@Pioneer is laughing because he can’t answer these questions. There are no answers. Its a poorly thought out idea that is obviously not based on community approval and if you don’t accept the terms and transfer your depegged assets, you will get nothing. As I said, Recovery One is a sham to placate the community but was always the plan to add inflation + the royalty to their partners. They think this will absolve them but they are sorely mistaken. The only thing I do agree with @4mcrypto is we need to get the courts involved so they realize the situation here and freeze the treasury. If you don’t do that with your cohort, you deserve the awful proposal you will get jammed down your throat by @Pioneer so they can make themselves and their partners some money off this hack. Boycott the proposal, do not exchange your 1Assets and get the court involved to freeze the treasury and prohibit the hard fork. Otherwise, you are talking to a brick wall because they don’t care at all about the community or the victims. That was clearly never what Recovery One is about.
We are already on our way to court but thanks for the support
Thank you for the compliment on a personal note, much appreciated pall 
. Also a neat reaction on the explainer provided on the staking programme, something you previously did not seem to understand.
I strongly believe that your so called “proposal / only way forward” is also heavily dependent on a potential bull market (h1 won’t otherwise exist). You might not care and just want to get your funds back (completely in your own right), just look at the “other” stakeholders…
Good luck ranting here over and over again and all the best with the legal case. Afraid it will take a long time until you’ll have your funds back. I’ll be tuning in on the next rONE community call and updates, they might be able to take some concerns away.
Thank you for the calming and less condescending tone of your message.
I think that my background combined with my experience of blockchains allow me to perfectly understand the subtleties behind transactions, and especially those related to staking.
But thanks anyway for your concern.
How is the Recovery One proposal any different? Its totally contingent on this farming utility to actually work in a bear market where no single other defi utility token has maintained value on Harmony and in crypto in general. So the victims have to wait 3 years banking on this working or rage quit into a tiny liquidity pool at a very small parity and even smaller parity to account for millions in undisclosed expenses.
Furthermore, it adds in the additional risk that rONE itself fails even if ONE does reasonably well and it appears the users are being forced to accept redemption in rONE or receive nothing. Its far worse than Stephen’s proposal, does absolutely nothing to change the inflation numbers which were proposed in Stephen’s proposal and adds a markup for Recovery One to exist when its completely unnecessary. Stephen’s proposal is much cleaner if they are going to inflate it away anyways which is clearly the case at this point.
The entire premise of Recovery One was that it was community governed but this is now not the case. They didn’t consider any community feedback, don’t want to engage in tough questions here, and so the entire proposal exists solely to gain this 5% cut of the victim’s compensation funds. Stephens was the exact same, print 2.5B tokens. Except they don’t get anything for this defi experiment and whatever else.
Stephen’s plan accounted for many more factors except the victims got ONE token directly and 100% of whatever was printed (sans the provision to “save defi” which was there anyways):
Option #1: 100% redemption, no 5% haircut, no extremely low ball parity value up front
The first option proposed is an estimated 100% reimbursement with a minting of 4.97B ONE, which equates to a 3-year monthly emission of 138M tokens ($2.76M using the token price of $0.020). Minted tokens will be gradually brought into circulation over the 3-year period.
Option #2: 50% reimbursement with lower inflation.
The second option proposed is an estimated 50% reimbursement with a minting of 2.48B ONE, which equates to a 3-year monthly emission of 69M ONE tokens ($1.38M using the token price of $0.020). Minted tokens will be gradually brought into circulation over the 3-year period.
No 5% haircut.
No upfront payment of millions to Recovery One.
It was the exact same proposal, requiring a hardfork, it just didn’t have this 5% amount for Recovery One to figure out some new defi token at the expense of the victims and give people a significantly reduced reimbursement.
From Stephen’s:
“The proposal requires a hard-fork which means the Harmony team alone cannot put the proposal into effect; validator participation and buy-in will be needed in order to bring this to production. If you are staked with a validator, we urge you to communicate with your validators to help ensure their decision is made with your feedback in mind.”
