If there’s a post for this and the discussion related to it’s posting, please direct me to that…
BUT I would like to have a long form chat about what is being suggested…
@Casey has posted some innovative and controversial ideas for the community to discuss and support or appose…
Let’s talk about it:
@kratos_harmony @easynode @buttheadus @M87 @DrR @lij @sophoah @sherajr @DKValidator
Not sure if this discord link works in here, but I’d offer my new platform up for ongoing discussion any time as i know a few peeps use different means of communication in this tag. Basically trying to connect all ends of the harmony ecosystem and identify whos still here and have meaningful conversation ect. 
I think the biggest issues are that any new roadmap items will always be overshadowed by all the depegged assets still in circulation and the fact that the majority of the TVL comes from DFK, who left the chain.
You linked the wrong article @eddnorris - should be Q2 report : Harmony Protocol Technical Quarterly Report and Roadmap for Q2 2023 | by Casey Gardiner | Harmony | Apr, 2023 | Medium
Some initial thoughts from me:
90% reward reduction - Total network stake isn’t particularly high at 42% and the current APR of ~8% is not particularly high either so reducing available rewards is only likely to lower network stake further making the network less secure. Unless I’m missing something there’s no way I can support this.
On sending 90% of emissions to Harmony core - Harmony need to be open and honest with the state of their treasury and remaining runway. This and the recent proposal of allocating gas fees to Harmony is making the situation seem pretty desperate.
Reducing shards - we obviously don’t need four shards right now, but we need at least two imo. Harmony’s USP is sharding technology. This sharding tech hasn’t actually been built yet (or at least it’s nowhere near finished) and we need two shards available to implement re-sharding and cross-shard transactions. If we drop to 1 shard my concern is the sharding functionality will be kicked further down the road and Harmony will have no USP. Why not have the beacon chain for staking/governance etc and shard 1 for apps to prove the concept?
One key per node - I support this and believe this is how EPoS should be for full benefit. It needs to be done with a review of the upper and lower bound parameters.
Reducing slots per shard to 100 - Initially I was against, but combined with one key per node, adjusting the bounds and keeping shard 1 (so 200 available slots) that might be OK if we can agree on details and we don’t loose too many validators. The reasons this is required or beneficial will need to be well explained though.
I think core protocol features re-sharding, external leaders and leader rotation should be much higher priority than block time reduction. A 1.2 second reduction in block time is not going to be felt by users. Working sharding is the USP to put us above other chains imo.
You guys could look at Status as a comms mechanism… inbuilt wallet or vice versa.
Thanks @DKValidator ! (I updated the link…)
You covered most of my thoughts…
On sending 90% of emissions to Harmony core - Harmony need to be open and honest with the state of their treasury and remaining runway. This and the recent proposal of allocating gas fees to Harmony is making the situation seem pretty desperate.
There is a clear NEED for this blockchain’s core team and it’s core operation to be MORE open and MORE transparent with their remaining treasury and discuss WHY these measures are being taken.
As was the problem when the Bridge hack happened, they closed their doors and shut out the community as to how we ALL could navigate and survive this situation; it seems to me that the same thing is happening and the Core team needs to either step forward and embrace the community that is here and ready to help or they might as well shut the doors now.
Reducing shards - we obviously don’t need four shards right now, but we need at least two imo. Harmony’s USP is sharding technology. This sharding tech hasn’t actually been built yet (or at least it’s nowhere near finished) and we need two shards available to implement re-sharding and cross-shard transactions. If we drop to 1 shard my concern is the sharding functionality will be kicked further down the road and Harmony will have no USP. Why not have the beacon chain for staking/governance etc and shard 1 for apps to prove the concept?
keeping 2 shards
As well as creating standards for using both shards NOW before we actually need both of them…
keeping them both as lean as possible.
A 1.2 second reduction in block time is not going to be felt by users. Working sharding is the USP to put us above other chains imo.
2 Second Finality is more than acceptable.
Until we have a proven and tried and true way to prune and ensure our databases remain as small as possible, it doesn’t make sense to me to attempt to increase the speed of the network… so making the network faster isn’t necessarily a wholly good thing.
Valid point, I think moving forward we are looking to include recovery in every discussion until it is complete, whether treasury allocation, staking rewards from the staking initiative, new projects like 1.country, or governance decisions like HIP-28v2b in regards to fee collection.
in regards to recovery, are there plans to increased the measly 120k? especially with the current price of the depegged that the bots are willing to arb and burn and the pump in the crypto market?
For the current calculations on the 90% issuance staking allocation reduction, I may not have the full picture yet either and will sync with Casey next Monday. In the meantime, this week I’m working on a document that takes into account the current allocation, the proposed allocation, and options moving forward. This will also include Shard and Node downsizing based on community and internal feedback. Casey and I are also looking to hold a discord space and deliver on the much needed transparency in areas that we can. The discord discussion and the exact date are still tentative. I do want to say that nothing is set in stone at the moment, and we will make it abundantly clear when definitive decisions have been made.
Regarding the annual token emission of 441M, we plan to allocate 10% of this amount (44.1M tokens) to validators and the remaining 90% (396.9M tokens) to ecosystem development.
Modify the ratio/re-distribution to 50% validators and 50% dedicated repeg/1assets.
You need validators and you need to get rid of all depegged assets.
The team needs to cough up some of their own Treasury for ecosystem funding given how badly they keep failing at everything. Greedy af. HOLY.
Can we afford to reduce the staking rewards at all?
At a 50% reduction in available rewards will people still stake? If not, total network stake will go down.
We know Binance doesn’t care about APR (look at their validator) and they currently own 33% of the total network stake. Are we happy for Binance to control say 75% of the total network stake?
I eagerly await the calculations from @theo1 and @Casey but for me reducing reward allocation means reducing total network stake and at only 42% of supply staked I don’t think we have room to lower it… and that’s before we get into the fact most validators will be barely breaking even at current rates.
and assets locked and frozen in AAVE.
Something missing here - Validators reward also include the delegators, and I am sure, everyone will not be happy if our reward goes down by 50%.
How did you get the 75% ? as you said they mainly control 33% of total network stake (which by the way with EPOS and the 6% max key per shard, they can’t bring down a shard alone)
we are working the math but see my previous post.
75% is just a made up number… But I was just trying to convey that if Binance leave their stake in as APR isn’t a concern to them and many others stop staking then Binance could end up a majority staker.
But noted, it doesn’t give Binance the ability for shard take over since HIP-16
i think he’s talking about the new emissions split being changed to 10% validators and 90% treasury unless that was changed with v2
with the latest HIP28v2 vote, how much of the new emissions split will be used for recovery? will we going to start seeing more than 120k a month?
still waiting for that recovery dashboard…
I don’t think that will happen
HIP28v2 has nothing to do with the emission. Only transactions fees are impacted.
that which proposal are ppl talking about where the plan was to lower emissions to validators down to 10%?
also, has there been any talks to increase recovery funds from 120k?.. at least to take advantage of the bots to burn more for less and to take advantage of the current increase in the crypto market overall?
The amount staked and the validators that support the network is what is holding this chain together. We are faithfully promoting and operating at a loss in hopes that technical developments will yield us a return in the future. This should be rewarded and not be a target for restructuring. If funds are needed to continue to operate in the green, we should address this within transaction fees or other cost saving matters.
