What other ideas were considered by Harmony to increase revenue?
Why were those ideas not pursued?
1 Like
When will Harmony pay the DAO govs? If Harmony has a multi-year runway, shouldnât Harmony pay what it owes?
3 Likes
Iâd like to see more variety on the initial multisig. If the core team truly believes that the Harmony chain needs decentralized governance, I believe that this is a unique opportunity to move in that direction and to possibly work with the VDAO/ DevDAO in particular to work on infra going forward. It seems that there are some small âdebtsâ to be paid to these previous governors in order to potentially regain the trust of experts in their fields.
1 Like
correct
As said above, this is a monthly target.
please check the FAQ poste above
the increase of fee was not an economical decision but a way for us to deter spam and fix the network. If it wasnât an urgent matter, we would have gone through a governance vote. We may want to define a specific process for those urgent matter in the future.
As mentioned in the FAQ, in this case there is no new token minted, but true we are asking for no burning. Hope the FAQ explains a bit more better where we are coming from.
Part of it is locked, and not sure if the lock part is stake-able. And so far the staking reward wasnât meant to be use for this purpose as mentioned in the FAQ.
I am checking, not sure whatâs the plan with them.
Sorry about that, I am just trying to get the correct amount of info to be shared without having to show you all every single penny expenses. The published FAQ has more data.
- defi : defi has its own risk
- merch : those were usually given and afaik https://store.harmony.one never got much attraction, weâll be given a try again
- staking : revenue to be used for validator as explained in the FAQ
I donât think this is the thread to discuss about it.
Can we look at that the next multisig signatory update?
1 Like
2 Likes
nice, just a small comment, itâs weird to say that the ONE token will fork. Itâs more a network thing.
1 Like
Hey Soph,
Thanks and just a small clarification. The word âforkâ didnât come from me, itâs written in the FAQ doc you shared. Maybe youâd need to correct it.
1 Like
Just a thought.
Will the gas fees collected be a fixed Gwei?
What steps are being taken to ensure gas fees are not changed arbitrarily?
1 Like
Hey my friend, @Loge , it has already been answered that it can change any minute. Hope it helps
2 Likes
Fork is the correct word because the network (validator and explorer) node need to be upgraded to make sure synching and validation still work. I just find it weird to say the ONE Token will fork.
1 Like
Hello everyone,
The snapshot vote for HIP 28 has been created. Voting period start at 8AM UTC on 6 Jan and will end 8AM UTC on the 20 Jan.
I really appreciate in advance every Harmony ONE validator participation
2 Likes
If rules previously stablished for voting are not being honored, what else can we expect regarding multisig signatories, communication, transparency, GWEIâŚetc?
3 Likes
soph has already said min tx fees may go up. and considering HIP-28 would add hardly any funds to Harmonyâs coffers, we know theyâll be jacking up tx fee minimum gwei immediately. There are no safeguards. There is no oversight. Harmony would have to raise tx fees ~60,000% to cover infrastructure costs. And they might do that! Because nobody can stop them.
Harmony has repeatedly increased gwei without any community oversight. they have not reverted gwei back to its original levels even despite the 99% reduction in daily transactions.
soph has said, âwe can discuss multi-sig signers for next roundâ without providing any specific terms or information. Without having any guarantees beforehand, Harmony will not follow through and keep their word. They still refuse to pay many of you Core Harmony DAO Govs.
Harmony initially tried to push through a vote on Hip-28 without even providing basic information and statistics on the proposal. Communication? Transparency? The things Harmonyâs been horrible at for the last 1.5 years? They arenât going to improve now. And if whatâs left of the Harmony community hands over HIP-28 on a platter, there will be even less of a reason for Harmony to communicate and be transparent.
Fortune asked if the fees could be split 50/50, with half going to Harmony and half still being burned. It was essentially dismissed (âif the current vote fails we can revisit thisâ). They arenât interested in what anyone has to say.
[To Fortuneâs question: If Harmony agreed to the 50/50 split but said they would need to double fees to 200 gwei, that would keep the current level of burn - maintaining that deflationary effect - while still receiving the same amount of ONE that they are currently set to receive. Most people probably wouldâve been âokâ with that proposal. But Harmony didnât even give it a second thought⌠Probably because Harmony refuses to commit to open and transparent dialogue about what they are planning to do with future gas fee increases⌠Itâs not a coincidence.]
You say âCommunicationâ, âTransparencyâ, âDecentralizationâ? They are all empty words that mean nothing to Harmonyâs founder(s).
3 Likes
Itâs been a few months now & I havenât really said much along the way, but it sincerely pains me to reiterate this that there is neither any semblance of transparency, nor consideration of community input in a meaningful way.
The voting process is basically a centralized sham dominated by stake weight of controlling vested interests, shill-influencers & opaqueness from team members.
Despite repeated attempts at clarification on the projects financial position in absolute numbers (stablecoin/fiat holdings, size of crypto token holdings & investments & their corresponding mark-to-market value representation, all provided separately), the team leadership has no intention to do so & have been continually evasive via vague misrepresentations.
