Logan,
Instead of laughing at and mocking the victims of this attack while you and your unknown partners count the profits from your backroom deal on this, how about answer a single one of the legitimate questions posed here?
How about this one:
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.
I believe that the terrible management of all this is due to one reason: S. TSE confuses the cash and wallets he has control over, with his personal assets and believes he is the exclusive owner of the blockchain he created.
He forgot too quickly that Harmony belongs to its users and its ecosystem.
As such, I consider that there should be a vote on the use of the treasury: how, how much, when.
Another flag incoming Maewou. go spend your time somewhere else please. This is just ranting and AGAIN pushing out misinformation…
Curious what you think about his Twitter video…
Same here
You should know that legal stuff cannot be shared all the times… Actually, they were kinda transparent. Maybe not transparent enough for your liking.
LMAO, what is this proposal and recovery programme? Shutting off bridge (1BTC) because of security concerns is seen as doing poor?
Actually. there is money coming from the treasury. Might be not the amount that I and other would like to see… Still there is financial effort.
Startups are hard my friend, scaleups even more. Communications certainly have improved since the community kept crying about it. Also really helps to have weeded out some piss poor community and growth employees that certainly didn’t have strong communication skills.
Partly agree here with you. there is too much that has to come from the “community” in funding and ideas. However, twitter spaces and other community-led ideas are little more than people bashing, hating and people being a bad person to those trying to move the needle… Most community proposals lack any proper math and framework/structure or have very little clue about stakeholder management/ running a business in general… So take the community with a grain of salt here, remember all the hateful twitter spaces with maxi’s and shillers trying to divide rooms (and move to findora for example🤡).
Actually a smart business move from a liquidity perspective. Does that justify you ranting on every piece? You and your fellers are only looking for a quick fix to get the F out of the ecosystem without any care for the future.
It actually is much more inspiring than the other proposals I have seen. Give me a more dignified version if you can that takes care of most stakeholders while maintaining continuity for the project. (And NO i won’t have to see your restated proposal again as it’s unattainable ).
Don’t you think there should be transparency on this? Who decided the amount that will be used from the treasury? Why this amount? How much runaway is needed for the continuation of the harmony project and why? Why does the R1 foundation agrees or thinks <5% of treasury to start is acceptable? Why 22% rage quit in 30 days? How did they come to this percentage? Why is more not possible?
The foundation team will get 5% of 2.5 billion one for governance. That’s almost 3 million dollars at current valuation. How much will go to team pay?
And so on.
A lot of the frustration is coming from these kind of basic questions and decisions which are made without any transparency or a clear explanation. That this has not be explained in the proposal to begin with is a bit weird. Nor have such questions been addressed on this forum.
@4MCrypto Curious way to start a reply whith the threat of a ban 
Wrong, what makes us different is that we are more concerned about the future of this blockchain than the future of TSE and his cohort. And when you understand, that the situation requires more than tinkering (like using less than 3% of the treasury!), given the all-time low confidence, you will probably have made a big step.
@Lopis You will notice that these people never answer concretely the questions of why and how much. For a very simple reason: it is because all the mechanics have been decided beforehand and are completely fixed, such as: we will put so much in this, in this format, with this schedule etc.
But above all, because contrary to their announcement at the time of the launch of this project that I was calling for, this proposal has not been the subject of any debate here.
You will also notice that they only repeat that the choices that are made are “for good reasons that you guys don’t read or understand well”. A very poor project management method.
Finally, they got together with a few fellow validators, mods and TSE and thought that between them, they had all the intelligence and knowledge necessary to design and implement this repeg/reimbursement project.
Unfortunately, this whole proposal is just a huge masquerade and a sleight of hand, which many of us impacted users are not fooled by and we are determined to make it known.
For a community proposal this isnt bad, however still a hard NO here. Reasons on why:
This sounds very fair. Distribute remaining assets to the victims and shut down the chain.
Exactly this. The Recovery One idea was designed to placate the community. The community spent weeks without reimbursement coming up with other options, most of which included more treasury amounts from 20%-40%. It is obvious no community input was included. Look no further than the fact that the official “community” Recovery One proposal is the exact same one the actual community unequivocally rejected with over 300 messages with staunch opposition. Logan/Quoc/Jack went through the actual proposals in 5 minutes and they were all mostly dismissed. There was no debate. There was no community input. There was no vote.
