Interesting, must’ve been an inaccurate twitter post. You catch my drift though, greater responsibility from the team has to happen.
There needs to be a proposal for a way out that doesn’t require waiting 3 years and receiving a token that will be all sell pressure for years to come.
Majority of the community members have voiced their concern on the not-yet-voted R1 proposal in here. Please stop this not-yet-voted R1 proposal and leave the resolution, if any, for the hacked assets to Harmony core team. Thank you.
theabiltiy, you raise the idea of paying out of treasury plus funding from VC firm. Here is my understanding of these approaches.
Payout of Treasury- If Harmony were to sell its treasury holdings in ONE and to repeg that would signal to the market an increase in sell pressure. Why? Large block trades (sell orders/sell wall) would enter DEX/CEX and create more sell pressure and sell volatility. So, $40-47M in on-paper ONE holdings would be reduced by at least half and then there is no more funding to grow the ecosystem. If the treasury was completely sold a peg of 20% parity might be achieved.
Funding from VC firm- to seek VC funding in the bear market would result in unfavorable terms. VCs want immediate return so most transaction fees would go directly to the VC firm. The timeline is short for them. (Transaction would leave the ecosystem and be pocketed by VC). I know from my background in finance we would want a larger allocation of the chain after the incident. So that means minting billions of more ONE for VC. (I think Binance took over 70-80% of Axie when they covered 20% of the hack). VC would also be a major centralized force in the ecosystem that has its own motives and NOT community motives.
Recovery One’s mission is the recovery of depegged assets, and the strengthening of the Harmony ecosystem through a community-governed action.
We believe Harmony has a strong future ahead and we are building a true web3 foundation to continue to promote collaborative action.
Read up through 5 days worth of commentary, saw this, which I think is the crux of the problem:
Then, from Pioneer 5 hours ago, a spreadsheet!
The whole time I have been reading, I have been shaking my head, wondering, “where is the business plan?”
We have a chain that is:
To Edd’s point:
Please, please, please (I think I have said this before):
Tell us who, and how, we will be led from this darkness into light, using actual facts and figures, with defined variables. (a responsible plan would highlight “worst case”, “planned” and “best case” scenarios, it would appear all of the discussion is based on “best case” assumption of bull returning and Harmony riding a wave of crypto success, not necessarily succeeding on their own by building VALUE, if so, please SHOW IT)
The hyperbole is ridiculous, the posturing is ineffective, and the desire to say “only so much” is distasteful.
Would you ever even THINK of approaching a “lender” with such a shambles of a plan, and a distinct lack of leadership?
I wouldn’t offer funding to an ice cream shop with what I have seen so far. But, I bought into the hype a year ago, and am now suffering with the rest of 65,000 investors, wondering when somebody with balls and a brain will tell it like it is.
appreciate the response. Any chance of a loan from a bank instead? Would be great incentive for harmony to improve their chain.
I agree that we are now in the worst case scenario, but to keep on proposing solutions, imposed by the Harmony management team is an outrage. Why? Because the problem I see here is precisely Harmony’s cash management and more generally the whole operation of the company.
For example, when you announce a $300M grants program when the ONE price is at 22 cents and you don’t bother to secure the amounts you announce to pay to your partners (ONE at 38 cents 4 months later, in stable coins, off-chain, in dedicated wallets for example), it is clear that there is a very big management problem, which I repeat, should be addressed asap.
I don’t need to remind you that if, at the very least, these $300M had been secured, we would not be having these discussions.
This is why, claiming today, 1 year later, that the treasury is less than $50M, and that it has become impossible to reimburse, even partially but substantially, the victims of a $100M hack (itself having been the subject of a very precise alert by the community 3 months earlier!), is indeed the sign of an incredible mismanagement from this management team.
Time/timing is the unpredictable variable and it always magnifies risk factors.
Recovery One’s mission is the recovery of depegged assets and the strengthening of the Harmony ecosystem through community-governed action. We are creating a structure that will be long-lasting and will continue to promote collaborative action for the community. …We are fortifying Web3 here at Harmony.
R1 believes Harmony (the community, ecosystem, and core) will come out of this process with valuable lessons that will help the community and ecosystem grow together. Yes, some have left Harmony after this incident, during this bear cycle and the larger macro recession, however, many have stayed and are continuing to build.
Being that I started with time/timing, I like this quote from Richard Branson,
“In times of recession there are massive opportunities and fortunes to be made, so for new up and coming entrepreneurs, this is the time to go and start a business.”
R1’s approach, the 2nd part, is to strengthen the Harmony ecosystem so this future is possible. We will ask for firm commitments to the community from the Harmony team.
Oh, come on…Now you’re really just grasping at straws.
$300m secured? That’s not how it works, that’s not how it was ever meant to work, and that’s not how any other team in crypto did any of these incentive promotions when they were in fashion during the bull market.
Not sure who was first, but at the the first big one off the top of my head that really helped start the trend was Avalanche Rush. That was something like ‘$140 million in incentives’. And then teams started trying to one up each other. Eventually it got silly like Hedera announcing a $4.5 billion dollar ecosystem fund.
Were any of these funds ever meant to imply that they would be dumping this amount of tokens on holders in order ‘secure the amounts’? Of course not. And they were not promises to pay people out either. If that’s what these things were there would be riots in the streets when they were announced.
They are meant to be investments in the community to foster growth used as needed. Similar to a certain recovery plan that is also meant to achieve similar goals related to defi and ecosystem growth.
