I agree with this. Yes, the original proposal was rejected on the basis of it being inflationary. But this is still inflationary. While I think you’ve done a good job today shoring up utility of rONE and the significant commitments you may be able to gain through this to support its utility, there’s other issues at hand as outlined in previous comments. We need to have a blockchain wide ONE vote with multiple proposals, including the R1 proposal. Even in the original proposal, Tranquil will be given ~30M ONE to provide supplier exit liquidity and AAVE the remaining ~50M ONE for their suppliers. It seems superior to this still.
2 Likes
I’m acting on behalf of what Harmony can look like tomorrow for us. I’m a community member and I happen to be on the R1 team.
I can bring that to the table for discussion- to vote for the original proposal against the newer R1 proposal.
1 Like
Those fees would be used towards grants or burned if not needed within the 3 year term.
The $1M liquidity ask will ideally be a 50/50 split, half from the treasury and half from the R1 governance allotment (5%). This is a loan to provide stability and assurance for the rONE price. This is not set in stone but it is what we have presented to the Harmony Foundation for review.
2 Likes
Thank you for doing this!
Thank you for your willingness to present all proposals for voting.
@zoufou , @UnArge4 and anyone else concerned about the Aave issue:
Tranquil and Aave have always been considered together as essentially the same issue, so solving one of the two should just be viewed as a solution for both becoming more likely. Tranquil is native to Harmony as you know and actively participating in the recovery process. So it’s not too surprising that because of their efforts they might end up the first one of the two solved. But getting one out of the way just makes it easier to concentrate on Aave after, it was never going to be a one-or-the-other type of thing.
It’s worth mentioning again that being based in the US, there is really no possible way for them to be active in this type of activity discussing specifics and expectations like we are here without massive legal and regulatory risk. Stephen and Li simply can not talk about anything more than what they originally suggested, and definitely can’t be both in the position they are at Harmony while actively managing multiple defi protocols of this nature. It must be painful not to be able say what you want to say to the community. But for all the talk about taking responsibility, in this case it’s certainly more responsible to be cautious and respect the legal advice given to them. It’s all of our risk in the end.
As always, what they can do is fund projects, fund the community and exercise their judgement in that manner. And the treasury exists for this purpose. Ultimately it’s irrelevant how you classify each ONE allocated from the treasury, whether it’s a grant, a payment, or for recovery it’s all effectively the same thing and always has been: Harmony investing in itself to further its own growth. The hard part is maximizing the growth and value from each ONE invested back in the community.
As far as people in general talking about specific numbers, or percentages, I really think those numbers in particular aren’t as important as they might seem at first. This will be an evolving effort, and there’s no reason at all to think that if value is being generated that any numbers thrown around now will be some kind of final commitment. There’s a lot of unknown information, and the one thing we do know is it’s going to be a gradual effort over time and the context of what amounts make sense and when are dependent on so many variables that getting caught up over specifics now doesn’t make a ton of sense. I think anyone thinking that Harmony now has suddenly completely changed and is no longer interested in investing in itself to pursue growth is wrong. As long as they fund something, that’s all the message you need to confirm that. The onus is always on the one receiving the funding to continue to generate value and hit goals and milestones, but clearly recovery is the only way forward for Harmony right now and the team of course has acknowledged that and supports the effort. No reason to think that it’s a one shot deal either, value will create value.
Absolutely love this. Restart and build strong defi with Tranquil Finance & Defira. I trust the Tranq team.
1 Like
When people said the governance part of it was going to be worthless I don’t think they really understood what was actually going to happen. If anything we need to be careful that the governance part of the token for holders isn’t too powerful since there will be a lot of revenue generated in time and some balance needs to be stuck between the goal of repegging and restoring defi vs the profits of the holders of rONE. Incentives will have to be aligned, but all the people who have been looking at this whole thing negatively will soon see how much potential there is when you focus on growth and restoration rather than seeking damages and compensation.
