The team that makes these choices should have stuck to Harmony internally but if they’re looking for an external team of people to do this it should be validators who aren’t even close to being at risk of election loss due to one large undelegation. I’d suggest this be run by mid/large validators 40+m currently staked so they aren’t recipients of these funds.
Is that what Tim/SMH is also filling (being the mid/large validator)?
So I get the flu and out for 5 days and this all happens! Sorry I’m playing catch up on everything.
First thanks to Harmony, Tim and everyone for this discussion.
Moving on to the topic at hand. I have a lot of concerns and questions but I’ll try to stream line my thoughts here.
My most important concern is keeping experienced validators running. This is my narrow perspective but I have spent an enormous amount of time (paid and unpaid) contacting and educating validators. I know others have as well. I would hate to see all of that effort wasted if we don’t use the funds to retain experienced validators. Many of the endangered validators need to be granted funds asap to maintain election status. Otherwise we’re going to be just spending the same time/effort/resources on a new batch of validators.
The next order of business is to delegate enough $ONE to unprofitable validators to cover $80 per month server cost. I know there is a push for non-cloud servers. Due to internet data caps, my internet bill for a business line would run $350 a month. For me, cloud servers are a no-brainer. Still covering the cost of one server per month would help retain experienced and qualified validators.
Given the current market situation and the Harmony Bridge Hack, I am advocating retention rather than recruiting. Having a revolving door of validators won’t help.
My next concern is the VDAO and this new administration group (VAdmins, for reference). So the VDAO is defunded and forgive me if I am mistaken but seems like no one is running for governors the next term? So these VAdmins are going to do the job of what used to be the VDAO? The VDAO were elected members but the VAdmins are going to be semi nominated and selected? There are just so many issues here with this. We don’t have a working charter. We don’t have governance. We don’t have a secure way of governance voting. I see this really causing confusion and problems in the long run. Are the VAdmins going to be paid and the VDAO not? This whole thing is a centralized plan from the Harmony Team. Just keep it simple and centralize then. Just have Tim run the whole thing with feedback from everyone and the VDAO. Might as well have paid Harmony fellows running this program instead of unpaid admins with financial incentives to benefit themselves. In the long term though, I’d like to see the VDAO governors given Harmony delegations for the length of their terms. We need to have a working VDAO and not other unelected groups performing admin duties.
Lastly, I am glad that there is transparency regarding this program. However, there needs to be transparency with other Harmony delegations. There needs to be a list of requirements and expected behavior. Delegations can’t go to a validator who is going to act in a manner that is determinantal to Harmony’s goals.
TLDR:
Hey everyone, reading though the proposals and am entirely confused on the disconnect between this discussion and the VDAO. I would expect them to be leading the charge here in an official capacity as well as being the representatives to assess and take the community plans to the core team.
Am I missing something or have we decided that DAOs were just a dream?
This TLDR makes sense to me.
Only 1 thing really:
What’s next @StrongMindsHold?
Eager to hear about next steps as well.
Hey Folks – I wanted to chime in and offer some feedback to help add clarification and move things forward. There’s quite a few good points here though I’m also noticing we (Harmony) can fill in some gaps.
RE: Validator Community Involvement
We’re looking for one-time volunteers for a handful of brainstorming sessions. We believe that two meetings, one hour each, would suffice and be enough to get version 1 of the initiative started. If no one wishes to volunteer, that’s okay too.
The idea here is to work alongside a small group of 3 validators to ensure that our initial roll-out is done as fairly as possible with insightful feedback and not in a silo. The reason we ask for a small group is to help keep our conversations constructive, simple, and with the most efficient use of everyone’s time.
Our small think tank would construct a v1.0 plan – enough to get the ball rolling in the right direction. The think tank would disband once the first round is implemented. Harmony would then follow up in a quarter with revisions for improvement, adjust as needed, and then follow-up again the quarter after.
The volunteers can be the former Validator DAO, but that’s not something we wanted to decide on. If the community feels that former DAO members are best then great. If not, that’s fine as well so long as the temporary “representatives” / volunteers have the best interest of all validators in mind.
That all said, I would like to add that some other valid points have been raised but are outside the scope of this initiative, such as existing Harmony delegations. Personally I cannot speak to existing delegations but I agree this is a topic that should be discussed but in a separate thread, allowing us to stay on topic and focused.
RE: Rewards Distribution
How we handle rewards will be discussed once we have our total stake delegated using v1 plans. This is a critical component of the overall plan, but we’re tackling each one as separate efforts. Why? Because how we plan to use rewards is not dependent on our selection criteria for who receives foundation stake.
RE: The Purpose (Not Just a Bandaid)
Unelected validators do not attract delegations since they generate zero rewards. They typically rely on the good will of others for enough stake to make election, and that process can take a long time.
