This is spot on, we’re well on the way to this not passing.
How fast will Harmony have a more reasonable v2 ready to go based on the community suggestions?
IMHO you should be proposing an updated HIP now so we can get AN ELECTED VALIDATOR (as per the docs, this first vote isn’t valid anyways according to Harmony docs and the VDAO charter) to propose it on snapshot ASAP.
I haven’t seen anyone “AGAINST” this proposal overall, it just needs a lot of tweaks so the chain will last another year. Staking has been the only thing keeping the chain alive and everyone employed for the last year. Not to mention, it’ll be a year before there’s any help to recovery and you’ll need the validators and staking to carry us to that point, again.
While the concerns raised about the proposed 55% split for the annual token emission in HIP-30 are understandable, weighing the long-term implications against the immediate is important. A significant portion of the 55% allocation is meant to accelerate recovery and spur growth, elements crucial to Harmony’s survival and future success.
The worry that delegators might leave because of decreased staking rewards is valid but considers only the short-term gains from staking. It overlooks the potential long-term benefits that Harmony’s recovery and growth could bring to the overall value of the network. If Harmony grows and succeeds, everyone, including delegators and validators, can gain more in the long run.
The fear of selling pressure, leading to a price drop, might be premature. This change could also invite new investments and interest in the network because of Harmony’s innovative approach to ensure its sustainability and growth.
Harmony’s reputation and trustworthiness will be shaped by our actions moving forward. Implementing the changes proposed in HIP-30 showcases our commitment to the network’s sustainability. The potential for mistrust exists in any major difference; we must ensure transparency and show through our actions that Harmony is dedicated to its future.
A slower recovery (25%) might seem like the safer bet, but it also may limit Harmony’s potential for growth and adaptation. A faster recovery (55%) could lead to a stronger, more robust network in a shorter period. There may be challenges along the way, but these are hurdles to overcome, not roadblocks to progress.
The ‘Recovery ONE’ address in this HIP is a point of contention, but it’s important to note that such concerns will be addressed. Implementing a multi-sig system managed by elected community members can ensure decentralization and trust.
HIP-30 may seem drastic, but it represents a bold step towards securing the future of Harmony. Your support for HIP-30 is not just about today’s rewards but the future potential of Harmony.
Funny i thought it was all for Recovery like the HIP states and so that already make this HIP invalid, even the 55% already does
“significant” can be any number, on a 55% base can be around 20% to 40%. So can you tell me what its the real % for recovery you are aiming and update the HIP with the proper values? Because this will affect how long it will take that some Delegators/Validators that voted yes based on
The Harmony reputation how they treat projects, how Harmony treated validators in the past and now how Harmony treats Delegators and validators for a recovery that have so many inconsistent takes (full recovery yet not quite, focus on Tranquil and yet not quite, focus on projects but what are they?, …) … So i would not call it “innovative approach”
Innovative approach its the consensus and sacrifices and trust from all party’s involved (delegators, validators and harmony) and what its harmony sacrifice on this? Are Harmony continuing the current recovery program or be halted and all the recovery be done at the cost of Delegators ?
So tell us the real % of recovery are, tell us if harmony will continue to follow current recovery (and their sacrifice) and just front tell us what its the real destination for rest of the so called “significant portion” be Devs salary’s or some lessons to someone. Just front tell us and make a proper HIP for this
Well do i need to put here the slow and faster car example? You are only right if the chain had the trust that it had in the beginning, even way before the Hack that trust was going downhill. The hack was just the last drop so no, a 55% will only lead to a dead chain because its not the recovery that its keeping new projects to come to harmony, its the trust that they don’t have on harmony
So you want to get some Trust? Be frontal on all (treasury state, % of recovery, % for your salary’s, …) and see the consensus of many delegators and validators with 25%, it could even get to be 30% being 25% full recovery and 5% salary if things are bad on treasure but be frontal about it for the correct calculation be made and Trust be again built from delegators and validators towards harmony and that be represented across all community like it was one the beginning
And has Easy node has pointed out, you will need delegators and validators to carry it and with 55% you will lose that (if you care, probably wont if this going to centralized chain)
Well its my delegators and my own voice on this. For the rest of validators a NO its not a all or nothing like harmony try to paint it, a NO its back to the drawing board and have a consensus from all of us of what its our opinion to maintain the chain stable
The term “significant” was used to underscore the importance of the 55% allocation towards our overarching goal of recovery and growth. It’s not meant to signify a specific percentage within the 55%. All 55% is intended for this purpose, whether directly contributing to recovery or fueling growth initiatives that indirectly aid recovery. At the end of the day, it’s up to the DAO!
