Matt,
Can you please provide some much needed transparency to this process.
-
How will this proposed voting work? Will users have to redeem their pegged assets to mint rONE before they will be able to vote on whether or not to even approve this or are you actually suggesting ONE holders themselves will have no vote in the matter of printing 2.5B ONE tokens and this will be approved by rONE holders only? As stated in Stephen’s Proposal, this requires a validator vote. When is the validator vote taking place to hard-fork the chain? What will that vote be conducted in? Are you suggesting ONE token holders will not participate in this vote?
-
What are you going to do to build a successful defi utility with $2.4M? There’s not a single Defi primitive on earth that was successful in recent times including billions behind them defending “utility.” What is your plan if rONE loses its peg and the victims get far less than intended? How will you ensure rONE does not lose its peg to 22% of the value described? Instead of simply describing your plan as “dynamic”, can you elaborate on exactly how $2.4M upfront is enough to support the $0.22 on the dollar apparently that your token will be “pegged” at. You have suggested doing this through a liquidity pool with some or all of the upfront $2.4M requested. How will you defend this pegged parity value with such little money in comparison to the lost amounts in the presence of a much larger selling pressure of potentially millions? How much of the suggested funds will be used for liquidity as opposed to going to partnerships, grants and to defend your DeFi utility idea? You’ve said “dynamic utility” a few times without elaborating on any specifics other than a broad list of common DeFi primitives that have already failed. I think we are beyond the point of buzz words. Many assumptions made in the proposal have included APRs that assume price stability of the rONE token itself and how will this be ensured with only $2.4M which is already a massive upfront amount that should go to the victims.
-
Please outline the key differences between your proposal and Stephen Tse’s proposal We can all read Stephen’s proposal which amounted to the exact same inflation and hard-fork. If the community previously rejected this, why are you claiming this is community governed? Which part of the Recovery One proposal is community approved or even generated. Can you please describe the key differences between your proposal and Stephen’s proposal that make this a better option than the victims receiving pure ONE token directly if we are to print this 2.5B anyways and hard-fork the chain.