This is not a perfect solution that will resolve all problems around staking, validator elections, etc. Are there are additional improvements that should be discussed? Definitely, though we should do what we can now to address the immediate need to help validators who are going elected.
Folks in the thread nominated a number of community members.
PLEASE KNOW THAT NO ONE LISTED BELOW IS REQUIRED TO VOLUNTEER.
We know that it’s added work to your plate and there is nothing wrong in saying you prefer to opt out. Your time is valued and appreciated, and it’s okay to say “I would rather not”.
To move things forward, I’ve created a poll below with the names mentioned above.
Please vote for three listed who you feel would present the best ideas and keep a constructive conversation.
Remember that v1 plans will not be perfect, and they will likely disappoint some people, but we hope to get started on something that is a) helpful to most and b) done as fairly as possible.
Once more, v1 plans will not be perfect, and they will likely disappoint some people, but we hope to get started on something that is a) helpful to most and b) done as fairly as possible.
Thank you and I hope this adds some context and clarification.
Daniel Pagan
EDIT: We’ll close the vote tomorrow at 4PM PST and begin reaching out to the top three nominees. Friendly reminder, no one is obligate to assist and I do appreciate any time and energy you folks can offer.
Thank you for the explanation on where things stand and how the team plans to move forward! I am excited to rebuild and to reconsider some of the decisions that were made in the past regarding governance and hope that we can continue to move forward in a collaborative manner. Is there a timeline for execution?
I’m humbled and honored for all the nominations, thank you everyone. I will gladly accept this volunteer role to get this initiative rolling if I’m chosen. Thank you to everyone that worked to put this together!
LFG!
Hey Daniel, just a small clarification regarding your post.
I’ve been quiet this time but enough is enough. There is no “former” VDAO even if Harmony decides not support it or recognize it anymore. We were voted by the community to help the community even without any kind of support from your side.
VDAO is still up and running even you didn’t fund Term4, our charter says if there are no candidates, we will continue our duties. We faced the same situation than @MaffazO and others fellow members of Term1 and we don’t really expect us to be paid anymore even we put so many hours from our time (like when Harmony reached us and we of course helied by having a smooth hard fork)
BEST REGARDS
HoundOne – Perhaps my wording created some friction where none was intended. I used “former” simply because I don’t want to show ignorance about DAO funding. Using that word wasn’t meant to convey some sense of finality to the Validator DAO. Far from it – the best DAOs are created and continued to run BY the community.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to by “enough is enough” as I’m not involved in DAOs. My presence here on this thread is simply to say that we’re looking for volunteers to execute on this initiative with input from the validator community, and selecting a small number of folks means a more streamlined means of communication.
Hope this helps.
Hi Daniel,
I know Hound didn’t mean any disrespect to you, he doesn’t have a mean bone in him lol. I believe he just wanted to make it clear that the VDAO is still here. It was just bad wording and timing. Should’ve said former/current govs, plus it was the day after not getting a single candidate for next term. We appreciate what you’re doing, thank you for the encouragement. The biggest problem is we don’t know who is involved with dao’s anymore and we feel abandoned. That’s for another thread and another time though. Thank you!
We know you’re doing your best, we’re trying our best as well 
Hey Daniel, Hound again
Like @PeaceLoveHarmony I didn’t mean any disrepect, my words were harsh and I apologize. It’s kinda frustating what is going on. You’ve been of the few members who really have engaged with the community and I thank you for it.
I really hope the team could have a more streamlined way of communication in general and not just for this. But like PeaceLove said, that’s for another thread.
Viele Grüße!
I’m sorry that you guys feel that way and I can understand why that’s the case. I agree that’s best for another thread but do know that I understand. Thank you again PLH.
No disrespect taken, Hound. I can understand feeling frustrated and allowing that to surface in how someone responds. We’re only human and that frustration has to come out in one form or another. We’ll aim to do better in terms of how the team communicates with everyone. Thanks for the response, Hound. Hope you’re doing well.
Hey folks – I’ve edited my post from yesterday stating that we’ll close the poll by tomorrow (Friday) at 4PM PST. We’ll then reach out to the top three nominees to determine their availability and willingness to assist. Once more, no one is obligated or expected to help – your time is yours – we appreciate any time and energy you folks can offer.
[rant]
How does @OgreAbroad not have more votes? In regards to anything involving large sums of money there should be a broad range of perspectives with differing viewpoints so that all tertiary effects are identified and accounted for. Please don’t vote based on popularity, we need greater perspective or even some friction in the decision making process to ensure this has a meaningful and measurable outcome.
[/rant]
Because I didn’t read that I was supposed to cast 3 votes bahahaha
Hit “Show Vote” and you can update your votes 
If the top 4 all remain close like that I say take them all. If they want to do it, of course
(EDIT: there was a 3-way tie for second when I originally posted this)