# Recovery One - Community governance for depegged tokens **URL:** \ **Category:** Announcements\ **Created:** [August 10, 2022, 9:59pm UTC](https://talk.harmony.one/t/recovery-one-community-governance-for-depegged-tokens/21104 "2022-08-10T21:59:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 266
**Author:** ![babakajone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@babakajone](https://talk.harmony.one/u/babakajone)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2022, 2:59pm UTC](https://talk.harmony.one/t/recovery-one-community-governance-for-depegged-tokens/21104/266 "2022-09-07T14:59:35Z")
> [@mbarret3](#): > > Recovery One’s mission is the recovery of depegged assets and the strengthening of the Harmony ecosystem through community-governed action. Matt, you’ve copied and pasted this exact statement over 5 times in this post but haven’t provided any details whatsoever as to how its going to work and what will happen if it doesn’t work. > [@mbarret3](#): > > We are fortifying Web3 here at Harmony. How exactly are you doing this? Sounds like you are claiming this to be some kind of ancilliary grant process? Hasn’t Harmony given out enough grants and the process was rife with fraud and mismanagement whereby millions of the treasury were given away to DAOs, failed projects and generally anyone that asked for it. Are you proposing that this is becoming some kind of new grant program in addition to Harmony’s ecosystem grants? Why do we need a new grant program and why are you using a percentage of the victim’s compensation and inflation that no one wanted to fund this grant program? How much will you allocate to the new grant fund? Will this not lower the amount of exit liquidity and make the peg even harder to defend? Since you want to keep posting copy pasta, I will do the same and ask you to answer any of the previous questions I’ve posed to you: > [@babakajone](#): > > - **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. > [@babakajone](#): > > Its also based on the success of the investments and allocation of the $2.4M upfront payment and if that does not work, this could completely fail and it will not solve the problem. I fail to understand why you assume your grand golden goose utility is going to work. There is simply no reason to take that kind of risk right now at the expense of those still waiting for answers. Not only does crypto and Harmony need to survive, but whatever “integration” you spent the millions on better work or its lights out for us until the end of the 3 year period, correct? > [@babakajone](#): > > Name and link to a single one of the **18 community proposals** that was _actually incorporated_ into the “community governed” regurgitated version of Stephen’s proposal you’ve put forth. --- _[View the full topic](https://talk.harmony.one/t/recovery-one-community-governance-for-depegged-tokens/21104)._