Innovation inherently comes with risks and challenges. Harmony’s approach aims to balance the needs of all stakeholders, including validators, delegators, and the Harmony team. The 55% allocation for recovery and growth is intended to secure Harmony’s future and, by extension, the future of everyone involved. As for the specifics of how this allocation will be used, it is driven by the overarching goal of recovery and growth. We understand the desire for precise details, but these are fluid, responding to evolving needs and opportunities in real time. As for Harmony’s contribution, we’re committed to this recovery and will continue to invest in the network, its technology, and the community. It’s our shared responsibility to nurture Harmony’s growth, and we’re in this together.
I appreciate your passion and commitment to Harmony’s future. A lack of trust in the ecosystem can be damaging, and we understand why the proposed 55% allocation might raise concerns. However, it’s crucial to remember that this plan is designed with Harmony’s long-term stability and growth in mind. While the 55% allocation may seem large, it’s aimed at securing a robust and vibrant ecosystem faster.
We understand the desire for transparency and agree it’s a cornerstone of trust. The 55% is meant for recovery. We acknowledge that this approach may require faith and patience from our community, and we don’t take this lightly. We intend to act in the network’s and its stakeholders’ best interests.
We believe in consensus, and we’re listening to your feedback. A “no” vote isn’t a rejection of recovery but a call for a different path. We’re committed to dialogue, understanding, and finding common ground. This is a collective journey, and every voice matters.
Lastly, Harmony values its validators and delegators, and the proposal is not about moving toward centralization but creating a sustainable and robust ecosystem for everyone. We appreciate your continued support and your commitment to Harmony’s future.
Is Harmony going to start the conversation on HIP-30v2 immediately? Or is Harmony going to continue spinning its wheels on the original HIP that is nearly assured of failing?
Your concerns are duly noted, but the focus should remain on the current proposal, HIP-30. It’s important to respect the ongoing democratic process, and premature discussions of an alternative could detract from the due consideration of the current proposal.
As it stands, HIP-30 is the most beneficial and balanced approach to Harmony’s growth and recovery. It carefully takes into account a variety of factors, from sustainability to network efficiency and validator compensation.
The objective is to reduce total emissions across the board, a critical element in achieving long-term sustainability. This means making adjustments that may initially seem drastic but are ultimately necessary for the overall health and resilience of the Harmony network.
It’s essential to remember that any proposal’s goal is to serve the network’s and its users’ best interests. With that, let’s allow the democratic process to take its course with HIP-30. Post that, depending on the outcome, we can further discuss, adapt, and build on community feedback for the future.
HIP-30 represents a collaborative effort to secure Harmony’s long-term sustainability and growth. So let’s give it the attention and thorough examination it deserves.
If Emissions DAO governance isn’t laid out clearly, we’re likely still a No vote. Not sure why validators would want that DAO to have so much control post-recovery. Its baffling, to say the least.
At the end of the day it’s up to the decentralized staking community to make all decisions that require a HIP.
The DAO won’t be able to decide what the fee is nor if it should be changed without having an elected validator propose a new HIP to modify it. It’s already been determiend in this HIP that the full first year funds go to recovery even though we have no idea what it will look like if we make it to that point.
HIPs need to be perfect as they are the law that will be come code, and as we all know the code is law on a blockchain.
But can’t you, as a validator, propose a vote to remove their power? Give governance a shot. Harmony is much different now than just a few months ago. We’re making key improvements, and most of the DAO will all be validators!