Honestly I feel like I’m in an alternate crypto dimension here because I’ve never seen so many people so for the idea of teams dumping tens of millions of dollars of the native token(which as mentioned by many and recently @mbarret3, is basically a death sentence if you do it too quickly), or so many people so open to the idea of having VCs do the dumping and shorting(to hedge their locked up tokens they can’t dump right away) rather than the community fund an effort and reap the benefits themselves, as opposed to some uninterested third party. Because of course the VC is only going to make a deal if it has a positive ROI for them. So any theoretical deal made with VCs is literally just ROI that the community could have, but instead goes to billionaires. Great outcome. VC monopolizing most of the real value in crypto has really ruined it in some sense. We went from literally anyone on earth being able to invest in projects like Binance(Binance!), to replicating the tradfi model where everything is closed rounds. 99% of the time in these ‘rescue’ situations they are not your friends and do not care about the long term(bit different if you’re a founder starting out seeking angels and seed since they can actually provide a lot of value beyond capital in those cases, but that’s a different topic).
So all of the incentive programs just simply meant that the teams were willing to potentially allocate that amount of their token, at the current value at time of announcement in various efforts like ecosystem development, defi incentives, or other initiatives. And of course Harmony did all of that. Many people seem to think they did too much of that, and some seem to think they didn’t do enough. A reasonable topic to debate at some point maybe, but not particularly relevant right now to the recovery from what I can tell.
R1 team has it tough. They have people telling them they’re going too fast, too slow, too much of this, not enough of that. It’s a tough job that’s hard enough to do even when you’re fully focused with just an internal team, let alone an angry community all with differing opinions. Getting the basic groundwork completed should be just the beginning. I really see it as the ‘worst case scenario’ basically which is important since once we have that done we can start trying to produce value on top of the core idea, and approach it more in a business like sense which will lead to a quicker repeg., And doing that among other things will get everything back on track with real growth again for Harmony.
I can’t speak for the Harmony team but as a community member and in general, an experienced professional, a business loan would have similar terms. Interest rates have increased rapidly and this business cycle (the recession and crypto bear market that has been around for a year and a half) is not the best for creating loan terms that support ecosystem sustainability.
That is why Recovery One and the community are creating a plan to give backing to depegged assets, and strengthen the Harmony ecosystem. The output of that plan is a framework for ecosystem partners and the community to build value together.
rel, eloquently stated.
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.
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:
While there are some areas where my translation software would make your conversations obscure, it’s also appreciated what you do for the community. I do have a small suggestion though, could you not pass on pdf-like documents in the future, as translating pdf documents is a lot of work. I hope your discussions will make the recovery plan more reasonable and feasible, and thank you for your efforts!
@pioneer
We are working hard and we thank you for your high expectations of us. Your questions will be answered shortly.
They won’t clearly answer. They didn’t. Why would they? They just can’t.
All of this is a big fail for sure, and will be detailed next decade as a case study in crypto courses.
If Harmony team commits to its community, it should have taken the lead for the recovery although its original proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by the community. The ultimate responsibilities should not have fallen onto you. Also, undoubtedly, @stse and @lij could instantly save 5% for the community. Logically, why doesn’t @stse and @lij take the lead and save 5% then?
Very simple answer to that one: There is no way they can do anything more interesting and productive than their initial proposal without massive legal and regulatory risk.
Community governance, fund management, and decentralization has always been on the roadmap anyway.
AFAIK, nothing is simple/easy and a business has inherent risks. The management team of a business has the ultimate responsibility.
I appreciate the response @mbarret3. I have new insight into some of my questions. But a few, I feel, still need to be clarified.
#3.
Why can’t a portion of the 2.5 billion ONE be staked with validators once it’s minted? It would earn staking rewards in ONE. These staking rewards can be used to offset the 2.5 billion minted ONE, increasing the amount of unused ONE at the end of the 3 years, and decreasing overall Harmony-wide inflation.
R1 won’t be paying out the full 2.5 billion ONE in rONE staking rewards immediately. I would think there’d be plenty of time to stake a reserve portion of the 2.5 billion ONE.
#4.
You’re saying when rONE is minted by users who stake their unpegged assets, they will be able to stake for 3 years? Since minting of rONE will be available for 1 year after launch of the R1 recovery plan, that means R1 will be paying out rewards up to 4 years after launch of the R1 plan?
In other words, it’s a variable 3-year ending date based on when a user minted their rONE, and not a fixed 3-year ending date for all users no matter when they minted their rONE?
#5.
I feel like this was answered with the exact phrase I asked to be avoided.
#6.
So the only use for the 5% share is for providing defi liquidity?
R1 needs to explicitly state this in the proposal, that the 5% will not be used for any other purposes.
#8.
I don’t think your 1USDC example works for 1ETH. USDC should remain $1 both now and in the future. ETH will almost certainly not be the same price now as in the future.
Will 1ETH holders will be able or unable to realize the potential gains in ETH over the course of the 3-year period? If ETH is $1500 when a holder stakes with rONE but is $4000 in 3 years, should that holder get the full $4000 if they remain stake for all 3 years? My understanding is that 1ETH holders will inherently be disadvantaged in scenarios such as this.
#9.
Why was $2.4 million chosen? Why is it not 10-20% of the treasury? That is a very small contribution by Harmony. Li literally said Harmony has a 3-year runway. @stse @lij @Jacksteroo
I’ve flagged at least one of their posts for being excess, repetitive, hostile, and disruptive to the overall discussion.
And I can assure you I’m neither a Harmony or R1 team member, nor a Talk moderator.