So to be strictly plain about R1 action from now on, R1 agree to all adhere to all Harmony requests, comprised of (but not limited to) :
Volatility protection, exchanging the token within 48 hours
Transparency, documenting everything that is pertinent to the transactions and making it public.
Recovery, making available a public log with the participants in the recovery process, wallets and etc.
But you all choose to NOT forfeit the payment while the governance is being developed and the community can agree to pay ,and if agreed, how much they which to pay for any Recovery partners. Also the public apologies was denied as well, as you all think anything that was done and said regard the current RMC members is ok.
So that’s it, I resumed it well? @HoundOne_Validator @mbarret3 ? If I left something, please enlighten me.
3 Likes
At this point I think we should dump both teams and use the cash to hire someone with the skills to automate this as we thought we did and should have done 33 months ago.
4 Likes
Thank you for your response in clarifying things. So you accept all the transparency terms, and you will stop taking pay for only 1 month. One month is honorable, but not what we asked for, though if that is all you are willing to budge then at least you were honest and told the community your intentions so that they can decide what to do moving forward with the recovery process.
I’m sorry that you feel attacked that wasn’t our intention but this is what we have been trying to explain to you about how we feel attacked by your actions. It doesn’t feel great does it? I hope next time you and your team chooses a more professional route of action to get what you want.
Also to make a point, we are just attempting to set things the way they are supposed to be, even though that hurts your pockets, it is not documented that you receive pay. We simply asked for you to not take pay until this is sorted out and you feel that is an attack on you.
Yet you went on an assault against RMC to pressure us and I clearly documented proof of misleading information posted about us, and you say we weren’t attacked and do not deserve an apology. You feel all you did was ask for timely funding, which isn’t all you did. At this point I do not want an apology any longer as I feel even if one was provided it would not be genuine. Just know that you have attacked us for far less reason than we have “attacked” you and yet you are simply ignoring it, so by that standard I should have no sympathy for you or how you feel either, but that isn’t within my nature which is why I’ve already apologized to you and your group and the community several times in these posts and on telegram about things. I’m not too proud to apologize for something I’ve done wrong and you shouldn’t be in the future either. I will leave it at that, but our relationship is tarnished at this point and I’m saddened that this has happened. Please try to be more patient and courteous in the future with others that you work with, that is all I will ask at this point.
I wish you and your team the best in the future despite all that has happened. Good luck in your future endeavors. I will notify the RMC that you have satisfied my requests for information at this time, though they each have to agree on their own to be satisfied enough with the results of this to be willing to sign the transaction. One, or more of us will be in touch with more information soon.
3 Likes
I think automating this whole thing is a great idea. I’m not sure how it would work but I fully support disbanding the RMC and Recovery partners if we have a good plan to move forward.
I will say however that there was an original intent after the Recovery was completed for the RMC to be a decentralized group voted in by the community to represent the community, who would vote with the community on what to do with the funds. That way we could decide together do we burn, do we use it for the ecosystem or do we revert staking rewards back? We would just have to determine what would happen ahead of time so when recovery was completed the funds would automatically go back to whatever option we chose.
3 Likes
We know, the worse you do at this the longer you get paid (in your mind).
2 Likes
It might be news for you guys but even charity committees & employees get paid. Just check all major charities that you support…
I do support streamlining, and automation which can remove the manual work our team has to do.
I think the best plan at this point is to:
- Determine what wallets are owed what $ amount to each pre-hack wallet still
- Pay them back $ amount in ONE from RMC + any allowed recovered funds on a monthly basis till done
- Stop caring about depegged assets on chain
- Victims are whole already, see previous step.
- Screw over LP pools and just let the garbage float.
- Screw over arb scammers & bots.
Why are we making LP holders rich again by letting that trash come back in price?
3 Likes
Indeed. But it is community funds. And it wasn’t decided BY the community to agree to pay. That’s the issue. You all have been getting the payments so far because we all were unaware of this situation. With enough digging we discovered that it was just assumed by everyone that it was decided and agreed upon. But it wasn’t even formalized into your original proposal and in any other proposal that was voted. So it’s not fair or right thst you guys keep the payment from the funds that is being taken by the community. If harmony had agreed to pay for it for some months and you guys got mislead by them, the right thing was to getting the pay from them, not from the community funds destined for the recovery. Again, the problem is not the payment, it could be agreed in a new proposal once the governance is reinstated, the main problem is that you guys are taking something that is not yours to take, is simply as that. We noticed that and brought this to everyone to know. If you guys want to keeping getting this funds that is community funds, we do not agree with it. And I say that as Validator, as investor, as community member and as RMC member as well. Just to let it clear. What was already paid and spent, nothing can be done. But from now on? Isn’t fair to keep doing it, since everything was brought to light.
