Would love everyone’s thoughts / vote on this proposed 50/50 split with double Gwei.
8 Likes
If we would have had proper governance execution before this got posted hastily, I’d expect many good ideas to come forward to help solve the issues at hand.
This is a swell alternative plan that solves a few things right out of the box, imho.
4 Likes
Should we cancel the current HIP-28 vote due to the issues with governance and have a discussion period on Fortune’s proposal?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
5 Likes
Absolutely, maybe we can even follow the governance format as outlined in the charter that was ratified through a full governance vote.
For everyone’s reading pleasure.
7 Likes
@FortuneValidator’s amendment makes a lot more sense than the original and I agree completely with @easynode and @Jimbo_JCR.one, this needs to be done through the proper governance channels.
I voted No on the original proposal because of how vague and open ended it was. I think details in this kind of proposal are critical to ensure transparency and accountability. Here are some details I would like to see included in the new proposal:
-
What the funds can and will be used for and a set % allocation of funds for each item included as part of the proposal. That way, in the future, if the fund distribution needs to be used for other purposes, the changes to the distribution can be proposed and voted on by the validators.
-
How the funds will be used to pay for these services. I’m assuming the path is probably to transfer it to an exchange and trade it for fiat then use the fiat to pay for the services. Let’s put that process in the proposal. And include what exchange we will go through because that matters. It probably shouldn’t be Binance considering how much of a percentage of the total supply of ONE they already have. Maybe there is even an opportunity to get a new exchange trading ONE using the funds from this HIP to supply them with ONE.
-
Multisig wallet for the funds is a must but who will be the owners of the multisig wallet and how will they be selected? They probably shouldn’t all be from the Harmony Core team that way there is some oversight and accountability on the use of the funds. Also what is the contingency plan for transferring ownership if one of the multisig owners no longer wants the responsibility? Is there a vote to replace them? Again let’s outline these details and processes.
Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on these. I think if we go with @FortuneValidator’s amendment, outline these details and potentially a few more that others think of, and go through the proper governance channels we will have a really solid proposal to go forward with.
3 Likes
@sophoah like I said earlier, it’s nothing against you. Sadly you’re the only one who is communicating with us. Please don’t take it personal.
I’m on board with what @FortuneValidator and @TrickLuhDaKidz have mentioned before, a 50/50 proposal would be in the best interest of both the chain and validators.
Also, if this HIP goes back to the drawing board, Harmony team should really consider to have as multisig signatories as “members of the community” Validators that currently are involved with Harmony, not ex-core members, we really need again to have “RADICAL TRANSPARENCY”
5 Likes
I think the validators and Harmony team need to agree on a process/guardrails for how future tx fees are adjusted.
Currently, Harmony can adjust them as high and as often as they want with zero community oversight or input. I don’t think that should be allowed to continue.
3 Likes
Let’s work together to align that and have either harmony official doc referencing vdao doc for legitimacy or updating the harmony official doc itself.
The FAQ has some info on it but doesn’t have a detail %. That make the associated operation more complicated if you ask me.
Oh man you don’t want to ease the ops for me it seems 
some partner accept crypto payment and the how we get those crypto are so diverse and so dynamic that it would be complicated to define them in. Ie some may accept native ONE.
It is defined in the FAQ : FAQ- HIP-28 Fee Collection - Google Docs
2 Likes
@sophoah If the goal now is to work together, what do you propose to get this done?
Are these discussions going to remain here or are we all going to use a discord meeting ect. (I think any platform meeting opened to validators to attend can work). I’m open to it, I’ll just need a date and time. I believe we can come to an agreement and choose the path that helps Harmony achieve their goals and also providing value to both Validators and Delegators.
3 Likes
Looks like the current vote both failed to meet quorum of 51% and failed to get 2/3rds of the yes vote. This is the first vote in harmony’s governance history that has failed to meet quorum. This is where vdao was so effective at outreach efforts getting the word out about the vote.
6 Likes
Now lets get Fee Collection V2 in place with the right structure 
6 Likes
If only the Validators wanted to change this years ago, so pathetic how the team handles this, atleast its a pretty entertaining fail compilation.
1 Like
I am somewhat relieved that the vote did not pass as the planning for it was flawed and, in my opinion, the effect on tokenomics would have been negative. However, the lack of outreach is a significant concern and, even if the vote had passed, it would have failed due to this issue. I hope that the team can use this as a learning opportunity to improve planning, compliance standards, and outreach methods in the future.
As previously mentioned by some fellow commenters, there are standards that have been used by Harmony for this purpose, and it is essential to have statistical data to understand the impact and rationale for such a significant change to the chain. I am aware that there have been some significant changes within the team, but please remember that the community is here to support you throughout this process. It would be appreciated if you involve us in your communications and statistical analysis before moving forward with voting.
3 Likes
29% quorum, even bit lesser what I expected
1 Like
Hello All,
As everyone notice current proposal for HIP28 failed the vote. Let’s rework a new proposal for this. @theo1 will be helping here facilitate the discussion and should have already started discussion with some of you.
Thank you very much and let’s make the next proposal a success !!
7 Likes
I don’t think we need to get into crazy details, but there should at least be some sort of breakdown available. Cloud Services: X%, RPC: Y%, etc. Even a range of percentages would be better than nothing. It sounds like internally there is already this level of budgeting done because you know roughly how much you need.
Sorry Soph, I don’t mean to make things more difficult for you but I do believe its very important for a certain level of transparency to be established so this doesn’t become a free-use fund behind closed doors. Maybe we can just outline some general paths for funds then?
- Path of funds for partners that are paid via ONE. (probably the easiest one)
- Path of funds from ONE to another crypto for partners that are paid via crypto. Include any DEXs, CEXs, could be used. This could also be a good opportunity to streamline and simply those “diverse and dynamic” methods of acquisition.
- General path of funds from ONE to fiat for partners that are paid via fiat. I would think this would be basically be the same as 2 just with the additional last step of swapping to fiat with some entity.
Side note on this, I hope the Harmony team has the proper accounting work done to track these “diverse and dynamic” ways of getting other cryptos to pay partners with.
I know some of the information is available in the FAQ, my point was more that level of detailed information should be included in the text of the proposal itself. An auxiliary Google doc doesn’t seem very legally binding from a governance standpoint compared to the actual text of the proposal.
3 Likes
Hi Soph,
As you’re putting together a revised proposal I just wanted to pick up on this point in the hope that it’ll get addressed.
There is now a lot of mistrust in the community about Harmony core’s ability to manage a treasury. Tse himself has tweeted about how great Fantom have been managing theirs so at least there is acknowledgment that Harmony should be better.
This leads me to your response above - Whilst hiring an expert in this field may be an expensive outlay initially, it’s surely a lot cheaper than bumbling along without one. So could we get an update on where Tse is with this please?
1 Like
Please see the v2 proposal here : HIP28v2 - Fee Collection
we’ll close that discussion thread.
1 Like