Recovery One Foundation

I found Harmony through cheeky crypto. They mentioned how great the harmony community is. Recover ONE group has done a good job.

I went back & read ur comments. You are against community proposals & show support for the core idea. Last week in discord i read Core anons are against the community ideas & want to stop their input.

I think this plan is good & comprehensive.

In the end if harmony fails to grow & lead all plans fail.

1 Like

@mbarret3 can you update the docs links? They don’t seem to be working.

1 Like

As this proposal stands, we are still AGAINST it.


  1. instead of quickly reimbursing the victims, it makes them take a risky gamble with what were initially their stable and blue chip coins
  2. on a duration totally disconnected from the reality of the crypto sphere
  3. that the victims are the only ones to bear
  4. while having to pay the authors of this risky arrangement 5% of their own money
  5. a proposal that does not improve S.Tse’s initial proposal and that only substitutes a volatile shell for a stable coin, betting on a hypothetical rise, itself based on mechanisms that have already proven their inefficiency in the DeFi

Therefore, we are willing to accept this proposal only if the following variables are applied, in order to minimize the risk and accelerate the recovery of depegged assets and of the whole Harmony eco-system.

  1. A significant financial contribution from Harmony’s treasury greater than or equal to 50%
  2. A minimum initial parity greater than or equal to 80%
  3. A parity value of ONE at a price of less than or equal to $0.015
  4. A reimbursement period of less than 2 years
  5. A highest rate for staking rONE, possibly greater than or equal to 20%

As an example, here are the numbers for 1000 1USDC:

1 Like

It seems like babakajone wants whatever the core plan is & MaewouOne wants the impossible (to liquidate everything). Very interesting to see what going on in here but somewhat obvious at this point. These two anons seem like false Pied Pipers for core. Good cop, bad cop, …both dishonest anons.

1 Like

@4MCrypto @Bigfeettalking

I’m not sure I’ve ever read any of your alternative proposals except for some sarcasm that only makes the petty smile. Enjoy your life :pray:t3:

This is along the lines of what I was referring to when I said “cutting off one’s nose to spite its face”. Opposing a good plan because it doesn’t perfectly align with one’s personal recovery plan wishlist.

The original proposal was universally panned. Everybody hated it. It also said In the event of failure to obtain required validator participation, we will resort to “no reimbursement”. And that’s what Tse did, he abandoned it. You want Harmony to “own” the recovery plan, but the Harmony team disowned it.

On a positive note, a Harmony core member (Jack) is going to be part of the 5-member R1 steering committee. He, along with the three R1 members, are doxxed. I assume the 5th member of the committee, as well as everyone on the 9-person multi-sig will be doxxed as well. Certainly there is some “ownership” in that - even if not by Harmony proper.

[Editor’s note: Jack has resigned from the steering committee in an effort to force Stephen to be more transparent and public with his views on the recovery process. Imo, that would ideally mean Stephen and or Li take responsibility, show leadership, and join the committee.]

That’s what you’re getting a chance to do now, vote to approve them and the R1 plan. There are many instances in crypto/web3 where you have no vote in the initial founders/creators of ideas and projects.

I also think it would be possible for R1 holders to vote on who will comprise the multi-sig signers.

R1 does use treasury funds as part of the reimbursement process. And R1 will use more than the 0 treasury funds the Harmony proposal offered to use.

Harmony’s proposal was a turd. Nobody wants to eat a turd. “Waste” is your opinion. I could easily call Harmony’s original proposal’s idea of potentially more than doubling the inflation that R1 proposes to be wasteful, and I wouldn’t be wrong.

Harmony/Stephen have given no impression that they are inclined to make a legitimate proposal. Do you acknowledge that much? Because what you’re asking for - a recovery plan from someone that doesn’t have the desire to implement one - is irrational imo.

  • Do you also acknowledge that blocking R1 from being approved would delay reimbursement for at least another month or two - potentially even longer, and potentially permanently?

