HIP28v2 - Fee Collection

Hello, ONE community!

This is the HIP28 revision proposal !

Harmony commits to utilizing the treasury for the Recovery One plan, rather than minting new tokens.
Continuing to support network services and partnerships is vital and will require new methods of funding.
This proposal is to collect and use half of the network transaction fees to fund these necessary services and partners.
This is a the second revision after v1 failed here HIP-28 Fee Collection

Blockchain and Web3 projects must adapt to current market conditions. This proposal is to update the current burning mechanism of transaction fees to be shifted toward utilizing those fees to fund the blockchain’s required services/partners in order to continue development.

Harmony relies on vital services and partners (such as server infrastructure, oracles, endpoints, multisig, etc.), without which it cannot continue to build and develop into the future. Given that Harmony has committed to not minting new tokens and to using the Harmony treasury to recover de-pegged asset value, a new and innovative way to procure funding for these services/partners is needed. An obvious source for this funding comes from transaction fees that users already are paying. Recovering the de-pegged asset value and continuing to move forward in development go hand and hand for the success of Harmony.

Any change in behavior for existing network protocol feature will require governance vote to ensure the community are fully aware of the update.

This proposal will remain on the Talk forum for 2 weeks for community engagement purposes and feedback.
A poll will be attached to gauge sentiment, which is not to be considered as an official vote and an AMA may eventually happen if there is a need to.
After 2 weeks, a snapshot vote will be posted, at which time validators will have a week to vote.

How to obtain quorum

  1. the total_stake and validator_stakes from all validators in the network is captured on a given block
  2. all votes (Yes/No/Other) received needs at least 50% of total_stake minus stakes from known CEXes and big Validator who don’t wish to participate into governance.
  3. and 66.67% consensus vote (Yes) from point 2)

Note: There are some ongoing discussion with a group of core validator to revamp our governance and avoid the manual removal of the non participating validators. Additionally, they will finalize the list of the non participating validation. Hence, the above is subject to change in the future.

Fees are currently burnt and we are looking now at collecting half of it to a multisig wallet. It is a change from HIP28v1 where we proposed to collect all the fees.

This has the benefits of still having a “burning” effect on the ONE emission while fees can still be collected.

Thank you for taking the time to read this revision proposal, and please provide any feedback you may have.

thanks for the core validator group for the initial discussion on this HIP @HoundOne_Validator @AffinityShard @RoboValidator @easynode @Pioneer @TECViva @FortuneValidator @SmartStake @Onebullvalidator_One @Jimbo_JCR.one

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other

0 voters

Will future changes to the minimum gas price be put up for governance vote before implementation?

1 Like

it should yes. As mentioned previously, i need a new process for urgent updates. So we need a process for a governance that can be concluded in 2 or 3 days maximum to perform the changes.

i’ve started that new process discussion with the core validator today actually.


This proposal is a very simple and elegant change, and as it takes into account the network’s original foundation, it gains my vote

1 Like

This is the first we’ve heard about there being a core validator group and would like to know what role it plays in governance. How will this list of non-participating validators be established (ie. criteria, validator consent) and what approval process will it undergo prior to its implementation?

1 Like


It has no role into the actual governance. VDAO is still the one in charge for it.

We haven’t decide on criteria and the first idea was 1) exclude binance since they explicitly mentioned that they didn’t want to participate into governance 2) look at big validators that could impact the vote validity 3) look at the validator responsiveness / interaction from previous 2 mainnet incident and last HIP28 governance validator response.

it should be a short term solution as we look into other way of voting (ie quadrating voting where this manual exclusion will not be required)

Thats good to hear that only half of fees is proposed in this V2. & that it will still have a slight deflationary effect on the tomenomics. I would like to hear more about what kind of increase this will cause for the overall ONE tokens in circulation.

Shall we expect progress on this soon?

Hello Everyone,

After some discussion with the small group of validator, we would like to amend the current proposal with a slight change.

Instead of directly burning the 50%, we are proposing to send it to a new multisig wallet where the community could decide every month whether to burn or to use it to support dapps, devs, repegging, etc.

In short, we have now two proposals:

  • HIP28v2a current proposal (50% infra cost, 50% burn)
  • HIP28v2b slight different proposal (50% infra cost, 50% community/ecosystem/burn)

We would like the community to decide between the two proposal for the next phase.

HIP28v2a poll has been closed now. 31 voters with 81% Yes. I am creating now a new vote with this post to decide whether to stick with v2a or proceed with v2b instead.

No - stick with HIP28v2a means we stick with HIP28v2a
Yes - let's go with HIP28v2b means we good to proceed with the snapshot vote with HIP28v2b

  • No - Stick with HIP28v2a
  • Yes - Let’s go with HIP28v2b

0 voters

Poll will be open up to two weeks.

Let us know if you have any questions or queries.



Thanks for this new option :trophy:

Thank you very much everyone with 67% more that the majority agreed to go with HIP28v2b. Next step would be the snapshot governance and we’ll have to plan for the future hard fork including that HIP.


Hello everyone,

the snapshot governance has been posted here : Snapshot

Only validator can vote.
Delegator and community of user, feel free to engage with your validator in regards of the vote.

Thank you very much everyone for your active participation into governance.

1 Like

Could you list which validators have been excluded from the snapshot please?

1 Like

only Binance validator for now

1 Like

How will the community decision work? By that I mean the following:

Is a list provided of topics to vote on decided by validators, delegators, other?
Can people themselves propose topics to vote on? E.g., new game launching on the ONE chain?

Thanks a lot!

Hello, we are talking here about network governance vote. Network protocol proposal should be discussed here on talk before going to an actual snapshot vote.

1 Like

Perfect, thanks for the clarification!

1 Like

Is this defined or just an idea?
Are we forming a 2nd dao (the first being the harmony infrastructure dao for those funds) as part of this proposal to manage those funds or will we leverage an existing group like CDAO?
What % goes to burn and what % goes to this community fund?

1 Like

It’s defined.

Are we forming a 2nd dao (the first being the harmony infrastructure dao for those funds) as part of this proposal to manage those funds or will we leverage an existing group like CDAO?

I don’t know and I would prefer not (ie we are adding adminsitrative burden). I mainly see harmony sharing the monthly cost with the signatories so to help approve to use the fund to pay

What % goes to burn and what % goes to this community fund?

that will be up to the community committee to decide