HIP-28 Fee Collection

Not hating on you Loge and you are of course entitled to your opinion, but not not supporting it for the fact that is is a hardfork is a weak argument. Adaption to the environment is the basis for all life.

FYI the current economic model is not what is stated in the whitepaper
7. Incentive Model
7.1 Consensus Rewards
After the successful commitment of a block, a protocol-defined number of new tokens will be
rewarded to all validators who signed the block in proportion to their voting shares. The
transactions fees are rewarded to validators similarly.

3 Likes

That fund can be used for recovery definitely. We are working with Partners for it. Gnosis has nothing to do here this is purely tokeneconomics and how we planned to use the fund.

1 Like

I’ve mentioned above on some of the infrastructure cost we are incurring every month. I just didn’t share here the full sheet for it. Additionally, we have a sheet for the potential revenue we are earning which is ofc dependent on the market and the chain adoption (which I also mentioned above)

https://harmony.smartstake.io/richlist will at least show you the ONE owned by Harmony on-chain.

Infra cost blanket number as mentioned previously was during the year >$500k. My target is to get it close to 80k (by Jan/Feb 2023). This amount is currently used by multiple service we run internally (erpc, multisig, explorer dashboard, internal network nodes, devops tool/service, internal tooling/service). All those are for me critical for the network what do you think ? Just not sure what level of detail you are looking here. If you were at our place would you show every single penny you spent on software and cloud cost ?

In the future, with market appreciation and more traction on the harmony chain, I believe those 80k can be paid entirely with the transaction fee. Unfortunately I don’t have all the numbers for you but I hope the answer helps clarify the situation and the need of it.

1 Like

Agree, and I hope my answer above clarifed it a bit.

1 Like

You brought up protofire as partner and I was only suggesting that may this point multi-sig should be looked in detail may gnosis would be a much better option?

But would definitely wondering what the monthly detailed cost for team, infrastructure and partners.

Something like Sushi just recently had published and also I’m wondering where does the monthly unlock ONE go to, 24.825m is quite something.

4 Likes

Thank you for your correction to my statement about the whitepaper. I appreciate you showing me the sections that have already changed and I do somewhat agree that the chain needs to adapt with the environment. I could see this being an option if there was a designated cut off date/block/completion timeline for the transaction fees going to recovery of the unpegged assets. My only other concern would be the amount of work that partners/developers would need to take to support this hard fork.

2 Likes

It is important for any community-governed project to operate with transparency and accountability in order to maintain the trust and support of its users. By proposing to route transaction funds into a private wallet without any transparency, Harmony is failing to uphold these principles and is putting the future of the project at risk.

Without open transparency, the community has no way of knowing how the funds will be used or if they will be used for the benefit of the project and its users. This lack of transparency also leaves the door open for potential abuse or mismanagement of funds.

Furthermore, Harmony has a history of failing to deliver on its promises, which raises concerns about the reliability and trustworthiness of the project. In order for the community to continue to support and believe in Harmony, it is essential that the project operates with transparency and accountability.

Therefore, the community should not support this plan without open transparency. Instead, Harmony should provide a clear and detailed plan for how the funds will be used and should be open and transparent about the use of these funds. Only with transparency and accountability can the community trust and support the project moving forward.

6 Likes

@sophoah thank you for your answers, I know you’re the middleman here so nothing against you.

Like @easynode writes, the lack of transparency and accountabilty is what also worries me. Going back to early Harmony days in 2019, there was the famous “Transparency Tuesday” from @stse. Lot of things have happened since those days, but the transparency is what we still require.

In the previous answers it’s implied the hardfork will be used for treasury, and most probably it won’t go back… why aren’t other methods being considered? If $one won’t be a deflationary token anymore, we’re just at the beginning of having a SLP (Smooth Love Potion) token, in which way this fork will bring value to Holders and Community?

6 Likes

But… You said yourself you have done zero research into looking to see if this has ever been done on another chain before and whether it worked as planned.

If I were in your current place I would do everything and anything to prove that my team’s intentions were legitimate and open considering how many projects and developers have left the ecosystem in the last 6 months.

1 Like

This change to the coin’s tokenomics does not only affect the small details, but also undermines the possibility of a non-inflationary future, and in the process making it a risky security. The more this coin is used, the more inflationary it becomes. As an investor, I dislike this, and as someone interested in tokenomics, I also dislike it. If I wanted to invest in fantom, I wouldn’t be here. proxy-image

4 Likes

We actually asked them first but they didn’t have the bandwidth and they were the ones to recommend protofire.

what level of detail are you asking here ? I don’t have the team side, or even all the partners, but for the infra I have the numbers.