1 Like
There’s a huge difference in how the ONE is allocated. Because each ONE allocated to million dollar grants for Tranquil or others to support its own development or extra liquidity doesn’t go to the victims unless they effectively go “all in” on rONE which it seems they pretty much would do under these terms. If there was no rONE and no Tranquil grant, there’s an additional few million dollars to go towards those who were impacted. It should go to those who lost money directly and not to more grants. Tranquil should just apply for its own partnership grant. Why go about it this way to dilute what’s available to reimburse people? That’s significantly expensive utility but if they are going to restructure the entire lending platform around it, I guess its potentially viable but still a pretty serious gamble that it works and many other platforms are going to need grants at the expense of total reimbursement amounts available.
Thank you for the clarification regarding aave.
I haven’t taken a hard look at the specific grant part yet, by default there’s no way that the absence of a grant would imply any more money going to victims immediately instead. Even if there was no rONE like you say, I’m pretty certain that Harmony would still be focusing on growth and funding projects like this. Regardless of what happened, Harmony still needs to grow to survive.
But if we were to compare the ROI of the two options, and what would eventually result in more value being returned, I suspect the option that involves building on Harmony, especially as it seems to directly relate to and benefit the recovery effort would likely result in more money returned fairly quickly. Especially if it involves restoring lending. That alone should open up a lot of options.
Although I’m not going to jump to conclusions yet without rereading and thinking about this specific proposal a bit. So it’s definitely going to be worth questioning and discussing. But this general idea of investing in growth and having the proceeds spread out in an instrument like rONE over time is in my view the core idea that separates this from a compensation effort where if we really just optimized for paying out the highest dollar value in the shortest amount of time, I’d honestly be surprised if we could get more than single digit percentage/single digit cents on the dollar actually back in peoples hands on average when you consider there are individuals with 8 figures of 1assets.
The biggest issue with just trying to get as many dollars out in the shortest amount of time is that sadly we’re all at a significant disadvantage to the wider market here. Since we telegraph our intentions publicly and declare these amounts in advance, then everyone here who wants to sell still has to swap out our own assets and such even after we decide how much to compensate. The same disadvantage hamstrings lawsuits and such too, to an even worse degree given how slow that process is. Even before declaring the specific actions that result in selling, the market is still weighing the balance of future probabilities and discounting the price of ONE accordingly. Most of the time it’s hard for the market to price expenditures, since generally they’re at least intended to result in growth. So it’s not necessarily clear what the impact would be, x million in grants for growth and y million paid out in stables as compensation is a wildly different proposition. Even more so as in the compensation case where your explicitly selling off an amount transparently, the market is going to front run that and you will end up with much less than you might think based on prior dollar amounts.
But with a growth focused plan we already essentially have a worst case scenario of eventually getting people the full value back as long as crypto maintains some kind of even minimal existence. And even with the growth focused plan, I’m also pretty sure that the average person, even those who simply want as much money back as possible in the shortest amount of time(which is fine if that’s what they decide for themselves, but hopefully Harmony can win them back) will very quickly be able to get more than single digits back on their assets, much more than that I think.
I think one of the main issues here is that we talk in dollar terms mostly, which makes sense since as a lot of what probably most people here lost were stables. But since everything relating to repegging and restoring depends on ONE and its value(which subsequently depends on its growth), it’s a unique situation where there are a lot more hidden costs than may appear on the surface when you’re viewing everything in dollar terms. It’s not fair that someone who held stables and may simply not be interested in ONE at this time ends up having to rely on it, but realistically any way you shake it you will get more back by focusing on growth given the inherent disadvantages of being in this sort of position and seeking dollars.
1 Like
It’s a fair and good analysis.
Recovery One is an ambitious proposal that could result in a higher reimbursement rate if it works. With this comes a larger risk it fails, all the funds spent on rONE utility/governance/organization are spent, the utility does not work, people don’t “ape” into rONE swapping for it, an overwhelming number of people swap out of it for the rage quitting option and the victims staking it or holding it have to wait until the end to get a 1:1 conversion rather than receiving daily ONE amounts or accept whatever the rage quit parity happens to be along the way.