The paraphrased words of the COO i.e. We have an operational runway for the project for years to come v/s the routine estimated expense/benefit of $100k/month to support infrastructure & RPC services, seems absolutely contradictory. There is zero clarity around signatory authorisation process over the multi-sig & if the Harmony foundation would be providing supporting documents (i.e. invoices for incurred infrastructure expenses as per schedule that requires fee collection) for community review.
A well-capitalised project with years of runway should have a well defined cash/cash equivalent position to support a small proportion of infrastructure costs & vice versa.
Based on current market to market price for the ONE token, itâs very likely that the fee collection will have negligible impact in terms of cash and cash equivalent (USD & USDC/USDT) to the Treasury unless the gas fee is substantially hiked & revised.
The way this project has been managed until now in reality exhibits classic symptoms of an unlicensed securities class asset, where governance is minimally viable & an centralised charade instead of a non-profit organization providing public goods and services through its gas/governance token that might transition to a community chain later.
HIP-28 if successfully implemented, would only solidify the stance of its tyrannical leadership. Without appropriate financial & technical disclosures as discussed above, the community & itâs validators should overwhelmingly reject this proposal.
5 Likes
My bad I wasnât aware, but as I can see we are mainly missing the AMA. There are lots of processes defined everywhere and that one define by VDAO. I added a TODO for myself to work with VDAO (if interested) on updating / aligning that with https://docs.harmony.one/home/network/governance/network-governance. I also want to add another process for expedite decision that can be done in 24h-72h (ie so the gwei increase could have been properly voted)
Hope you guys are ok for this time.
itâs not voluntary on my end and as mentioned above I have a TODO to work on that so we can properly work that out for the next hard fork or HIP
not really, as mentioned last time we did so was to fix a network issue.
We could reconsider that eventually, the issue has gone away for now
I would keep aside the issue of Governor payment here. As specified in the FAQ, every 6 months, rotation of signatory will be considered.
I tried to be as transparent as I can, sorry if it wasnât enough.
Thatâs not true but I let you think what you want. If we didnât want the community input here, I would just have gone ahead and schedule the hardfork without asking everyone here.
I actually missed that part. Could you help point out where it is ? I tried to search in this topic but no luck.
I actually like the idea and something we can apply as an updated proposal later.
I really try to communicate with the community here, but I can see so much negativity as if all my effort so far are like none.
I can understand the frustration for many with how things happened but I really hope you guys can see I am trying to improve thing here.
see above comment
What do you suggest to change that ? stake concentration is not something easily avoidable and that happens in all protocol. What about talking to the all validator and try to convince them for a negative result. I didnât do any propaganda on what the validator should vote compared to other protocol I am following.
4 Likes
I actually like the idea and something we can apply as an updated proposal later.
I really try to communicate with the community here, but I can see so much negativity as if all my effort so far are like none.
I can understand the frustration for many with how things happened but I really hope you guys can see I am trying to improve thing here.
Hi Soph,
Appreciate the work youâre doing and trying to keep communication between Harmony and the community open. I think everyone who cares about Harmony can see youâre trying hard to keep things moving. Please donât take it personally when comments can seem negative. I believe the community just want their thoughts to make its way to the founders, viayou.
I am curious about your thoughts on the suggestion that @TrickLuhDaKidz mentioned (originating idea from @FortuneValidator ) and whether we can explore that idea further. As a community member, that idea would be something I would be more comfortable in accepting.
Considering the scenario where the network gets spammed with transactions.
In the past, the team would increase the tx fees to deter bots from spamming the network. If the # of transactions slow down, then great. If the bots donât care and keep spamming, then some extra $ONE is burnt. In both cases, Harmony wouldâve had to shoulder the bill for infrastructure costs to maintain a stable network.
Letâs consider the same scenario where Harmony had to increase fees but now the transaction fees are partially burnt, and the remainder being sent to the multisig. Harmony now has some extra resources to help with the increased infrastructure costs. The % split is up for debate, but I would even be open to something like 60/40 in favor of Harmony, as long as there is still hope that with enough transactions, someday we can burn more than we mint.
Completely stripping away the possibility of $ONE becoming deflationary someday is difficult to accept from the community/investor standpoint. I hope this makes sense.
4 Likes
So true it almost hurts.
Almost.
1 Like
There really arenât processes defined everywhere. The document you linked was used and fully incorporated into the VDAO charter, which is the only process that needs to be followed.
Harmony made VDAO the governance body for network changes and failed to update their accompanying documentation. Any changes you (or anyone else) would like to see happen to the governance process would have to go through a charter ratification vote on a voting system that upholds the integrity of your document and the VDAO charter (snapshot is lacks the tech to allow the snapshot to be taken at the end of voting as required by the charter and your document).
If your wiki link is no longer valid, the VDAO is no longer recognized by the core team, and Harmony wants to operate as a centralized entity again, thatâs fine but they should make a statement on that and go with it and end the charade of voting & governance. I respect either choice Harmony makes, but being dismissive and waffling in the middle isnât going to cut it long term.
4 Likes
If we could just follow the appropriate voting procedure and clear up some of the details, I would love to change my vote to yes. My âNoâ is cast because I want to pause and fix the network governance and how we handle changes moving forward. I believe that we can do so much better as a community if we take the time to rebuild with the team and validators.
5 Likes