How can you just remove a validator from governance? Isn’t that required to be approved via a governance vote first?
When is the network total stake snapshot taken? At the start or at the end?
Start date Apr 5, 2023, 4:00 AM
End date Apr 19, 2023, 4:00 AM
Here’s what’s supposed to happen:
What actually happens now that it’s on snapshot unfortunately removes most of the integrity of the governance system. Now the snapshot is at the start and it appears votes may be able to be modified after being cast?
Moving validators also no longer matters as the snapshot is at the start of the proposal which goes live when posted without a waiting period for verification of items in said proposal.
We should be working on passing a voting system that will work moving forward but I fear we’re headed to not meeting quorum, once again, and just spinning our wheels until we get that adjusted on a passing vote.
2 Likes
Objection here, removed, seems valid according to other docs (ignoring this page on governance as there’s other documentation on the wiki pertaining to snapshot.org).
Yes, this is more an issue of discrepancy between the VDAO charter, which we’ve been using for quite a while, and our wiki.
VDAO Charter, Section 4(c) - HIP Public Voting - Decision Making Process
“the proposal must reach 51% of the total stake weight and 2/3rds in favor of the proposal to pass”
We will update the wiki to reflect this more clearly.
So far only Binance has opted-out, to which they have made it clear they do not wish to participate in governance. You are correct that you cannot just remove a validator from governance, this is more of a manual opt-out decision made by the validator themselves and less a simple removal.
But do you understand what I’m saying? I didn’t think you could change how governance works without first taking it to a governance vote. Isn’t this in the bylaws?
And just to rant (because I know other community members and validators who have said as much): It’s fascinating that when Harmony wants more money, they can quickly make this unilateral, centralized decision. But when governance has otherwise been dead for the last 14 months, nary a peep was heard from Harmony despite countless attempts by the community (individuals, validators, VDAO) to contact the team and get help/guidance.
Things that make you go hmm.
This is taken when the snapshot is created using the snapshot block, as shown on the snapshot page :
With many disengaged validators, it is difficult to obtain all the validators’ votes. In January, we made our first attempt, which failed miserably: https://snapshot.org/#/harmony-mainnet.eth/proposal/0x98aec1cc7b92e6633c3ca0ef55bfde53de0355ef83ae738137122eb0feb5932e. We didn’t even manage to get 51% of the total stake for a valid vote.
To address this issue, we gathered all VDAO members and active validators into a group to discuss what we could do. Another snapshot vote would definitely have failed, and ratification of the governance/bylaws wouldn’t have been possible.
After weeks of discussion, the active validator group unanimously agreed on how to proceed with the next vote.
Perhaps we should have ratified the charter at that time, so we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. Nevertheless, we have to answer all queries from the community at this point.
Since January, by including the active validator (which included all VDAO members), Theo and I tried to be as fair as possible. We never tried to be centralized or force options upon anyone. We had many candid discussions, and it doesn’t sound as bad as you seem to suggest here for this particular governance vote.
Correct. Because Harmony wanted more money. So that’s why Harmony finally engaged the community and attempted to fix governance problems that had plagued it for close to a year.
This isn’t an attack on you. It’s a criticism of what has plagued Harmony for too long (it’s founders/leaders, their “vision”, and their many failures).
To further make my point about Harmony only addressing issues in order to get more money for itself, look at the suggested 90% reduction in BLS keys and staking rewards. Harmony finally has the desire to fix how keys are allotted, but only so it can swipe all the funds associated with it.
Do these actions by Harmony make it more of a “security”? Harmony has the expectation of increased revenue from these actions involving its coin. What has Harmony’s Legal said in this issue?
Who are the signers for the multi sig? I thought i had seen a list before but I can’t seem to find it now.
There will be some updates on this.
we had some internal discussion with the active validator and they would be the ones at first to be in the community multisig.
The infra multisig, we will replace two from the list we had previously with 2 community member Rongjian Lan
Leo Chen (Story Protocol)
Ganesha Upadhyaya (Celestia)
Sahil Dewan (EigenTrust)
Aaron Li (Modulo)
Casey Gardiner (Harmony, ETHDenver Steward, Ethereum Foundation)
Nita Neou (Harmony)
cc @theo1
1 Like
we need more community on this.
1 Like
Has fee collection started yet as a result of this vote?
If so what multi-sigs are being used and what’s the balance so far?
Fee collection has not started yet as the hard fork needed to enable this was pushed back due to mainnet issues.
The multisig holders have been finalized for both the Infrastructure Multisig and the Community Multisig, together forming the Transaction DAO.
Currently we are collecting and confirming addresses for these multisigs.