Recovery One - Community governance for depegged tokens

[gadd_jayme]

监守自盗。应该是这个逻辑 黑客应该签不了名吧？ 我们起诉吧 我推特 * 加德·杰米

@jiangweitb1

[Damesecrets]

I also think a lawsuit is a viable option, even if they are doing something in the end we do not know anything these past few months in the discord on a few notice type messages, there are several key personnel are also leaving, if through a lawsuit to clarify their responsibility and what they need to do, this is the greatest protection for us users who have incurred losses.

[GoodTimesBrad]

@Rel

I’m really not understanding why various people … are getting impression that the team is refusing to cooperate?

Maybe I used the wrong wording by saying refusing to cooperate. What I’m feeling is that, while they are saying the right things, committing to a re-peg etc, they aren’t actually putting much on the line. The community will be subject to a 3-year lock-up, but the treasury fund will be accessible immediately, which I think creating a lot of bitterness.
Edit: We shouldn’t forget that the 1Assets weren’t subject to any sort of lock up.

@Rel

Stephen in his video on twitter acknowledged the importance of a repeg, and if I recall correctly even mentioned the idea of deploying up to 50% of the treasury over time in order to do that.
…
Is the issue that people think that whatever gets decided for now is it as far as anything related to the repeg goes?

If that’s a possibility, I think it would be helpful to include this in the proposal. Under what conditions would the treasury step in to add funds (I know we can’t predict the future to 100%, but give a general idea)? From reading the proposal it seems to be a smart contract solution that wouldn’t include any code to draw down further treasury funds.

@Rel

I don’t know why people assume they don’t see the value in the restoration effort. They’ve always seen the value of investing ONE in the community as a short term expenditure for longer term growth.

It’s not that I don’t believe they see value in the effort, it’s that they aren’t subjecting themselves to the same risks & conditions as the community and it seems like an imbalance to me.

@Rel

The reality is that since real work and testing has to be done to try get something out in a reasonable time getting a good solid idea and framework like rONE actually coded up and in production is a great start, but we need to be realistic about what can be done right away. The details need to be ironed out and such, but after you have that there’s still much more that can be built on top of that as a base with the idea of bringing growth and value back to Harmony.

I agree, maybe I haven’t expressed myself well and I’ve been a bit angry about it, but I’m trying to suggest a detail that I think will help get this across the line, and that is the treasury to put more skin in the game.

Here’s a suggestion: If rONE is redeemable 1:1 for ONE after 3 years (and as long as the contracts are coded correctly it will be), then I think initially we could have the treasury offer to buy $X worth of rONE, to keep the price of rONE above a certain threshold. Lets say, just as an example, they committed $20M of ONE in a smart contract that will purchase rONE if it drops below 0.5 ONE (we can write it so as the $20M is drawn down, the peg drops to 0.4 → 0.3 … etc), then they can stake the rONE they have and after the lock-up period can redeem and double their ONE investment. This is a way for them to show that they have full confidence in the rONE plan, directly align their incentives with the community, and regain a lot of goodwill. It will also be a huge net-gain for the treasury once they have redeemed.

I’m going to be out of service for a week or more travelling, so won’t be able to reply for a while. Thanks to you and everyone who has worked on this and I hope something good can get across the line.

[TrickLuhDaKidz]

Questions and Issues that need to be addressed by R1 and Harmony teams: @Pioneer @hashmesan @mbarret3 @lij @stse @Jacksteroo

1. Will the “community” proposals reduce the ~2.5 billion ONE that will be minted as per R1’s proposal? Or will 2.5 billion ONE be minted either way?

2. What happens to any ONE that is leftover at the end of the 3-year period? I suggest that it ALL must be burned. This must be clearly stated as part of the proposal.

3. Will the 2.5 billion ONE be staked with community validators on Harmony? The rewards earned by doing so would reduce the amount of ONE that would need to be minted.

4. To be clear, from the date of R1/rONE’s launch, minting of the rONE token will only be available for 1 year, after which it will no longer be possible? And the rONE staking period will be for 3 years from the date of launch, not 3 years from the date the corresponding rONE was minted?