After all this wasted time pretending it was run by the community to come up with this robust multifaceted approach, here we are with the “official proposal” (Stephen Tse 2.0) and it is being rushed to be jammed through and they can’t answer a single question. Everyone has a price to betray the community, and Recovery One’s is $2.4M.
But it doesn’t much matter because its a fairy tale to think it will maintain peg of $0.22 or any long-term value at all because some random forum guy had an idea about DeFi one day that he can’t even articulate. The victims take on all the risk of this pipe dream and hopefully make it to the end where they get 1:1 ONE in three years. I’m obviously a hard no as mostly everyone else is if the vote even matters. None of you should stake a single token with a validator who would hard fork the chain to do this. This tiny liquidity pool will break in half on launch especially with all the speculators buying at $0.10 on the dollar simply to profit immediately at $0.22 before legitimate victims can even get out. To add insult to injury, the victims will be holding the bag again. Wen rONE recovery plan? I hope this back of the napkin DeFi utility works guys. Otherwise, see you in 3 years.
Regarding treasure: Isn’t (most of) the treasury in ONE? I don’t think that using ONE (or selling ONE from treasury to compensate in other tokens) will solve anything. Why? Because either way this would just put enormous selling pressure on ONE leading to: The first reimbursed people will manage to get their money “back”, the rest will be even worse off, because the ONE they got reimbursed with will be worth literally nothing. We need an approach that gives back some sort of value to the depegged tokens. So find something that gives USE to these depegged tokens. Heck, write a new game where you can use these depegged tokens. In order to give back value to the tokens you need to find some sort of usage for them. That’s how crypto creates value. Using treasury that will be dumped on the market, or locked rONE that gives “voting rights” on topics that most people don’t care about plus the option to three years later dump all of it - also no solution. Think of something that actually creates value, that makes holding these tokens desirable. That’s what we need! Repeg won’t happen. But most tokens in crypto are not pegged to anything at all and still hold value. Why? Because there is some sort of reason that makes it desirable to hold them! Be it hopium, usability for paying gas fees, being able to participate in some sort of online casino (aka game-fi), or even the rights to play some actual crypto game (so far there is nothing that would deserve that title, but hey, one must be the first right?).
Find USAGE for the tokens! Valuation will come after.
There were several proposed as part of this 3 week delay including Flu’s auction house, Founder’s Fountain, other games, and many other utility initiatives I saw discussed. These were projects that were going to all make utility for depegged assets and it was never seen as viable by Recovery One. Many projects tried this. OneVerse had a mint in depegged assets. Unite offered some type of incentive. A significant amount of community work to add 10+ proposals and just none of them got included in Recovery One’s plan. Who made that decision?
I think they are trying to do this with rONE but they presented a plan without substantive details as to how it would work. No compelling reason $2.4M in incentives that goes to partners (Tranquil finance bailout since they are on the committee?) Just be upfront about it. And how come TRANQ and FIRA themselves didn’t retain value as the ultimate DeFi utility? Isn’t that the best DeFi utility out there at this point? Still didn’t work. How is this enough to make this thing even work in the first place. Its not enough of an incentive to maintain its value.
Not in a bear market and every DeFi primitive on earth has failed to hold any value in this environment so why would this all of a sudden be different? Surely they spent more than $2M on that in the past. So the victims take the gamble this even works?
What if valuation doesn’t come after? Victims take on that risk under this proposal.
I personally would have approved the Stephen 1.0 proposal under this scenario with some additional good faith portion of the Treasury towards it in some way to shorten the repayment time and reduce inflation.
All I’m saying is very few others in the community agree with me on that. So to call this community based is a fallacy.
If there is to be a hard-fork and inflation anyways of 2.5B, why would you want to take on this experiment as opposed to receiving ONE token itself. There’s still going to be selling pressure under this plan just the same. Its pointless to have it be this bloated abstraction of risk when you could just have ONE which will be inflated either way.
Almost everyone else I spoke to in the community pretty strongly felt the treasury was being underutilized at 2%-3% even though I understand the need to have a decent runway so at this point, I’d Approve Stephen Tse 1.0 with a 5-10% Treasury ask that goes to the victims - not Recovery ONE and the 50% payout of 2.5B or 100% payout of 4.5B ONE number put to a vote. Add in there some options for the absolute maximum treasury amount to reduce the inflation or payback period.
