Further to my recent post on slots, it seems that we can already have any number of keys on a shard regardless of the base limits in place.
In this case of Theos reply:
Shard 0: 225 public
Shard 1: 180 public
Total: 405
However if we wanted to, we could have any number of keys on each shard rather than it being fixed. Eg right now its 225 per shard however the current distribution is as follows: Shard 0: 213 — 1,224,125,988 Shard 1: 240 — 1,240,480,748 Shard 2: 222 — 1,195,184,769 Shard 3: 225 — 1,216,402,151
So does setting those slots actaully affect anything? Not quite sure how its helping with 1s finality if users could still pile into Shard 1 due to Shard 0 costs and thus place S1 at a higher than 180 key count. Especially as rewards are based on effective shard stake and not number of keys. Its more the total number of 405 thats relavant to stay in election.
Again furthers the questons, why have a different slot count on each shard?!
As a delegator with around 25% of my ONE staked, I have a sizeable enough portion to pull if the APY goes below 7%. While I believe in the project and plan to potentially increase my current investment and stake all of my ONE (depending on the effect of the vote), there are other solid projects which would be better to stake financially and that unfortunately have less baggage.
Just a community member’s take on the financial impact and what I am looking at when it comes to the changes. Regardless, I hope the final vote helps Harmony to recover and grow going into the future.
It’s a no from us. I think we all agree that Harmony looks kind of anemic right now. At first glance, this proposal gives the impression of being a vitamin and antibiotic cocktail that will get Harmony on its feet again. However, it might turn into an overdose that could end up being worse than the original malady.
Let’s discuss each HIP-30.X separately (HIP-31, HIP-32, etc), otherwise it’ll be difficult to reach general consensus with the current “all in one proposal” approach. Also, the forum discussion gets too convoluted and it becomes hard to follow when it’s done this way.
I agree with Fortune’s vision. We wouldn’t mind a 20-25% reduction and delegators could be willing to accept such a cut if it means that Harmony will get back on track. However, a 50% reduction as an opening move is just too risky.
We partially agree with the other points, but, as aforementioned, they should be discussed separately.
I think at this point, any reduction will be detrimental, as a matter of fact, it should be the other way around. The ecosystem is hurt and everyone has already taken the hit with the token price drop that’s comparatively worse than most other alt coins. Incentivizing the network will be ideal but it isn’t the top priority at this time. Keeping the rewards per validator status quo will be par.
Reiterating what @Rutilant_Hub wrote, would love to see this break out into multiple proposals, and vote on it separately. That way one isn’t tied with another, clean of any earmarkings. Unfortunately, it looks like the votes are heading towards being rejected anyways.
I agree with the idea that these choices for sure should be separated into multiple proposals. That’s my largest concern with this. There’s not an agreement over all parts and I don’t necessarily think they dependency with one another.
I lean towards no, but still giving it a few days.
What specifically will qualify a validator for the “Validator Fellowship”?
You say Harmony will stake with “active” validators and suggest 3 criteria:
• “Engagge in governance”
• “Delegator onboarding”
• “Ecosystem support”
How will these criteria be measured? And what will be the specific values to determine where the supported/unsupported cutoff is? Who will be determining whether a validator meets those 3 criteria? Will these criteria be reviewed over time in order to update the “Fellowship” list? How often?
This would double the time to recovery. We should take the biggest shadow hanging over this blockchain to succeed and push forward. ANYONE can propose a new HIP to dissolve the emission DAO or the DAO itself can vote to increase rewards after recovery. Let us make our blockchain fast, recover, and push this chain to the next level.
Completely understand that. The driving force of the 25% was to actually get something started given the current push back so far and the votes. After a period of time a new HIP can be started to increase the % ( people would have already seen the impact on recovery and hopefully more accepting of a 50% ).
I believe we need an additional 1.1 bill ONE of YES votes to pass, assuming no further NO’s. If that fails we are a minimum of a month before completion of a second vote.
I think it’s also important to consider that although clearing the debt is the right goal, if the road breaks along the way to the destination then we will never get there. By that I mean, many have raised concerns that a 4% APY is not enough to keep delegators staked and removing the last real incentive on chain would likely lead a potential price crash. (not necessarily my thoughts but one that I’ve heard voiced many times so far and so could be worth hearing ).
In general, for us, the proposal goes in the right direction. The attempt to solve the biggest issue the chain has as fast as possible: the hack recovery. This will definitely increase the trust of investors who might bring in new capitals. Without fresh liquidity the project will have difficult times in the future.
We are extremely scared, on the other hand, to be kicked out by the elected set and so are a lot of the small validators who fought very hard to be in the position they are right now.