5. What measures will be put in place to avoid/limit substantial sell pressure at the end of the 3-year period? Preferably an answer that goes beyond, “rONE holders can sell at any time during the 3-year period.”

6. It’s proposed that R1 “governance” receive 5.0% of the ~2.5 billion minted ONE (or the equivalent of ~125 million ONE = ~$2.5 million at current market prices).
   Straight up: That number is ABSURD. R1 doesn’t explain to the community what those funds are needed for (“5% are retained for governance” is literally the only time the 5% is mentioned in the proposal), nor does R1 explain why such a large amount is needed. Harmony is footing the bill for any audits and has publicly committed to providing technical and financial support, correct? So I don’t think R1 needs to have much of a treasury - if at all!

7. The proposal states, “rONE allows Defi partners to restart DeFi on Harmony using rONE, ONE, native tokens, and new bridged assets.” But the proposal doesn’t specifically state how. How, specifically, does rONE allow defi partners to restart defi? Are Tranquil, Aave, and others expected to participate in R1’s proposal and swap out their unpegged assets for rONE? What “new bridged assets” are you referring to?

8. Based on the below excerpt from the R1 proposal, if someone deposits 1ETH into the rONE contract, they receive rONE tokens based on the current value of ETH at that time. So even if ETH is 5x its current value at the end of the 3-year staking period, rONE holders won’t necessarily realize those gains?

● Anyone can deposit bridged assets and receive (rONE) tokens.

• rONE will be pegged at a minimum 66% (parity) or current market parity
  (whichever is greater)

9. What is Harmony providing from it’s treasury? I don’t see it specified in the R1 proposal. Is that where the $2.4 million comes from? Why was that amount selected? Last month @lij said Harmony had enough funds in the treasury (current value: $51.5 million) for a 3-year runway and to provide funds to the recovery plan. If the $2.4 million is from Harmony, why can’t they provide more of the treasury in order to reduce the amount of ONE that is required to be minted? Currently $2.4 million is <5% of Harmony’s treasury.

10. Is Harmony leadership providing anything? Let’s face it, the community does NOT like @stse and @lij. And they’ve done nothing but make things worse the past 2+ months. Are either of them willing to re-vest a portion of their ONE holdings? Are either of them willing to personally donate to the recovery plan (e.g., buy and burn unpegged assets)? You want to improve community sentiment? Be human, be empathetic, and put some personal stake in the game.

[Jozeph]

I’d like to add one more question onto this.

Why is Harmony not exploring VC options more. There are 1000s of VCs in crypto and I could guarantee atleast 100s of those would be interested in a piece of Harmony. What I’m saying is, can Harmony not offer company equity in exchange for funding? This would be massive. I’d like to imagine 10-25m dollars could be raised this way, if not more. The VC idea was shot down once early on for an unconvincing reason (smth about Stephen having a meeting with a VC and it not going so well) and since then there seems to be no approach. We as a community cannot let a couple speak for the entire protocol,

I propose a community/governance vote on this exact topic:

• Should Harmony reach out and contact VCs and private investors in order to raise funds to re-back the assets.

As I’ve said I think at very least 10-25% of the 100m could be raised this way. I would greatly encourage @Jacksteroo @stse or @lijiang2087 to re-address this before any decision regarding printing a bunch more ONE is decided.

I simply don’t believe that the reason is that no VCs are interested in Harmony. If needs be I would join and do the grunt work of contacting these private investors but there’d be no reason if Harmony have decided that for whatever reason can’t offer company equity. I would ask that the reason this is not an option is disclosed. There is no reason to offer treasury ONE bc well, it may as well be spent on repegging/burning those assets.

[mbarret3]

Jozeph, from what we know about VCs they want immediate return so most transaction fees would go directly to the VC firm. 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 at least 60% of the chain after the incident. (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 their own motives and NOT community motives.

[mbarret3]

Trick,

Good questions. I’ll take them one by one.

