@Pioneer It’s no surprise to see you laughing in response to the post of a user who has a dissenting opinion on the totally fictitious mechanism you think you can impose on the victims of the hack.
This says a lot about the intentions of this team and especially Harmony who is more inclined to transfer millions of ONE’s to some of its docile validators than to refund its customers.
Never forget that since each Harmony user is charged transaction fees for each operation on the network, he is a customer in the economic and legal sense of the word, and in fact, protected by the American laws like any other consumer.
I’ve been laughing as well. As you guys do not seem to be willing to understand/grasp things that have been stated time and time again or to have a nuanced conversation.
Oh please stop these woke takes and shitty legal arguments. Go sue asap if you truly believe so or go whine somewhere else.
Shows, once again, how much you do not know. Pioneer has been an amazing community member and is part of the validator staking programme where harmony stakes with you. Has absolutely nothing to do with this recovery proposal. Are you also complaining about the 20+ other validators who receive these funds?
Technically it is also NOTa transfer of tokens. It’s still owned by the harmony1 team and can be relocated/repurposed. An assumption (or poor framing) that blows your take out of the water.
Seems like you guys are only out for repayment asap (as evident with all your answers that can be read above) without any thoughts about the future of the chain or the possibility that other parts of the operational side have to be managed/maintained as well. Seems like a CIO would know how to handle and manage its stakeholders right?
Who is going to decide who has the right to be first? What is the pecking order? Seems like the troubles/problems that you guys are having is the pecking order of the repayment calendar. (you guys do not want to wait and invest for more years).
I do agree with you on the dumb factor that nobody will be allowed to recover their assets (with a lost asset net-worth say less than 100$), but instead have to eat an instant loss is actually quite retarded.
Something I would love to bring up in the coming discussions with rONE as I fully expect them to be transparent and open.
Your proposal is just another intellectual construction, based on a totally erroneous conception of Finance (you probably shouldn’t have skipped university or business school), which will not produce anything more than all other very talented projects on Harmony before you.
What makes you guys think you’ll do better? answer: a potential recovery of a bull market from which Harmony’s supply could blindly benefit like in the previous cycles.
Unfortunately, hope is not a strategy, nor a business model.
@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.
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.
. Also a neat reaction on the explainer provided on the staking programme, something you previously did not seem to understand.