At least its ONE token and we don’t waste money on this risky plan so if anything works on the chain, and the chain rises, those holders can get the upside. rONE adds significant additional risk that it fails and then what? Utility is not an easy thing to accomplish and billions have been spent failing to do so. Why should the people who already got their entire wallets stolen now take on another abstracted risk layer for this?
Well the rationale you give here is exactly what they expect hack victims to do after three years with the recovery one proposal. There’s will be huge sell pressure and no way it will maintain price.
There is 100 million $ in liquidity missing. It won’t come out of thin air. If you don’t know the source of the yield, you’re the yield.
起诉吧 让他去监狱蹲的吧 监守自盗 一场闹剧
Many times on this tread and elsewhere, the community has repeatedly asked for leadership to show concessions about their responsibility for their part in allowing the hack and PERHAPS I’ve missed it from my financial ruins in the woods…
but as far as I can tell, @stse and @lij will NOT see any greater financial consequences than any other investor and will not have any less authority over the blockchain which has been seriously damaged under their leadership, and the funds used for this recovery plan will largely come from the ecosystem as a whole.
Much of this recovery plan seems to be centered around when we turn things around, but if there is no correction from what IN PART allowed it to be operated to allow this hack and other leadership decisions which has allowed the prioritizes to be changed in ways which do not inspire a recovery…
I’m not sure if rONE will do much more than create the same bank run but with a smaller return for all those impacted unless there is some non-financial accounting about how the network, specifically the core team, governs itself moving forward.
If the rONE plan requires faith in the future of the network and this is the plan which has the support of @stse (owner of the harmony network)…
Is there any expectation that these requests will be heard?
@Pioneer ?
Seems like creating some kind of DAO to oversee allocation of $ONE for recovery purposes is a reasonable idea, but if the point is to avoid a bank run on those assets, or at least middle-finger those whom want their money today, then perhaps this recovery plan would be best served to have a contingency about creating some kind of DAO (w/ @Jacksteroo @ganesha @rongjian others) to oversee that the future of the network itself?
and perhaps using CORE treasury funds or even REQUESTING that INDIVIDUALS whom failed to protect the network pony up SOME pittance to face the fact that this things, and others, happened under their control of how things operated.
Good morning @babakajone ,
There is a misunderstanding here on the forum that is obviously leading many astray. The proposal which will be voted on will be a modified one that incorporates ideas from the community proposals that we reviewed. I personally spent 7 hours on Twitter Spaces that day going over these proposals (about 2 hours dedicated to reading them and discussing if they met criteria that was outlined in the documents) and then followed that up (which was viewed by hundreds of community members) with a more informal Space to open up the discussion. Again, there were a lot of community members in that Space as well.
After that Space, we believe that the incorporation of transactions fees and the provision for a greater degree of token utility were standouts. There is also the matter of the BAYC, which we have discussed with the core team and they have expressed a willingness to exchange custody of them for the use of fundraising. Additionally, some of the proposals were less about figures and more about the underlying issues, and for those we have compiled a succinct list of key needs, ie a transparent report on the state of the foundation treasury and the future implementation of non-custodial bridge(s). These are not measurable asks, yet they need to be expressed and they will be featured within the proposal as commitments.
The fact of the matter is that I am a community member and that I am so far donating an immense amount of my time in order to take action and to implore other’s to do so as well. The idea that I or any other member of Recovery ONE is using sleight of hand tactics eludes me. We have created a means to have our voices heard and we have not ignored the communities’ input by any means. The proposal figures are not set in stone, nor are they mere conjectures that we made up. The figures stand given the constants, we’re working with the variables.
What are the constants? 100M lost is not a constant, because the assets are fluid and also some of those unbacked tokens have already been redeemed. Any unbacked tokens that can be obtained and burned reduce the debt ceiling by the difference in their market price minus the acquisition price. The treasury is again, not a constant, as the value fluctuates with the market. It is also (allegedly) only around 47M in value as of last week. So the idea that we should be using more of the treasury should take this into account. Once you add up the 2.4M in initial exit liquidity and the amount needed to satisfy our lending partners, the figure represents closer to 10%+ of treasury utilization. Again, I cannot reiterate this enough, the math has been considered over and over again.