• 2.5billion to be minted to give value/backing to rONE. rONE and ONE not used will be burned.
• Yes, rONE = ONE not used will be burned.
• Will be staked into rONE smart contract. After 3 years. We will work to make easy onramps to restake to validators.
• rONE minting one year. After 1 year’s minting is closed/window shuts.
• Yes, rONE staking period 3 years from initial mint date.
• rONE is built to have dynamic exits. Holders can exit rONE whenever they want. If you want to early exit do so. If you want to trade, go ahead. If you want to collateralize in Defi, yes do it. If you want to stake and unstake, you can. Stake and hold for 3 years and receive max staking rewards. After 3 years we are working on easy restaking and some additional staking benefits. (We expect rONE to be used, traded, arbitraged, and be quite liquid. That is the mechanics of rONE).
• R1 will receive 5% to provide liquidity to ecosystem partners. rONE is back by ONE. Being that rONE has 3 years staking period to grow value, liquidity is needed in the ecosystem to let rONE work and have dynamics utility. We want to make rONE as ubiquitous and useful in the harmony ecosystem and used on Defi. What we are discussing is, think rONE option to buy from Stably, use on Tranquil, Aave, Curve. rONE collateralized on Tranquil and in lending. Even a liquid rONE like stONE. All of these options need liquidity to maintain price stability and utility and at the end of 3 years, this liquidity will be burned. We will also be providing grants to build more rONE utility in the ecosystem.
• We have spoken with Defi partners and have received feedback that rONE will be used to restart Defi along with ONE, USDS, STONE, and newly introduced bridged assets. (note: For rONE to work properly it has to have liquidity in the ecosystem so it can keep price stability).
  Easiest example Using 1USDC (can be applied to Eth)
  -1 USDC (let’s say the current market value on the chain is .1377)
  -You will be able to take 1 USDC and mint at a minimum of (66% parity) rONE. So, even if the market is -.20cent for USDC you will receive .66% equivalent.
  -Why our numbers: At 66% parity with 15% interest over 3 years, the outcome equals 1.
  -The Breakdown: If ONE is currently priced at .0224, that would mean 66% parity would be backed by 29.46 ONE.
  -After 3 years rONE would be able to redeem 44.80 ONE.
  -If you take the current market value of ONE at .0224 * 44.80 = 1.00352)
• Yes, anyone can deposit bridged assets and receive (rONE) tokens. rONE will be pegged at a minimum 66% (parity) or current market parity (whichever is greater)
• In the proposal, $2.4 is coming from Treasury. This is for early exit form rONE.

Thank you for the great questions.

[mbarret3]

Goodtimes,

You make a valid point here. If rONE value decreased why wouldn’t Harmony or some other group swap fiat, or ONE, and get rONE, stake it, and earn a higher 15% rate? We expect there to be arbitrage as the price stabilizes in rONE. Note: rONE will have liquidity within the ecosystem to help with price stability.

[4MCrypto]

Dear @MaewouOne,

I am sorry to see that someone is so emotional and negative around those trying to make things better… almost like making a fool of yourself… in my opinion that your high road taken here doesnt create a better/productive environment.

If you are a CIO (my personal doubts to be honest) you would also know how stakeholder management works, treasury management/project runway and above all (if working for a big party) that terms like MUST and arbitrarily taken dates (why 2 years? Would love to understand the reasoning around that) are not the method to get support from other stakeholders in my humblest opinion… (in this case other talk.h1 forum members)

Words like “ultimatum for proposal xy” unfortunately do not contribute to a meaningful conversation

I would also like to come back to this point of yours:

2/ securing a loan by Harmony Foundation for the remaining balance (from any crypto-lender, bank, exchange, etc.)

I think you might have little idea about the current state of lenders/capital.
VCs, Angels are afraid of a recession/preparing themselves for macro economic downturn.
Investments in startups/scaleups have gone down drastically in the last year… Imagine having to take out a loan now with so much uncertainty in the market. that will lead to higher costs and a less attractive market for loans.

To me, this is another classic case of internet warrior with a lot of hurtful bla bla and little substance.

However, a couple of the discussed points are fine. (selling BAYC and having the h1 team pay up for their own fuckup( or at the very least acknowledge it)). It is unrealistic to expect them to pay it all (as they simply cannot do so).

