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 
3 Likes
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.
4 Likes
Absolutely right!
The answer is that TSE and his cohort prefer us the community and impacted wallets to take that risk.
It says a lot about their own convictions about the future of Harmony.
They have not yet understood that everything is based on trust and that trust is at an all time low and that by doing this we are all going to the wall. Instead of rebuilding that trust.
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
Yeah totally agree. I just don’t understand why we are creating another asset of ‘rONE’ and getting all technical with ratios and parity when the answer is that Harmony just should take on that risk themselves and if we are minting anyway it should be harmony that takes on this risk and subject to a lockup mechanism not us. For example - The community can agree an appropriate lockup mechanism and Harmony would have to propose their budget etc so the community gets to approve their spending. Tables are flipped and Harmony has to answer to the community
This way it immediately rebuilds trust, the community gets 50% of their money back (more if market conditions improve), everything returns to normal and Harmony still have 2.5bn in their treasury which shouldn’t affect the market price too much because you would think (and hope) that i) they wont be dumping ONE given their long term alignment and the long term viability of the chain and ii) it would be subject to an appropriate lockup mechanism anyway. Seems like we are going down the minting route anyway so I hope someone hears me out.
I fear if we create another asset its just going to get dumped immediately out of the gates as people rush back to safety.
1 Like
Really weird that the treasury stays untouched and not a single penny of vc funding got secured, privat profits, but collective loss, not sure if I like our new “decentralized” economy, which was supposed to empower the users lol
1 Like
I think that’s the issue, why do that, if you can just offload everything to the community and suddenly you have to do nothing and are even able to blame the community if it goes bad😂
1 Like
Hi! You bring up some good points which I have discussed with some of the validators before we launch a vote. Internal nodes may not vote in the rONE vote due to the necessity to hold the token (that’s an obvious one, but I figured that I should just say it outright to clarify), and they will also not vote in the chain-wide vote to adopt R1 proposal and hardfork. Additionally, we have assurances that Binance (and likely Kucoin) will not vote either.
Additionally, regarding the ‘cart before the horse’ argument, we have created our smart contracts ahead of time for auditing and to submit them to the community as supplemental material to ensure that every voter is aware of what the vote entails.
The 5% has been discussed multiple times now- the funds are indeed there to cover partnerships, grants, and team pay. We don’t deny that. We are working day in, day out and providing the contracts. Do we seek to abuse the community’s trust or to make a gross amount? No. As for the team, @mbarret3 was the community member with the initial idea, Quoc is a developer and long term contractor for Harmony, and I’m a community member and core team member of MtopSwap. I get why there is now a call to vote for our committee chairs, but we’re a project and we’ve formed of our own volition and done much of the work. We are also reaching to out find an individual that does not have a conflict of interest as a defi partner and whom is also versed in tokenomics in order to fill a chair.
1 Like
Please provide clarity on questions that have been asked here several times and remain unanswered
To start:
How much is in the treasury, how much % of the treasury will be used initially and why that amount exactly. Who decided this?
Why only 22% rage quit? Who decided this and why this number? Explanations have been unconvincing so far.
Why can’t the r1 foundation and proposal push for a larger share of the treasury being deployed? Less than five percent which is proposed now is a joke. No explanation has been given at all.
Let’s face it. Harmony is bankrupt. It can’t pay what it owes to its users. The scheme of creating a coin that in no way guarantees the 100% value in three years is a measure of desperation.
The foundation team asks hack victims to have faith in the ecosystem strength and assumes that it is highly oversold now. But in that line of thinking we can use 50% of the treasury and ask the same faith from the harmony team. In the end the team stated there is money for three years of operations. Or 30% of 50% is too high.
What is annoying in these discussions is that a lot is expected from hack victims and that this is taken for granted:
- take risk in a three year scheme with no guarantee of recovering the funds that were lost due to a hack and negligence of the team
- rage quit option for a meager 22% recovery of the initial funds
- huge selling pressure at the end of the three years which makes it highly unlikely that funds will be recovered at initial price. Still saw no convincing and clear answer against this.
- hopium for the ecosystem to survive and thrive
What risk is the team taking? Give 5% of the treasury? Where is the skin in the game? The recovery one foundation proposal is clearly biased towards the team and not even balanced towards the hack victims.
We expect hack victims to take risks that the team is in no way willing to take themselves.
A proposal: The team uses 50% of treasury to offer a higher rage quit. In return they get rone tokens so they can play the three year scheme themselves.
3 Likes
These guys don’t doubt anything.
No official apology from S. TSE.
No repentance or message of support for the nearly 65,000 victims.
No transparency on the decisions taken after the hack.
A total disregard for the community of users but also for the partners of the ecosystem.
Absolutely no financial effort to rebuild the peg.
A communication and crisis management worthy of the worst companies of the last century.
A desire to put all the responsibility on the community of users and victims.
They simply want to play the clock by hoping that a favorable bullish move and a token back to 0.2 or more will allow to convert some cash to solve this major problem at low cost.
This is not a very dignified and confidence-building strategy.
2 Likes
I would have to agree, responsibility is too heavily on the investors, who are being given only hopes and dreams. While the harmony team and anyone on the eco system that are collecting pay checks are potentially the only winners.
We have a harmony team thats effectively MIA, dealings behind the scenes that are potentially questionable at best and no direction. Its not really a inspiring post exploit recovery but rather a terminal illness with a 3yr lifespan remaining based on it current efforts.
If only the trustless eth bridge was actually deployed. Thats the biggest failure i am seeing of harmony, delays to key tasks, that have now hit them hard. The roadmap was looking crazy exciting that was being talked about. To a roadmap that is nothing more than a roadmap of shame.
1 Like
Well, kinda sad my proposal didn’t make it in …
Hard no on most current proposals
.) inflation: hard no
.) trading for locked ONE: hard no (stable to locked volatile, uhm no!)
.) there won’t be business angels …
For those wondering: I submitted my proposal to the team using the form …
Personally, I have already mentally written off all those crypto losses I made during the last year … including Harmony … maybe gonna become active again in like 4 years from now … until then … my bags will stay dormant (and more likely than not lose their remaining value … but hey … after around 80% of loss … who cares about the remainder? Easier to restore my savings using traditional means … aka work^^)
which proposal #? We openly considered each
Literally no idea (tried to find the link to see if browser cashes this maybe, but couldn’t find it) … anyway not so important, you can check my other post where I outlined the basics:
.) staking (like rONE) BUT at each block use the value of the actually pegged asset … so if you stake 100 USDC and ONE is worth 0.01$ than this would yield staking rewards just like 10000 ONE
.) no locking, no conversion of the unpegged assets ever - just ability to stake them
.) to give people an incentive to prefer ONE over unpegged assets: the unpegged assets should suffer a small percentage of penalty to their value (like 5% less than native ONE)
.) yes that means that staking rewards for native ONE would be reduced as fixed inflation would be spread over more staked tokens
.) probably not by THAT much, as stakers would start wanting to buy such tokens, which would need liquidity pools etc locking up a part of the supply, plus active traders then also taking some …
I explained more stuff on this in my submitted proposal
Apart from that only the Reimburse small holders approach looks worthwhile for me
Hit the nail on the head. This is the reality of the situation and why this proposal makes no sense to continue to be forced to be invested in such a team.
1 Like
Is there a proposal to just pay us out from treasury?
How will users with funds locked on aave be able to vote?