This is why I call it a gamble. If its successful, victims could see 100% on the dollar returned to them or even more because if they strike magnificently on utility it could become a very valuable asset to utilize and generate significant revenue with fee sharing or other agreements. This agreement from Tranquil only increases my confidence that individual deals could be negotiated and bring this to a viable plan with utility never before attempted due to buy-in from massive projects like Defira. However, this is a hefty price tag for that risk. Tranquil gets $1M and they add it to a small part of the game and incentivize the lending pool. That might not be enough to do anything. Why wouldn’t that work with depegged assets anyways? Tranquil V1 lending already highly incentivizes depegged assets.
If the plan works, it could result in more compensation. If it doesn’t, it could result in bagholding for 3 years and then ending up getting basically what you would have gotten anyways under Stephen’s except its 3 years later. This means you take on both the risk of rONE individually being a success AND the risk of ONE being a success at the end of the tunnel. If ONE fails, rONE most certainly would. If ONE succeeds, its not guaranteed rONE would follow.
Where I don’t agree is the single digit parity value in Stephen’s original proposal. Stephen’s proposal had two options. Option #1 assumes 2.5B ONE is minted. That was in reference to paying back victims at $0.50 on the dollar but the payment is in ONE and takes place immediately but equally over 3 years. People would start receiving ONE immediately, and can go stake that in the ecosystem just the same. We could just the same highly incentivize ONE to improve Stephen’s proposal. Put all the incentives on ONE token, and everyone benefits including the victims and everyone else.
A victim will have received 33% of the ONE entitled to them within the first year. Only risk they take is ONE fails in which case the ONE they receive may not reach this parity amount. If ONE rallies, its potentially more just the same so there is still massive upside for this proposal because the proposal sets it at $0.02. So we take on the risk of ONE token only and still have huge upside and still can stake ONE on any platform for additional returns. It also included a second option of higher inflation at 4.5B ONE minted which would represent 100% reimbursement of pegged value lost over 3 years. Again, what’s the risk? That ONE does not do well. Then that could be different. Same upside if ONE crushes it. Why doesn’t every platform just incentivize ONE and then if ONE hits $0.06, Stephen’s proposal could pay 200% or even 300% parity value to these people.
Tranquil and AAVE still get the entirety of their supplier balances paid.
Under Recovery One, rONE has to do well, it has to maintain its utility amidst rage quitting AND the victims still have to bank on ONE doing well in order to recover because ultimately, its equivalent to receiving 1:1 ONE at the end of 3 years but not the entire time unless I am misunderstanding the proposal.
Its not less risky. ONE could do well and rONE could not. Could it go well? It could. Hard to think it would if ONE doesn’t do well. Offering a lending pool doesn’t mean instant price support. Just look at any incentivized coin on Mimas for example, there’s plenty that have lost tons of value even highly incentivized.
Just because ONE does well, doesn’t mean rONE does well. There may not be a correlation given there can be rage quitting and also speculators at least during the 1st year in rONE only. Its a huge upfront price tag and adds a secondary layer of risk. Could that risk result in a valuable staking asset? Sure. But its going to cost Harmony millions. Could it result in a devaluing staking asset with an extremely expensive upkeep to keep adding grants to support utility, absolutely.
I also need to see more details of the absolute final proposal of rONE to compare it but the reality is this is about risk. It adds risk. Could it be more successful? Seems unlikely given if ONE goes up, the other proposal would still present the same upside because the minted amount and each person’s share is set at $0.02. It would just be earned faster and without the massive price tag. Of course Harmony still gives out ecosystem grants and should absolutely give one to Tranquil, that’s beside the point.
No worries. I would help more but certain actors in this ecosystem made me stop participating in Harmony (and it wasnt just stse or li).