  • Do you acknowledge the additional damage to the ecosystem that unnecessary delay will cause?

  • Do you acknowledge the additional exodus of users and projects that will occur if R1 is denied and the possibility of “no reimbursement” becomes even greater?

  • Do you acknowledge that preventing the passage of R1 would make void much of the work R1 has done with current advisors, contributors, and defi partners, and force these discussions/resolutions to start over?


Maewou is constantly :poop: on R1 because it’s their shtick to drum up support for their “lawsuit”.

Maewou thinks the more they can interfere and obfuscate the recovery efforts, the stronger their lawsuit will be.

Thank you for your responses. I still do not support R1 proposal.

Can we get some kind of update on this contract and the committee changes?

Edit: also an update on the docs?

That the quick and easy answer to almost all of the concerns raised is remembering what the core of the idea here is and the title of the thread: governance

Specifically in this case community governance. So if a future idea is something you don’t like you will absolutely be encouraged to make your case against it I’m sure. Or if you feel an idea is too vague or it’s unclear, that’s a feature since the intention is to direct the effort and decide the best path based on the current information as we go.

If anything the negativity from the community(overall in social media, and not directed to anyone particular in this thread) is potentially going to hamstring the efforts here early by forcing some unnecessary restrictions that might limit future flexibility and ability to adapt to different phases of the repeg. I’ll make a post about that in a bit describing what I mean, but it’s quite difficult to balance avoiding getting ahead of ourselves too much and focusing on just getting to the starting line here with making rONE a reality.

It’s understandable how people are approaching this with skepticism, and the tone is not surprising as we’re all in bad shape having had insult added to injury with the hack happening deep in the bear market, during an unprecedented crypto-wide liquidity crisis cascade causing credit to dry up or have extremely unreasonable terms. Making this harder than it would have been any other time.

And ironically Harmony with one of its core ideas being focusing on providing the community the resources to work to produce value and build out the future is having its own liquidity crisis, both on chain and off. On chain is quite clear. But off chain is almost worse in a way as clearly there is much work to be done on social media engaging the community and retaining users, but also researching and building again so we can focus on growth. But we’ve been in stasis now for far too long both figuratively and in a more literal sense financially. This effort here is the only option we have to change that. But it shouldn’t be viewed as one option as much as it should be view as the option that will allow us to pursue and choose from many options. That is if it’s allowed the latitude I believe it deserves.

If Harmony can’t quickly become what it used to be we’ll be losing far more than whatever we have in bridged assets. This is the chance to take the core idea and ideals of Harmony and learn from any past mistakes and apply them in the high stakes situation that we find ourselves in. Not by choice, but one we’ve been forced into. If you think it’s a risk or a gamble, it is. But if we do nothing, and I hope you’ll excuse the crude but I believe apt analogy: it’s like being forced to choose your fate from two revolvers, one fully loaded with six bullets and one with a single shot. And then choosing the one that’s fully loaded because the idea of playing Russian roulette is too much of a risk and you don’t like to gamble.

From a more positive angle, understand that in 2018 and 2019 ideas like Chainlink, or Harmony, or Uniswap didn’t seem like they’d necessarily prove to be worth much either in the middle of a harsh bear market. It wasn’t even till 2020 that defi even turned into something more than a niche concept. And you can go back and see the same pattern throughout crypto history, crisis breeds opportunity. And intelligent, managed risk leads to outsized rewards. Solving problems that become apparent is where the longer term value comes from.

You might say Chainlink and Uniswap are different and Harmony is an L1 with more competition. But we’re at a point where Harmony is both fast enough, and now(not so much before) can scale enough to handle most anything we can throw at it(using the other shards if necessary too). Where now the long term winners are going to be the platforms that are able to really solve the problems that have emerged and become apparent from this last cycle, and offer communities the primitives needed to thrive(a great L1 is of course one of them). And most of the problems of people in this thread are the ones Harmony is actually positioned to solve more than others since the very idea is about doing that.

