Please do not take away the “ownership” or the “responsibility” to resolve the depegged tokens from Harmony core team. If the Harmony community is to take certain “ownership” or “responsibility” for Harmony blockchain, my best guess is that @stse and @lij would probably have been repositioned within Harmony management team by now.
My interpretation is this “project” creates extra funding by using Harmony treasury money to pay the governors, audits, etc. There is no need to pay extra if Harmony owns and implements the resolution to the depegged assets since Harmony team members are salaried.
My suggestion is please submit this project or proposal for the depegged assets to Harmony core team and let the Harmony core team take and present it, together with Harmony’s own proposal(s), to the community for discussion and/or voting. Then, once it is voted (i.e., community-backed proposal), Harmony team owns the proposal and takes the necessary actions, as voted, to implement the proposal.
I’m Quoc, chair of the committee. I observed that the community had a lot of ideas, many of which are unorganized, little due digilience, and fragmented (happens in silos). We felt that to really get actions from Harmony is to do the hardwork of getting consensus with many people in the community, Harmony core team, and validate our idea and ensure they’re feasible. This is the hard work of turning ideas into proposals. Our team of 3 members, leading community members, and core team have been working very hard to make this happen.
Contrary to many the community thinks, Harmony has been instrumental in bring the community together to discuss ideas, ensure they address all stakeholders needs (Defi, lending, depegged users, and Harmony).
Any funding we will get will be the management fee from actual building such as smart contract, frontend, business development, marketing / education.
We have a couple proposals in the works. Some ideas are within the team, and others we sponsor to help validate, and facilitate discussion in order to turn into a full blown proposal to be considered by Community (depegged token holders) and Harmony. When it comes implementation, it would be partnership on both sides. Next step is to form a github repo to post these proposals as soon as formulate a formal proposal (what, how, impact, etc)
Well said Quoc. This is a process of discovery. The Harmony ecosystem is discovering who it wants to be. In the spirit of web3 it is a focus to restore the integrity of the ecosystem with community action.
Anyone that stakes an unbacked asset receives an amount of rONE determined by market value, which can be used in a (likely quadratic) snapshot vote. We are discussing the need for a larger vote for the entire ONE community as well, as we want to be inclusive and sensical in our approach, and yet not be seen as ‘wasting’ any valuable time
My friend I have a doubt regarding staking the unpegged tokens
If I manage to understand… the affected people receive rONE and with it voting rights regarding the proposals in exchange of staking their assets, right? Nothing more
What happens from the other side? I mean you receive the unpegged assets and… Can you please enlighten me?
Its non custodial contract. In other words there are no private keys access it (no owner, no dev, no upgradability). No one receives those tokens. They’re locked/unlocked by your rONE token. If works like LP tokens, you can stake and unstake anytime. Depending on how we proceeds with the actual plans to reimburse/recover the depeg, we could ask people to unstake and put in another contract to receive the reimbursement or exchange rONE for reimbursement.
We’ll ask Harmony, Tranquil, and others to audit the contract.
I want to thank the community members who are putting this together and spending countless hours, without compensation. This is no small task and as easy as it is to stand up, shout and disagree with proposals and ideas, this is the reality we currently face and I’m proud to be part of a community who will stand up along side eachother and work to find a solution. Even if it seems next to impossible, this is how we will do it, together as ONE.
I’m looking forward to the discussion and contributing in anyway possible.
Someone should run the numbers on my proposal besides myself.
My proposal gained some traction & support on twitter :
#Quick summary of Harmony tokenomics :
An annual total reward of 441M $One are issued from staking. The total circulating supply of $One increases until it’s matched by the network fees burn rate. Burning 441M $One in network fees is unlikely to happen anytime soon, so $One token is inflationary without a capped supply.
#The basics :
Decreasing the circulating supply by refilling the treasury with a certain percentage of the total annual staking rewards will logically increase the price, because rewards earned by validators & delegators will decrease. They would need to increase their holdings if they want to continue earning as much as they do currently. Less supply & more demand, results in price increase.
So I have 3 options :
Option 1) 20% of the total annual staking rewards to refill the treasury and APR per delegator drops from ~10%/9% to ~8%/7% :
20% of 441M $One is 88M $One (back into the treasury per year). At current price of $0,027/$One it would take about 40 years to reimburse hacked funds. It could take a year or 2, if $One reaches the price of $1 before being converted or sold.
Option 2) 30% of the total annual staking rewards to refill the treasury and APR per delegator drops from ~10%/9% to ~7%/6% :
30% of 441M $One is 132M $One. At current price, it would take about 28 years, but if held on & removed from circulating supply until $One reaches $1 price, the reimbursement could take less than a year.
Option 3) 40% of the total annual staking rewards to refill the treasury and APR per delegator drops from ~10%/9% to ~6%/5% :
40% of 441M $One is about 176M $One. At current price, it would take about 21 years, but if held on & removed from circulating supply until $One reaches $1 price, it could take a lot less than a year.