Your attitude @MaewouOne is quite negative and unfortunately, it seems like you are only out for blood and thinking of protecting your own assets (and you frenz wallets).In my opinion are your proposed suggestions basically a bankruptcy letter… No wonder people do not agree with you.

last but not least; good luck taking legal actions on the harmony1 team, probably cost you more than you will receive

Edited to clean up some structure in sentence, thanks for the feedback <3

[4MCrypto]

Great idea. However… It does not take away the risk for the treasury of having no liquid assets that might be utilised for other purposes. rONE will still be a less liquid asset than regular ONE

I really like your idea using X% of treasury (in a transparent way), just wanted to point out said viewpoint

[MaewouOne]

Thank you for your word salad. You’re another fantastic storyteller!

[Jozeph]

Thank you for the reply!

I can’t disagree with you on that point, VCs are certainly predatory however they may provide an immediate solution, a solution which won’t take 3+ years and does not have a guarantee of success.

Community is Harmony’s greatest asset. Unfortunately, It’s hard to know whether there’ll be any Harmony community left by the time all assets have been rebacked.

[MaewouOne]

> Our response to R1 committee and final counter-proposal to R1 and Harmony teams

@Pioneer @hashmesan @mbarret3 @lij @stse @Jacksteroo

Why it is a big NO as it is?
We encourage holders of 1ASSETS (1USD, 1ETH, 1WBTC, 1USDT, 1DAI, 1FRAX, 1BUSD, bscBNB, bscBUSD, 1FXS, 1SUSHI, 1AAG, 1AAVE, 1WETH) to reject as is the unbalanced exchange offer as proposed by the R1 committee and not to bring their 1ASSETS for the following reasons:

1/ In addition to the proposal made by the Recovery One (R1) committee, the community has submitted 16 alternative proposals, of varying quality and feasibility, which have never been formally discussed and analyzed.

The R1 committee has no legitimacy with regard to the 1ASSETS holders and more broadly to the community to unilaterally impose a vote on its sole proposal.
The other proposals were rejected by which designated authority and for what reason? Nobody knows!
Why, then, were they submitted to the community? Unless you consider that the members of this committee were not elected and have no mandate to represent our interests … Except to defend the exclusive interests of Harmony and its managers, to the detriment of the investors of 1ASSETS!

2/ The offer submitted by R1 committee is unacceptable and does not reflect, by its mechanism, either a repeg of the 1ASSETS, nor a refund of the corresponding sums:

a) Unlike any public offer of exchange, the proposal made here does not even specify at any time the conditions of this exchange.

• What would be precisely for each of the 14 1ASSETS exchanged the number of rONE delivered?
• What exchange rate will be considered for the rONE for each asset, notably versus WBTC & ETH or any other 6 assets that are not stable coins?
• The proposal considers an exchange of 66% of the depegged 1assets (2,500M ONE – 66M$) and not 100% (3,763M One – 100M$) considering the price of $0.0264 per R1.
  This initial rate of 66% of exchange of 1ASSETS for R1 does not correspond to any compensation equation. It is an arbitrary rate with no financial justification at all.
• This rate of $0.0264 per rONE is totally unacceptable and, moreover, almost 30% above the average market price of ONE the past months, penalizing even more the holders of 1ASSETS in this unbalanced exchange.

b) Harmony and its managers consider a contribution of 100M ONE of the treasury to this operation (to the initial contract) that is to say a direct contribution of only 2.66% compared to the stolen 1assets! and 4% of the current main treasury wallet (Harmony Blockchain Explorer)
What a joke is it? This approach shows once again the contempt of Harmony’s management towards us. It shows a total denial of responsibility in this matter and seeks to avoid its obligations and does not provide any financial effort.
Also 5% retained for governance is of course unacceptable.

c) Staking conditions are not specified

• What are the conditions of locked staking, liquid staking, lending….?
• What are the terms and conditions for early withdrawal (prorated penalties, decreasing rate…)?
• Will the rONE staking rewards be immediately claimable in ONE (thus not locked)?
• There is also no indication of the period of time during which the rONEs will be destaking?
• What guarantees are offered in remuneration for the immobilization of our investment? No details to this day allow to guarantee the stability of the initial capital (stable coins for example) and the interest rate!
• The 30-day exit conditions are not specified and the 22% rate is meaningless! It simply allows Harmony and its managers to pay only a fraction of their debt to us! We cannot accept this.