I think the question is what kind of network we want to have, a network of few which is very optimized and efficient or a more inclusive decentralized one. The latter is one of the principles which we have always liked about the project. With this proposal passing it is possible to keep good small motivated validators with those who have the largest amount of ones delegated?
Please elaborate on the level of control that validators, specifically, will have over the emissions DAO post-recovery. Although we recognize the community members who are concerned about rewards, our concerns mostly center around the governance of the Emissions DAO post-recovery. As presented, HIP-30 is not just about the reallocation of financial resources, but also the relinquishment of power over the network, to an unestablished DAO. You may not have been personally affected because you’re relatively new to the chain, but thousands of dedicated community members have been impacted by the mismangement of Harmony DAOs and treasury funds over the years to the point now where extra assurance needs to be provided in order to regain the trust in any future DAOs.
There is very little regulatory clarity surrounding DAOs and how future regulations and laws will impact their formation, oversight, and governance, that its simply negligent to vote now to relinquish any power to such an unknown entity.
Theo attempted to clarify this, but he was still ambiguous in his latest update.
Post-recovery, the reallocated emissions will funnel to a multi-sig wallet controlled by the Emissions DAO. At which time, the Emissions DAO will vote on how to allocate those funds (ie. ecosystem development, staking, etc.). Who are the voting members of the Emissions DAO? Validators?
Only 300 million votes are needed, so someone like KryptoKnight and yourself can vote, and the proposal would pass.
The original goal was to reduce rewards by 90%, so 50% is a happy compromise. If HIP-30 or a similar proposal doesn’t pass, I don’t think the chain can compete much longer, and the staking rewards argument is invalid. Validators shouldn’t consider APR a good thing and consider the potential technical improvements that will attract users onto the chain, giving it value.
One of the goals is to remove validators that don’t do anything but sit back and collect rewards and don’t contribute to governance, discussions, or develop tools and resources for the community. There’s an opportunity for smaller validators, like yourself, to show that they want Harmony to succeed and, in return, be rewarded.
I understand it will be 2 or 3 Harmony team members (I declined) and 5 or 6 Validators. The DAO could vote for more validators and ALL validators; frankly, ANYONE can propose another HIP to either dissolve or set new emissions rates. This is YOUR chain, and things can be proposed and changed ANYTIME!
50% (in reality its 55% like is mentioned on blog governance-report-hip-30-on-emission - Split the annual token emissions: 45% to staking and 55% towards recovery and growth.).
I give all of you a simple scenario
55% - less than 4% staking rewards, delegators will leave as this is the only thing that keep them on Harmony, all the delegators than DM me said the same thing and from i read its the same feedback from the others validators
This will cause a sell pressure, no buying incentive and will make the coin miss any increase in price, so in reality the 55% that is for accelerate the recovery will take triple or quadruple to time to get there
And remember the 18 months mentioned on this proposal its with ONE price at $0.02 and right now with $0.012 its already almost double the time. Now calculate it with $ONE at $0.005 or less after the sell pressure
25% - Delegators are fine with this, Validators are fine with this. Will not cause any or minor sell presure, be around 6.5% still be a good incentive to buy and stake, on a bull market $ONE will get better chance to follow the market and get the 18 months recovery the same as the 50 or 55% does without the certain mass sell
So in this simple scenario the 25% will get the recovery done faster than the 50-55% of this proposal. If Harmony ONE had a good reputation would be different and the 55% may be better accepted but its not, from the feedback from delegators no one cares about harmony except for stacking because the rest of the tec not even work properly and many don’t trust anymore on Harmony leadership so the 50-55% will be the death of this coin and many validators
I prefer to have a slower car (25%) that would get to the finish line than a faster car (55%) that would break many times along the way, have expensive repairs and maybe even don’t get to the finish line (dead coin)
Also its the Recovery ONE address of this HIP been done with multi sig and with elected community members or it will be totally controlled by Harmony (tse) and only after the recovery been done would the Emission Dao be created? If it is only after recovery and the address being controlled by Tse … well a “Trust me bro” meme would be perfect here when i think what Tse done this last 3 years.
I think your maths is wrong here on passing this vote. Although I’m happy to be proven incorrect. Please see attached formula that shows 1.2 bill ONE is still needed for YES. It also assumes no more NO votes come in. So even with KyptoKnight and my vote, you still need 500~ mill to vote YES.
Please dont misconstrude my posts with being against this proposal, far from it indeed. I do think this is the way forward, however I think you guys need to be realistic on the starting point given the votes so far as I predicted. 25% to get this over the line is better than nothing right?
You can always put in another HIP to increase the % once we have actaully started.
EDIT: as Patrick said below, it would be great to have a HIP30-v2 ready right away in the event that this fails so we dont waste time.