Do you have the link for me to look at ?

There are in the harmony treasury. those unlock are blocks ONE that we intend to use for the given purpose. cc @lij

we do not right now but this is something we can reconsider, ie maybe part of it goes to smart contract developer to incentivized the developer more to use the chain like how other chain are doing. And again to avoid confusion, this fund is meant to be used for the cloud and infra cost which indirectly help the recovery unpegged asset since we are going to use less of the treasury.

Partners and developers won’t have anything to do here. Validator would have to vote and install the node but this is would be part of the usual validator operation

1 Like

I completely agree, we are in discussion to have that private wallet being a multisig that will have community members as part of the signatory. @HoundOne_Validator we could share some more detail with them during the actual use of the fund.

it will be used to help complement the treasury if we wanna be more precise on the wording. I wouldn’t say it wouldn’t go back, things can be changed over time, see my comments in previous post.

would you have any methods we should consider ?

you right we (or at least I) didn’t research the detail numbers generated by other chain though I knew it was used by other. I know i said otherwise above and and this is not my attempt to try reverse the story here. I just didn’t spend enough time to think on the answer.

Just looking at our own crunched number analysis done on the harmony chain, we know it can work similar to what FTM claim it worked for them.

And we are really trying to. As mentioned above, we would share more detail to the multisig signatory as of when we will be using those fund.

1 Like

Perhaps a better proposal would be for transaction fees to go to the block producer.

As we know, Harmony core currently have the monopoly on block production which means they will be getting the tx fees in the short to medium term. But once block production is opened up to external validators we solve the incentive problem of needing higher server specs to produce blocks, whilst at the same time having an exit strategy for tx fees going to Harmony core.

1 Like

while I like the idea, this has the disadvantage of having the fund landing into multiple wallet that harmony is in control. I still prefer the fund to land into a multisig wallet involving the community and update this in a later stage so incentivized the future block producer

1 Like

Hello Everyone,

Sharing here the plan so everyone is prepared. The snapshot vote will be created on the 2 6 Jan 2023 during the Asian day time and will last for one two weeks. A snapshot for the total delegation per validator will then be taken around that time. Delegators who doesn’t agree with the validator expected vote will have to redelegate before the 6 Jan 2023.

We are going to use HIP-4 for the vote which would need to satisfy two conditions :

  1. more than 51% stake on the network (ie on 20 Dec 5,89b * 0.51 = 3b ONE stake) is used
  2. more than 66.66% (ie > 2/3) majority vote from all voters (ie 3b * 0.67 = 2b ONE)

On the 1620 January 2023, there should be a new release available on github. It will contain at least one feature (chainid fix that doesn’t requires a vote) and the fee collection feature if the implementation of the fee collection feature is approved.

Let me know if you have any questions

edit: 21 Dec 2022, update snapshot duration from 1 week to two weeks as per Harmony governance rule defined here Network Governance - Harmony
edit: 28 Dec 2022, update snapshot start date and expected release as we plan to publish the FAQ after new year holiday.

5 Likes

hey @DKValidator may I know what would be your ask to turn your vote to a yes ? I just read https://twitter.com/dkvalidator/status/1604043636152406017

1 Like

Hey Soph,

Will we have some discussion about potential parameters allowing the fee structure to be changed (potentially) in the future without the requirement of another hard fork? Seems like the 100% fees towards treasury are not in favor of a lot of validators/community leaders here…

3 Likes

Hey, we can discuss those now if you want. What would you propose ? and for which parties ? I am not sure this can be changed without hard fork in the future though.

1 Like

Honestly, I’ve not been convinced that any real thought or consideration has been put in to this proposal. It just looks like the thought process was “Fantom collect fees for treasury, lets do that too”. That’s just not good enough for me.

I take on board comments from delegators and the wider community of course and so far sentiment towards this proposal seems to be negative.

It’s hard to say exactly what would change our vote right now because this HIP goes against the direction I and many others want to see Harmony headed towards; decentralisation.

The other major hurdle is that fee burning is seen as a significant plus for the community. To remove this would need to be very well justified… and it hasn’t been.

We could maybe talk about a percentage rather than all fees, but even that will need to be well justified to the community and you’ve got a vote coming up soon whilst a lot of us are now preparing for the holidays.

Harmony core get ONE from staking rewards and the monthly unlock as @ben2k_Stakeridoo brought up. Perhaps focus on using that effectively before asking for more.

5 Likes

I’m strongly against this change!

For me this is just another atempt to change tokenomics.
Investors already paid the price for team’s bad decisions and wrong focus in the last bull market.

Fees are meant to be burned or paid to delegators.

5 Likes