2 Likes
Thanks for your clear and timely response!
1 Like
I believe this is somewhat close to what @theo1 has been working on, with the potential, of an Additional 270 Million ONE, from the Emergency 200 Million Staking, Post hack validator funds,
Recovery could potentially conclude within ONE year,
He (Theo P), also stated that On-chain snapshot.org/ X fork is making Great progress, voting will be a hybrid form, similar to the old system, he says.
Hopefully Harmonauts can begin 
voting on these matters Thoooooon
Thanks for your service Recovery1 team 
In my honest opinion Recovery is ONE month behind schedule, as the Recovery1 team took it upon themselves, to force Victims pay for their services [ 100k USD ] 3K / Month for 33 Months
[ only 1 Months pay (3k) ] was EVER, actually approved by the Harmony team FOR ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT of recovery.exchange, and team formation.
1 Like
We outlined these payments on our original documentations. We were the one that got the rONE governance in place to make Recovery legally possible. We helped distributed $4.3m to victims are we are very proud of that, and I insist the payments helped us get there. It’s a ridiculous misrepresentation you say you didn’t know, or not community sanctioned etc.
The only thing you should be mad about is why YOU (RMC) didn’t request the payment for your service, instead of attacking us.
1 Like
Can you show it outlined? Any public document that was presented showing it?
You should try googling. You have more time with your $122K TVL, while I have less time operating a $4Billion dollar staking company.
Nice that you you have such a big operation. But I’m asking a proof that you have stated clear anywhere to the harmony community that you guys from R1 would received 1k payment or any other form of compensation for the burning. I can’t be more clear than that. You saying anything about my validator or anything else that you do in your life doesn’t show anything else to the community. We already searched through anything that we could come across and didn’t found anything. If you could please provide, would be a great asset for the community and would make clear that what you all were doing, was approved and sanctioned, regarding the payments ofc.
Interestingly, looking at the matter from the perspective of a pure intellectual exercise, I believe the (California and US) law would not only support that RecoveryONE was justified in receiving the payment for the services they provided, but also is entitled to demand such payment due to legal obligations assumed by RMC from implied-in-fact contract carried out and reinforced by over the course (years) of dealing and performance with RecoveryONE. There is also the doctrine of equitable estoppel (prevents RMC from denying a contract when its own conduct induced RecoveryONE’s reliance to their detriment), doctrine of mere continuation and successor liability (created by RMC taking over the recovery operation, doctrines of waiver and ratification (RMC, knowing all material facts, accepts benefits of a transaction and thus becomes bound by it - by continuing to fund RecoveryONE with a fixed payment amount taken out without objection or renegotiation, RMC ratified and waived the right to dispute them).
But these are just my analysis for the purpose of some fun intellectual exercises. Don’t let me interrupt - please feel free to continue the discussion.
2 Likes
Thanks for your input Aaron,
Glad to see Modulo back at it.
As for what you said yes this carries some weight to it as the payments each month implied agreement to the funding but this is likely extremely murky legal water that nobody wants to get into as their lack of an agreement with the community when this is a decentralized chain and some other actions may negate any of the other standings. Plus this is a decentralized chain and we should be able to handle our disputes here through voting and other means unless absolutely necessary. To imply legal action so early on in this process is silly but I know you said it is just as you said, an intellectual exercise, so I will applaud you for your detailed analysis, thank you for that.
None the less we have avoided all of these issues as we have come to a solution in this thread as you can see I’m sure and we were just waiting on final approval within the RMC and signatures. The transaction for July is now sent. As Modulo is back as an active partner again and Recovery1 has just announced their near future sunset, we all need to discuss funding for August and beyond.
The transaction for July funding is now completed as seen below.
1 Like
I think it’d be pretty funny, legally, if you guys, the owners of the signing wallets, just sent the money to yourselves this month as payment for the crap you’ve had to deal with!
I’m sure legally you’d be fine as you’re the owners of the funds at the time!
I guess Otis and Logan were right about it all, thanks for confirming R1.
1 Like
How come charity committee is getting paid and me as a victim of assets in AAVE didn’t get anything. ZERO? How is this possible?
1 Like
Because @hashmesan isn’t part of the ‘charity’ (aka unpaid volunteers that we elected) RMC group who sends out the funds monthly.
He’s one of the recovery partners who doesn’t have any legal responsibility to report what happens after he gets funded.