The question of how to generate sustainable value in a fair and transparent way. Organize and administer resources effectively. Create or combine existing technological infrastructure to facilitate this. “To Scale Trust and Create A Radically Fair Economy” turns out to be more than just a line and something that either emerges from this experiment if the community chooses to do that, or eventually have one of those moments in the future where you end up as a user on a platform that does it right and wonder what could have been…

Not to sound like I’m trying to claim the solutions are all here. Far from it. This is really just the beginning if we want it to be. For a specific example of problems in crypto now that when solved and answered will result in real fair and sustainable value, @4MCrypto had a question about launchpads with some valid criticism regarding the value of some existing ones and the tokens they generate. Part of it I would argue is due to some professional groups recycling low quality ideas from chain to chain, some words understandably trigger some negative associations (blahblahpad, rugpad, ONEpad…and at least for now many in the community have ‘DAO’ on their list for various reasons that I hope we can heal with action).

But deeper than just the scams of yesterday still fresh in people’s minds, are tokens inherently a flawed concept? Is offering people the chance and option to purchase tokens on a transparent non-custodial platform something that inherently results in bad outcomes? With tokens, I think it’s clear that they can provide real value under the right circumstances and with the right approach. There are many protocols with real demand generating billions of dollars in actual revenue. Whether this flows to token holders or not(and it often does not),seems to me like is an excellent problem to solve. And the idea of creating systems to fairly distribute and incentivize people to both invest in and fund those efforts is also a problem worth solving. And as far as tokens go, we potentially have a perfect example right here of rONE where with the right parameters, incentives, community involvement, and governance will act as a very large scale real world example of a token that can provide value and solve actual problems.

And defi is ripe for being reimagined, as it is incredibly inefficient and extractive right now. I can be very specific here too with solutions and this is a massive opportunity for Harmony. Look at the state of Harmony itself right now with it’s thousands of illiquid pairs fractured and poorly incentivized, value being extracted from the ecosystem rather than funneled in, old failed models quite literally collapsing due to poor incentive structure and mismanagement. Admittedly though these experiments are what will allow us to learn from and apply that knowledge to restore defi in a more sustainable manner so in the long run rather than a purely negative outcome it will just be part of the path, and I don’t think all efforts were in bad faith but that of course varies.

But we are not the only ones who have noticed the issues and failures. And there are many new projects out there aiming to solve many of these issues and inefficiencies draining value and misdirecting incentives. And thankfully almost always save for some rare examples like Uni V3, we’re able to leverage the spirit and intended purpose of open source and crypto in general to contribute to and apply these solutions here. That is if we choose to. And find a way to maximize the flexibility of the effort here while maintaining the core ideals and minimizing risk, and not let a bad situation cloud our vision or let this kind of opportunity pass by.

1 Like

How is this helping people who have ONE FROZEN and LOCKED in AAVE?

i read the legal card. if there ever was a class action lawsuit. During the process of discovery i think a lawsuit would want to unveil the identities of babakajone & MaewouOne.

Deception, obfuscation & negligence are big no nos. i hope this is not happening by core in the forum.


Mostly unrelated to my post but I want to highlight something I noticed was a concern of various people and now also seems to be missed by many, that being the early redemption starting after three months and linearly increasing from there. That should help smooth out the redemption curve and also satisfy the early concerns voiced of a large unlock concentrated at the end.

I have two issues not related to the early redemption(I just want to make sure people see that), the first is relatively minor and essentially the same issue I’ve had since the 22% early redemption was suggested and I’ll start with that.

Now that a snapshot has been confirmed making the concerns I mentioned before about how much better an unlimited exit 22% could be for some bigger holders relative to the amount of liquidity available to them on chain. I’d like to at least suggest this now to get it on the record despite still generally wanting to keep this as simple as possible for the first phase and just make this project a reality and build out from there.