Well, they are getting a free out of jail card anyway, since most of debt or network equity & associated voting power is tied in ONE -& have pawned it to the community for “compliance” reasons.
A buy-out requires a willing buyer who is open to capital in exchange for equity - At this moment, it looks very likely that the Harmony foundation Treasury would go into the open market at a big discount & they’d have nothing left in terms of runway for a bridge re-peg. The ecosystem has been wiped out.
That’s a great point you raise there about Stephen Tse losing control of project, which will be a net positive. It’s quite apparent that Harmony didn’t timely raise capital - and even the recent news of a potential Tier 1 VC partnership can only be taken with a grain of salt, until formally announced.
An acquisition or a merger could be great opportunity - provided it doesn’t come with haircuts to existing equity/debt holders, which is a risk in these circumstances.
Risks
The rONE proposal is definitely rife with participation risk, especially in capitulation climate. It rather promotes net selling of debt at loss in short-term. Maybe that’s the gamble here.
In the long-term, it only delays the inevitable (massive sell pressure) in 3 years if the former doesn’t work & price doesn’t appreciate before. Crypto bear markets can often last multiple years (24-36 months) & we are in the middle of one. Coupled with a global commodity-based inflationary climate that’s pointing towards recession, things look quite dire. Trying to buy time is the tactic here.
Moving Forward:
It’s evident by now that multiple team exits have impacted the efforts, especially for protocol related development work. Number of unique contracts deployed have increased, but the unique value proposition of this network is in question atm. Is the core Harmony team going to be transparent about their business & engg. deliverables, enable financial transparency around GTM strategy going forward?
Stephen hasn’t even answered basic questions asked in the last AMA (his contribution to the project as a CEO of this chain since last last year). The dude literally has two major tasks as a skill generalist - Get fundraising & hire C-suites, even most of those tasks have been delegated to other people. Absolutely zero idea on community visibility about his specialist skill contribution either.
That’s the question that matters most, irrespective of lesser evil that gets chosen.
Conclusion:
Let’s wait for final date of the snapshot & allow ONE holders to make the decision on which proposal they agree with the most. If people don’t believe in rONE or can provide a better alternative at earliest, they should make it apparent via vote conclusively.
2.5% management fee for debt resolution is a considerable amount & printing ONE comes via hard-fork. Even a Tier-1 VC partnership doesn’t guarantee that the Harmony foundation is willingly going to use that capital for pre-payment of de-pegged assets.
A fresh discussion between the community & Harmony foundation about the future of the project is long overdue - post vote.
Please see my above response, but I will add that the figures that we have initially proposed are what they are because of the numbers that we have to work with, ie: treasury balance, token distributions (by wallet), what figure we hope to achieve in terms of recovery, and also how we can incentivize user participation. Again, I will reiterate that the treasury utilization to both act on R1’s proposal and to restore some or all of the lending/ Defi partners will be closer to 10% or more. The reason that this is not yet explicitly addressed is because we are negotiating with the partners and determining how much each needs and how best to move forward with each of them (AAVE, Tranquil, Celer, Huobi, etc.).
The 5% is unallocated until we can propose to rONE holders how best to utilize that treasury, ie GameFi implementation, sponsoring a BAYC auction, partnerships to create further utility for rONE, this is really only limited to what rONE holders ask for. Additionally, the committee would like to be paid for our time, which has been a lot thus far and will continue to require attention until users are made whole. Yes, our ability to fill this massive crater of a loss to our ecosystem is dependent on a) market conditions and b) the future of crypto and Harmony. As for how much the R1 committee asks to be compensated, it will be reasonable, and the treasury can implement a proper 5/9 multisig to ensure that there is no collusion or misappropriation of those funds. Again, our team is doxxed, publicly.