It also still accounted for Defi Partners as well:
“Failing to resolve these uncollectible loans may result in DeFi lending protocols choosing to drop support for Harmony on their platforms. An additional 86M ONE (included in the proposed options) will be minted as part of the reimbursement plan, and distributed to certain affected DeFi protocols over the same 3-year period, to mitigate losses resulting from uncollectible loans.”
Why is it so difficult to just pay out from treasury? Likelihood from recovery is severely low and the odds of harmony shutting down are greater than it surviving.
Team would still have millions to promote their vegan daos and build broken tech.
I don’t get the implication at all, I operate a validator at a loss in order to uphold the decentralized nature of blockchain. I pay for servers out of pocket and all of the time that is required to maintain my validator node is done so for free. I am also operating my node at 0% commission. Care to emphasize? The delegation does not earn me anything at this time, nor has it ever. Also, the program to stake 200M ONE came prior to R1 conception.
Proposal to hardfork Harmony chain and/or issuance of more ONE should be voted by at least the majority of ONE holders. In other words, the quorum for voting on a proposal is at least more than 50% of ONE in circulation as of the date close to the voting date.
Just a quick update: The final Recovery One proposal is coming this week.
The lively discussions in talk forum, community collaboration, and the public review have strengthened the community proposal. Thank you for making the solution more dynamic.
So, the R1 proposal is the only one? What about the other proposals?
We have integrated community proposals into ONE solution.
Ok. The vote will then be on this ONE solution to determine whether this ONE solution is to be presented or not to Harmony team, correct?
For the steering committee members, 3 of you are confirmed? Could any of the 3-existing positions be up for a voting? Who are the other two members?
Thank you for that update @mbarret3 
Did you like my methodology for verifying what 1assets were in the process of crossing the bridge while the hack occurred and got frozen on the bridge? Does the final Recovery One proposal address this issue?
Mike, our mission is the recovery of depegged assets, and the strengthening of the Harmony ecosystem through a community-governed action.
It will take more verification but we are addressing all depegged assets and your case is congruent with our mission.
Thank you very much for that, I look forward to the vote
We fully agree Kid!
This proposal is more or less exactly the same as the “50% reimbursement proposal” by TSE (only worse), presented in another format, by a small team that hopes to make money on the beast (5% of $100M).
You raise legitimate questions : why smart contracts are already built as no vote had already occurred for this only one proposal?
We urge @everyone to find out what is going on behind your back and to get the real big picture of this caricature of a so-called community solution.
- This proposal is absolutely not from the community and only represents the interests of the Harmony’s Team.
- It is no way to protect the interests of either the ONE holders or those who hold 1ASSETS.
- This exchange offer is the result of infantile elucidations of a handful of 3 to 4 individuals, not elected, not mandated by us, in total conflict of interest at the exclusive service of mercenaries in the service of Harmony and its incompetent management team who refuse to take any responsibility. Nor does this offer serve the interests of the Harmony blockchain itself which, without a rich ecosystem of users, will very quickly be brain dead.
We firmly oppose this proposal and we demand the immediate repatriation of our 1ASSETS or the reimbursement 1:1 of these assets at their real value (value on any given chain except Harmony).
Thank you 
Am i missing something here?
So if we are going down the road of minting more tokens anyway and we are minting 2.5bn more ONE which Harmony already has in the treasury… why cant the US$50m that is in the treasury go towards the recovery funds immediately and then 2.5bn ONE get minted into the treasury and potentially subject to an unlock mechanism. So Harmony takes on the risk of the future funds not the community. If they are so worried about the long term aspect of the treasury.
This way the new 2.5bn i) Wont get dumped on the open market because Harmony has the long term viability of the project and ii) Transfers the tenor subordination to Harmony as they now have to wait instead of the community. It was after all their fault.
I know its not 100% of the funds but at least its 50% of the funds lost and i know a lot of people would prefer that over the fact they have to wait 3 years. Lets get harmony to wait 3 years for the 2.5bn to unlock.