I agree! That’s what I’ve been saying here! All of our processes are open to the community. Come to the R&D discord and contribute to the conversations! We take for granted that all the governance is up to the client developers on Ethereum, and I’ve been pushing for a long time not to let Harmony go down that road, but it’s still being discussed.
Every consensus decision is completely in the hands of validators before development. As long as I’m here, I’ll fight for that model.
Will Harmony be ready to post v2 as soon as v1 officially fails (and it’s possible it becomes mathematically impossible to pass prior to the voting period ending)?
Because, to be honest, this just feels like more trademarked Harmony foot dragging, pie in the sky, head in the sand behavior.
I like the DAO idea if we can get enough Validators involved. The DAO should represent the entire community, it just take participation. In no way should it be a small group of people making decisions. It’ll be a small group of people collaborating to get community feedback/sentiment and setting up proposals encouraging participation.
I’d really like to see the core DAO’s like the community DAO, validator DAO and developer DAO going again and have 2 or 3 members of each be in the emissions DAO.
I completely understand not liking the idea of another DAO on Harmony though
In theory, I understand the idea and its intentions. Practically speaking, though, there hasn’t been any precedence set for successful DAOs on Harmony, especially any with funding to the magnitude being proposed. It’s almost impossible to vote on such a significant decision based on theoretical speech alone.
Other validators appear more favorable to 25% instead of 50%. And that compromise could be enough to pass even if there are still a few holdouts.
The 50-55% may or may not be a better option. There are certainly plenty of valid concerns regarding it, however, as have been discussed in here.
As for the Emissions DAO, couldn’t it be expressly put in HIP-30v2 that the validators will be responsible for the “Development of Emission DAO”?
In other words, validators must vote on and approve the necessary components of the EDAO with a future HIP? (E.g., DAO charter, total number of govs, how many govs per sector: validators, Harmony team, community members, etc., how long terms are, ability to remove ineffective/problematic govs, and so on.)
Would that alleviate concerns?
Currently, there are no specifics on how many nerves the EDAO will have and from what groups they will come from.
So how would the EDAO even use the 25-55% emissions on recovery if there is no EDAO yet? Harmony couldn’t - or, they shouldn’t be allowed to - just unilaterally take those funds out of the DAO wallet prior to the DAO even existing. @Casey@theo1@sophoah
No objection to a gradual reduction here; it would be less disruptive. A faster recovery rate may regain trust in Harmony faster, though, so 50% appears reasonable.
Great comments about the DAO. If a v2 is proposed, we’ll certainly offer our input then on how to strengthen the proposal.
Thanks Chris, please vote before end of the snapshot. You are not the only one with that same concern.
@ValidatorONE@TrickLuhDaKidz In my opinion, the previous DAO failed because the foundation did not secure the promised amount of dollars and did not use or pay them out on time following a proper SOP (which was the reason for delayed payments, etc.). I don’t have all the details, so let’s not deep dive into it here.
The emission DAO here will follow a different funding model, as all funds will come from the multisig and the emission. As long as the community clearly defines the SOP for the DAO, the only risk now is disagreement and misalignment among community members. You all know R1 internal conflicts, and there will likely be similar issues in the future without clear rules.
@Living not sure if you read the conversation above, but we are listening more than before and I hope you realized that. While we can’t accommodate all decision especially things around money, @Casey@theo1 and I will surely listen, and discuss all your demand for network and protocol changes
We can work on answering those questions. Something clear already to me is that Harmony involvement in that DAO should be as minimum as possible (ie 0 or 1 sig only)
This is because defining the SOP for the EDAO may take some time, and we don’t want to delay the recovery effort. We estimated that it would take over a year to recover the lost funds based on a 55% price recovery, and it may now take even longer due to the current price of ONE. However, even without the EDAO, we promise (for whatever it is worth today) that all funds will be used for recovery. And you are correct, there will be no EDAO during that time.
So do we know a rough breakdown of staked ONE purchased pre/post hack? I would assume there is a percentage used to weigh risks and impacts for these types of proposals.