The 50% offer with its limit as stated is probably fine as a start and since it has already been presented I’m absolutely on board with offering it as part of the first phase as is. But ideally, with the unique advantage of the peg being off so much and liquidity being so low, there may be people willing to accept some mutually beneficial offers where much larger amounts are burned at much lower rates.

Just as a toy example to illustrate the logic and then go from there, if someone with 10m in prehack value was willing to accept an exit of 1%, being $100k in ONE, of course it would be hugely beneficial to burn that much for so little.

Understanding that the 1% is not going to happen, but going from there with that logic to ranges that may happen and a strategy that is a bit more dynamic. If the exit offer via the contract was on a curve that was not probably not linear and heavily weighted to allowing accounts in the snapshot only to redeem large amounts at very low percentages and perhaps close to unlimited amounts with no snapshot at extremely low percentages. All the way up to the $1k 50% option(of course would depend on the amount of liquid ONE we have available for the early exit) it would potentially be a good way to increase effectiveness.

The best way I can see this is time based where you increment the changes slowly and raise the price offered over time and also adjust the curve and its variables according to liquid ONE supply vs the demand, but that again is more complicated. One issue though with the static pricing, even with the $1k 50% plan is that even though that should generate demand, people who meet their cap but still want to exit will sell their assets on the market at whatever price they are willing to settle for creating downward pressure on the peg. This is a worse outcome than us buying and burning them, for example.

I’ll just note here that generally even just a limited buyback and burn contract loaded with ONE with some restrictions and restraints can end up fairly efficient here and allow people their exit liquidity while putting positive pressure on the peg. It would be a totally different approach though and works great far off peg but can’t be the only strategy, as we do need to incentivize people to buy and burn in exchange for rONE.

If a static curve is the easier way, governance would have to propose reasonable curves inline with the overall strategy and amount of liquid ONE available for exits. This is one example of the ‘governance being too good’, or ‘too dangerous or lucrative’ I’ve mentioned in the other thread since in theory if unbounded a whale could easily abuse the vote in their favor. But some reasonable constraints and with the proposal system it should be fine unless I’m missing something.

Potential benefits:

-Extremely efficient and cost effective to a point that is hard to understate and lessens the total monetary burden of the repeg
-Potentially offsets future governance risk from whales if they choose to exit early in this way
-Potentially offsets future sell pressure of ONE in cases where rONE is redeemed for ONE at a higher price, while only offering limited amounts of liquid ONE
-Does not deplete existing on chain liquidity for 1assets. Which is low enough currently that a single whale could choose to evaporate all of it if they desired, or if they became a forced seller for whatever reason

Potential negatives:

-Feeling under compensated for their loss
-If the restoration effect is successful, particularly due to multiple strategies being used that weren’t necessarily known at the time of their choice to exit, some users might feel they were misinformed and did not have the proper information at the time to make an informed decision
-Low uptake

Options to mitigate potential negatives:

-Users who choose to exercise their right to exit should be a primary focus of the growth and retention strategy of rONE
-Attempt to reengage and maintain a communication channel with them
-As the growth strategy expands consider special incentives for users who chose this option(airdrops, whitelisting, NFTs, cross promotion with partner projects among other options)
-If uptake is low and liquid ONE is in high supply and there is flexibility with being able to either modify the curve or redeploy the contract, and the liquid ONE isn’t ‘all in’ on a single strategy but deployed as needed then voting on a new curve to increase incentives could be possible while also being part of a conservative but dynamic incremental approach

The last mitigation there brings me to my second point which I believe is much more important than whether or not this specific idea gets implemented, that is that the resources need to be managed safely primarily of course, but also not fully committed or dependent too early to strategies that will likely need to evolve over time. As the way I see it the repeg is likely to have different phases requiring different approaches and I will expand on in a later post with a hypothetical scenario and partnership dependent on rONE and other assets and the flexibility to use them effectively for growth.