-
securing a loan is also a good idea, especially if the team counts on next cycle where prices go up, hence its also easier to repay as their ONE tokens will grow in value
-
im not sure it will kickstart if its not fully re-pegged honestly, i know i wouldnt participate in any defi like that, especially given how many other possibilities are out there (and i think most people will think like that except the ones that got harmed possibly). As far as bridges go, synapse was already good enough imo.
-
They have a lot of money for just a 3 year runway which means they have very large expenses. They should cut those expenses and minimize their salaries and thats the least they could do.
Unfortunately i dont see a way out of this until both li and stse actually start doing something meaningful towards finding a good solution.
Hi @stse @lij how about you two start working and stop hiding?
3 Likes
Utility for rONE is ok, but i just see red alerts all over this. Grant here, grant there, additional grants, grants grants grants. Soo in the end a lot of money thrown out just so rONE could have “some” utility.
You already know what im thinking more or less so i wont repeat, but i dont think neither me nor our validator would support this proposal, or the other one tbh.
7 Likes
I hear ya and I appreciate the feedback.
1 Like
@Rel Thank you for your explanation.
As members of the Harmony management team, @stse and @lij have the responsibilities to manage Harmony as an organization, including risk management. Sure, they can only talk about what they could or should. Yes, it is all about risk at the end. However, this does not translate into being quiet and/or not leading the recovery effort. How could management team stand behind curtain to resolve issues? Then, only came out after community kept on calling out. Then, disappeared again.
As I said before, as to the treasury fund, why should ONE holders incur costs or fees for the recovery effort when Harmony team can work on the implementation (per its original proposal)? Also, now, to provide grants? Don’t you think it is not the best use of treasury fund at the current market?
Yes, I agree with you that there is a lot of unknown information, so please @stse and @lij be the leading parties of the recovery effort (including face the community directly) and share the risk with all ONE holders. Don’t you think by doing this, it could increase investors’ confidence level?
Thank you.
1 Like
You’ve chosen the right team there.
I would vote for this.
As I understand it, and even more so today with Tranquil entering the game, this whole proposal is a vast casino gamble, where the dealers are tipped before they even know if at least one of the players has won.
In my world, it is the players who collect the free casino vouchers to make the game a success for everyone: the players, the dealers and the casino.
Good luck with that prank.
With / If:
- No personal contribution and very significant financial efforts from @stse and @lij
- Contribution from Harmony’s treasury < 50%
- Parity < 80%
- a ONE reference price > 1.5 cents
- a duration > 2 years
- a staking rewards APR for rONE < 20%
Run your excel sheets but as it stands, it is still a big No.
Sorry guys but everything else is literature and children’s tales.
3 Likes
It was always a Tranquil bailout, they just didn’t admit it until now. Tranquil is on the team of this. Minus well call it the Tranquil proposal. And how does it feel to be a victim of the hack who would already have received a month of ONE payments from Stephens proposal at a 20% gain today? That means your parity value would have rallied with big upside but instead we will wait for @Pioneer to figure out whatever other project he can get a grant for.
3 Likes
Tranquil is not on the R1 Committee, they offer us advice on tokenomics and are also highly respected industry leading experts and who are a native lending protocol on Harmony. They also created a GameFi project that engages users and which has the capacity to retain and grow TVL. We’re paying attention to metrics and strategy with every single penny, and we’re also vigilant on creating payment milestones for this grant ask in order to ensure that the Tranquil team is financially in-line with the recovery mission, hence their grant asks for a large portion in rONE token. If the recovery plan succeeds, they succeed, same as the community. We’re doing what we can to propose the most dynamic solution to date, and we continue to fine tune and ask for more from the Harmony Foundation.
On grants, you should look into my stance on the grant program’s history. I have been exceedingly vocal about it on the forum and I have painstakingly offered solutions to a more sustainable grant program moving forward. Heck, I even made a YouTube video elaborating on my ideas.
1 Like