Here is an example of a mechanism that I used early on to tweak the numbers to find figures that met the goals that R1 had in mind:
Who is we in this statement? You said after the Twitter Space, “we believe.” You, Quoc and Jack and the Tranquil team member? How is that the community when no one spoke in the Twitter space. It became Flu’s after the Recovery One proposal twitter space where a few people were actually able to speak. Because I listened to the space and you went through every proposal, said why you thought it wouldn’t work and then moved on. I didn’t here a single community member voice any input on those proposals and they are not part of the Recovery One proposal. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Also, please link me to the supporting documents of this DeFi utility and an exact accounting of each DeFi partners incentive amounts and proposed utility they will deliver in exchange for those incentive amounts so I can fairly review it and give community input. Your plan thus far appears to be rONE token holders vote on how to allocate 5% of these funds to a project that might integrate the rONE token. Can you explain why that’s not a gamble or why it does not increase risk of price instability and could result, as many projects have, in the complete failure wasting all the money spent that could have gone to compensate people even if Harmony ONE token does perform reasonably well. How will you defend the peg? Saying we are going to come up with some DeFi innovation with no supporting documents is simply unfair. Allocating a few million dollars in this situation - which the proposal said was paid up-front - when no one wants inflation is unpalatable without a significantly more compelling plan to succeed in an extremely difficult market.
The lack of transparency eludes me as to how any of this was decided and how we ended up here with the same inflationary proposal and a very large ask to be paid upfront with no accounting for the exact expenditure of $2.4M so please update the transparency to include that so people don’t assume deals are being kept private. Breakdown the exact allocation of the $2.4M up front ask so people can reasonably evaluate how much you are going to allocate to this DeFi utility out of it, exit liquidity pool, DeFi partners (which again were already provisioned 86M ONE tokens in Stephen Tse 1.0), compensation, and anything else. That’s what transparency is. No one is saying you shouldn’t be compensated but you railed off a list of many other allocations proposed for this money. Its the largest up-front payment and everyone else has to wait 3 years so where’s it going?
While many others disagree with me, I’m not here to rail on the Harmony treasury because I understand the need to have a runway. But why does that largest upfront payment go to Recovery One through this roundabout plan without even proving the concept. Again, even if the entire $2.4m went to exit liquidity, its not enough to maintain the peg. But this is going to be less than $2.4M and we have not seen how much of that upfront amount is going to be allocated where. The point I’ve continually made is it is not going to the people who lost money? Math is only as good as its assumptions and nothing I’ve seen takes into account the pure risk-shifting making it worse than the original inflation proposal.
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?
Again, the R1 idea was not designed to placate the community. We are a part of the community. Search for @mbarret3 and see his original post, and DYOR, you’ll see that he has also posted in the distant past, nearly one year ago to date. I’ve explained time and time again, with the support of both Giv and Daniel P that Quoc is a contractor that has worked with the Harmony team closely for years as an experienced contractor for development and security advisor. It’s true, they are not going to win a popularity contest on Twitter and maybe they are not degens that you will find in every project discord.
See my above post for examples of hoy much time was in fact allotted to the community proposals, and then also consider that we had to create the submission mechanism and then compile and digest each one of those proposals (on our own time, thus far without pay) in order to summarize and present on them for hours with an audience of hundreds. To say that we went through the proposals in five minutes in a complete lie. I personally spent numerous hours reviewing those proposals and creating summaries that could be presented in the Twitter Space. And again, many of those ideas have been incorporated into the proposal that will be voted on. There was a debate and community discussion that followed the official Twitter Space, which lasted hours (4-5).
To say that this proposal is being rushed is untrue. We’re taking the necessary time to run projections, discuss with partners/ advisors, and to have our smart contracts reviewed. We’ve been working on this for nearly 1.5 months and have plans to bring this to a vote as soon as possible. The community has been very clear that we want change and action, and as a member of R1 it is my task (which is self-assigned) to take that on as an opportunity to make the change that we hope for.
Last, there could be massive sell pressure in 3 years, but actually there are other possibilities that are worth considering as well. What happens after enough time has elapsed and the unbacked assets which were not redeemed get closer and closer to parity (offchain)? What about the price action of ONE and the fact that the 15% APR offsets the debt and actually aims to create additional value (exceeds 100% of the redeemed value of each unbacked asset after 3 years)? The staking rewards are on tope of the guaranteed 66% parity and can be used how each wallet holder sees fit, which will reduce the massive post-3 year sale pressure. Again, many conjectures here, but if we are going to discuss one it is best to consider all.
The best idea is to just pay out from treasury, plus funding from vc’s.
Said it many times, but you choose to ignore. No one wants to be around this team for another 3 years and be rewarded a token that everyones going to sell.
Total mistreatment of investors from negligence to not wanting to fix things and take ownership of errors.
I’m not certain where you got these figures from, but I asked last week and the treasury was closer to 47M total. We are requesting a commitment to transparent treasury management moving forward.