All of the plan so far is pretty conservative, and that’s fine especially at the start but ultimately the way I see things is growth has to be pursued in parallel to the other goals at the very least. It’s not much different to how I see Harmony and ONE itself, which could substitute for rONE here of course. But the situation is such that we use rONE as a tool to invest what is meant to be a small part of future value of ONE to increase the total amount of overall value by applying it strategically in ways that maximize growth.

So we use it to incentivize growth now, and as we grow the value increases, giving us more resources to continue strategically deploy them to further growth and also meet our defi and repegging objectives. This is the basic flywheel that works.

But as it is now, governance and funding seems to be entirely dependent on generating the funding through the asset burning and minting of rONE. That’s a fine way to do it and could end up doing a lot of the work and possibly all of it, but if it’s the only way to mint rONE and the only flexibility is 2.5%/2.5% as it’s minted then the worst case scenario could be a too conservative approach that doesn’t incentivize enough minting of rONE. And I’m all for the conservative approach and trying to spend as little as possible to hit our goals, thus ideas like the curve to maximize efficiency in those areas. But I think we need to have something like a separate buffer of rONE that gets minted when the contract is deployed to some safe place like the treasury.

If it’s a one time shot with deploying the rONE contract then a fairly large amount as insurance that would specifically be meant for incentives for other initiatives in pursuit of of both growth and the repeg would make sense. ONE itself from the treasury too also should be used in a very limited manner when it makes sense to do so(like it does now for this early exit), and perhaps there can be discussions about the team doing ONE/rONE swaps at times when that liquid ONE is going to add its own value to the repeg but give the team the treasury replenishment in the long term as well.

The rONE(like any extra rONE) can be burned when not used, and burn events are a great marketing opportunity as well. Could be any method of minting it somewhere that just gives the option to pursue reasonable uses of it if necessary, can be a multisig with the team plus rONE members plus validators plus whoever, it has to be safe and that’s why my default was the treasury but this part is not particularly important to me as long as it’s safe. Even a function in the contract that burns ONE and mints rONE could actually be good idea as crazy as that may sound, but the way I’m picturing it here is if hard fork minted ONE can just be sent there to mint/burn ONE into rONE to apply it to the repeg as additional incentives if needed, that could be useful rather than never having that option again(this is more extreme but options are important).

The cases when we’d need to leverage it should be obvious enough if they come up in pursuit of the repeg, but we’re also exclusively focusing so far on this very early stage part of the plan without talking too much so far about longer term strategies(intentionally so far, at least in my case since I just want to get this going but also has to be dynamic enough to really be able to incentivize growth).

Engagement is low now and we need to change that. Some users will leave, but it will be worthwhile to retain them and incentivize that. Users on other chains who don’t use Harmony will need to be introduced to it and what we’re building. And we have a tool that will allow us to minimize market pressure now but still offer unique incentives to pursue growth and our goals. The worst case I can think of is just that everyone is thinking in bear market fear based terms and we’re so skeptical and thinking of previous bad experiences that we don’t really get a chance to use such a unique situation and asset to its potential. If the issues are accountability and large amounts that do not get effectively used, then these are the problems that we need to solve. Transparency, quantifiable metrics, incremental goals are a requirement from my point of view. But the key is to combine that with a way to allow flexibility and not limit the potential by only relying on a linear set of conditional goals where if one fails the potential is locked when pivoting may be necessary.


We have no time for these conspiracy theories. I have no affiliation with @MaewouOne or any lawsuits or the core team (which is seemingly just Stephen at this point, someone I have never even met or spoken too). You seem really threatened by any dissenting opinion, and for that, I urge you to bring it on. I am a community member and affected user and won’t be silenced or threatened, Mr. Feet.

If the Recovery One proposal cannot stand on its merits, it cannot stand at all. Now on to those merits.