The most drastic option 3 (40%) seems to me like the most impactful one. Reducing inflation rate & circulating supply until the price of $One permits the reimbursement directly from the treasury. In my opinion not a single $One from the treasury for reimbursement should be made until the price per $One reaches $0,5 or $1. (The treasury acts like a long term hold to reduce circulating supply).
Regarding the network fees, they should either continue to burn or could also be used to fill up the treasury.
I actually read every proposal on the forum, including yours. It is considered within the range of a supplemental proposal, as it does not produce enough impact. We would use a strategy such as this in order to chip away at the total number of ONE projected to be necessary in order to achieve a far quicker defi restoration model (still a matter of years, dependent on market).
This is what we need though, is many ideas that can be packaged together and deployed over time to tear down the massive 100M barrier.
Thanks for the quick reply. I would say Cardano is an example of the impact it could result in, while Cardano has 3 times the circulating supply & nearly a 1 billion $Ada in treasury. I don’t see how it could be less impactful on Harmony.
It’s mainly just the math behind what it takes at today’s market price (in ONE) in order to clear 100M of unbacked assets approx. The calculations are much more specific of course, and ideally the price of ONE continues to go up, thereby alleviating the ‘debt’.
I agree with your math, but we are trying to start from a place that does not speculate and then incorporate market conditions to our advantage as things progress.
Okay well I have issue with just people with depegged assets voting on the future (and wallets) of those that didn’t use the bridge or take the risk. I also believe in one person one vote and nothing should be voted on by any portion less than 100% of the community. Also, be sure to talk to legal about this. I am curious as to how the community taking this on could relieve the Harmony Team of their accountability in the matter. I’m not holding a pitchfork here but the Team needs to be held fully accountable at all times.
My assets are trapped in the celer cbridge cross-chain bridge, and there are almost 3,723,990 USDC in cbridge and other assets, but most of the users who deposit lp to cbridge do not interact with the harmoney chain, can we, the users, receive the voted tokens?
Wow. I wasn’t aware that there was another bridge out there other than Harmony’s own that had been closed and held on to people’s assets since the incident.
I do remember various bridges getting slammed with people rushing to get out and probably taking heavy losses taking in the 1assets that were stolen and redeeming them on other chains for backed versions before they could pause or make proper adjustments. But hadn’t heard anything about LPs here being trapped myself.
Sorry to hear that they are holding your assets.
I’m very curious as to what their reasoning is. Especially as it appears that they are holding not only the 3,723,990 USDC you mention, but 724 ETH as well. To be clear, these are 1USDC and 1ETH? Not something like ceUSDC or ceETH, right?
If these are the 1assets then this is super relevant to the recovery effort here for sure, as that’s a notable percentage of the total float of both.
I’ll have to learn the mechanics here of how the LP system works there to get more info. But ultimately if they’ve socialized the losses or something between all of the LPs and don’t intend to allow individuals to withdraw the assets then it’s going to be very tricky I think.
A capable recovery/reimbursement/repeg strategy is imperative to Harmony’s future viability as a blockchain. As we know, Harmony’s leadership has failed to create such a plan. While that is unfortunate, and emblematic of larger and long-standing issues within Harmony’s leadership, I view it as a positive that there is the potential for a “community-led” approach and that Harmony has committed/will commit financial and technical support to the effort.
With that said, I don’t understand this post or its governance:
Am I understanding this correctly?
We are being asked to stake our unpegged 1tokens in order to receive rONE tokens in order to approve the creation of the Recovery One Foundation (ROF) in order to start the process of creating and voting on ROF recovery proposals that either aren’t publicly announced yet or don’t exist yet?
It seems paradoxical that we would be receiving governance tokens for/from a foundation that doesn’t exist yet in order to vote that foundation into existence.
What is the exchange ratio of 1tokens to rONE tokens? When someone unstakes their rONE tokens, do they receive the same amount of 1tokens they initially staked? Or does the amount change as the value of the underlying asset changes? Who determines that? How are these things to be determined if the ROF doesn’t exist yet?
Why not vote to create ROF and for ROF governance using ONE? Allow the entire ONE community to vote because the recovery plan affects the entire community. The rONE token would still remain part of ROF’s in-development recovery plan and used in defi applications on Harmony (e.g., Tranquil, etc).
In regards to voting, any hard fork would also require a HIP and passage by Harmony’s validators. Currently HIP voting is broken. They have been unable to vote on new HIPs since February. What discussion has ROF had with the Harmony team about fixing HIP governance voting? Otherwise, no matter what plans ROF comes up with and the community supports, the validators won’t be able to properly vote on them.
As for the actual recovery plan(s), is the ROF going to discuss the plans in more depth on the Twitter spaces/AMA? Or is it more geared towards this whole rONE governance token? I think people are - rightfully so - hesitant to stake their assets and skeptical about voting to create the ROF without having any concrete recovery plans or details announced.
As far as I know, you can actually withdraw your liquidity from cBridge and they have opened withdrawal access soon after the initial pause. If you need some ONE for gas, let me know and I can send you some.
Perhaps it’s just their front end that is disabled? Either way this sounds like it might be good news for you and they may have not been holding on to peoples assets after all.