What you should consider for a YES?
Our group therefore asks R1 committee to deeply reconsider its offer and to integrate our above questions and our demands which are the following:

1. 1% MAXIMUM retained for governance
2. rONE should be pegged at a minimum 80% (parity) or current market parity (whichever is greater).
3. Using a ONE token price between $0.010 and $0.015, as it reflects the real price post operation.
4. rONE can redeem 2.4:1 ONE (31.25% parity) within 30 days of mint capped to 5M ONE per wallet (this last point to be discussed).
5. Full value in $ONE at the end of 2 YEARS MAXIMUM. 3 years to get every dollar back for each stablecoin or blue chip is far too long! We’re in crypto world!
6. APR staking must be guaranteed at least 20% per year.

Thank you for reading

[zoufou]

And this plan totally ignored the uncollectible loans on aave compared to the initial plan. It is a big NO for me in the current state.

[Lopis]

He raises legitimate concerns and questions. Try answering them instead of calling it outraged nonsense.

[Lopis]

So people are now muted when they raise concerns and ask questions?
Says a lot about the moderators here.

[4MCrypto]

Hey mate,

mbarret3 has been giving excellent explainers earlier in this whole convo. You’re basically repeating yourself right now without progressing the conversation.

As far as I know:

1. All other options have been transparently discussed during a twitter space (there might be a record). A lot of those options are/were being explored further and were told that they could become complementary as there is no solution that fixes the debt right away. However, the rONE proposal makes a lot of sense for various reasons. one reason is that most assets being held are of relatively small size. Am quite sure that other solutions can be found for the big wallets (holding 90% of all assets on bridge…)

2. Seems like you’re not understanding the mechanism at work so far. (or my interpretation and understanding of above fleshed-out explainers is poor). Using the 66% parity you will gain an eventual 100% repeg value in 3 years…

3. Exhibit A on you not understanding project runway and funding problems. Running a business is long term.

4. I expect a lot of these details will be flushed out further in the coming time. Early withdrawal fees were discussed earlier.

Why I will strongly NOT vote for your porposed community idea with your “group”. Seems that you do not understand long term tokenomics and are only here bashing to get your funds out ASAP. your proposed idea consists of:

• bashing the folks trying to create a repeg proposal (while lowering their eventual rewards for the time they spent reacting to folks like us)
• Talking about variables that make little sense… (token price for example)
• 2 years instead of 3 years… (mortgage payments coming up ser?)
• APR, LMAO. Where would those funds realistically come from?

Last but not least: You talk like a big shot that invested a big amount of his funds, yet your language on here really is not convincing.

As you might have listened in to the twitter spaces (highly recommend), you might have heard that people who were/are down really really bad can contact the correct people within h1.

Could you maybe consider that this proposal is one of the best solutions for the smaller players on our chain (that is the majority) and that other solutions might be implemented for those who invested some big $$$ and are now rekt? Thank you in advance.

PS: loved some of the other community proposals, might be interesting to see how can we implement a couple of them (like unite finance one)

[4MCrypto]

Just flagged his post to be non appropriate. check the community guidelines.

Also, care to connect me with your legal action group? would love to understand the size of funds lost

[MaewouOne]

FYI: over 2.5M$ 1assets in 31 impacted wallets, but save yourself the effort of joining us.

[MaewouOne]

@Pioneer @hashmesan @mbarret3 @lij @stse @Jacksteroo @HarmonyTeam

Indeed @Lopis …
It seems that if your questions and views bother Harmony and their puppets then your posts are purely and simply hidden, in order to leave the rest of the community in the dark.
It’s a wonder about the quality of this whole team…

https://talk.harmony.one/t/recovery-one-community-governance-for-depegged-tokens/21104/137

Screenshot

Screenshot