be fair to support projects that suffered from the hack (such as Knights + Peasants) and it would also make sense to collect some of the rewards so that Harmony is protected in the event of another hack.
thank you for your efforts
1 Like