That’s all this has become. Figure out how many ways you guys can figure out how to give people as little as possible unless they stay locked in for 3 years. That’s the whole reason its so unpopular. Even more unpopular then merely printing 2.5B tokens. This is what’s adding insult to injury. That everything Recovery One has come up with is somehow going to its “ecosystem partnerships” and the victim’s deal is getting worse and worse. They’re even trying to take the proceeds from selling the apes for themselves and their partners, not the victims.

You guys are wasting so much time making the most complicated interconnected proposal anyone has ever seen and in the process have not spent the required time to mitigate the risks I’ve outlined. There are so many complications and you continue to layer them on over and over again so Recovery One can figure out how to get this 5% cut. Its obvious that’s all that matters and the only difference between Stephen’s and this. Making this as complicated as possible and none of these complications benefit victims, just everyone else. You refuse to consider the downside risk in a macro apocalypse. Again, Recovery One has conflicts of interest. What does it say that they would sell the BAYC NFTs for “ecosystem partners” showing the real agenda behind the Recovery One plan? They are not working on behalf of the victims. Victim’s are being forced into this and either take virtually nothing or hang on for 3 years and take all the risk to support all the other bloat.

You are talking about a massive haircut here. Only 30% of the parity value is paid in rONE. So $1,000 lost receives $300 in rONE (at a price no one has been able to explain). Once they go and early redeem this, they get 50% of this number (50% of $300). This is only $150 redeemed. Is the math correct? So that is not a 50% parity redemption. It is 15% parity if you rage quit in the first month. Unless they also get the 50% of the locked ONE? These mechanics are yet to be explained. If you rage quit after the first month for 33% parity, that’s only $100 and 10% parity. Why is it so hard for them to confirm these numbers? If my math is incorrect, where is it so?

They are asking for 5% of the total amount of ONE inflated for a “management fee” of 125M ONE. Most of this is for grants, coin launches, liquidity, unexplained governance, and other unaccountable allocations. No one should be taking a management fee off the victim’s compensation. Period.

You guys seem to think that if rONE just launches everything is going to go away but if it fails or people had misunderstandings and get an extremely low amount or have to hold until unlock this isn’t going to go away. It will only go away if people are satisfied and didn’t feel like they got screwed over. Throwing a few million dollars at a few projects isn’t going to do what you think if users are disgruntled from this.

You guys are reinventing the wheel. ONE is flexible. ONE should be incentivized with everything Harmony has left. Give people as much as possible under the original proposal and do not allow these vultures to profit off it at our expense.

Eliminate the bloat from Recovery One and put every last drop behind Stephen’s original proposal. @stse this is what’s fair. It won’t be 100% but with the Treasury funds they are asking for themselves and their partners, your original proposal can be improved. If a few other options are added - all community proposals not included here like BAYC sales to the victims not Recovery One “partners” - the first plan can reach a point where people are happy and rally behind ONE token which will increase everyone’s piece of the pie - validators, projects, stakers, hodlers, treasury cash impact, and so on. Its the clearest path to success here and that includes saving the ecosystem.


I go by Sr. Bigfeet. But whats funny & probably more sad is Harmony abandoned everything. They disowned the recovery. They destroyed trust with take it or leave it playground tactics. So sad.

1 Like

I disagree. This ultimately was the same as Stephen’s proposal of printing 2.5B tokens with 5% diverted to something that it shouldn’t go too. With a 33% early redemption of only 10% parity value, under Stephen’s proposal it would only take a few months to receive that in ONE distributions without forfeiting a single token.

Put that $5m from the Treasury and the apes towards the first plan and the recovery will flourish just fine. Get back to building. People will have the chance to stake their ONE and capture any upside in the meantime. People will receive at a lower ONE price and can already put it to work in DeFi. There’s no reason to abstract what’s already in place to this level under the disguise of saving DeFi.

Stephen’s proposal still wipes out the supplier balance of Tranquil and AAVE (even though AAVE should bear some of this cost since they did not quickly freeze borrowing like Tranquil did).

1 Like

I mean that’s part of the reason I didn’t suggest it until now. As I’m mindful of the impact and try to balance the two sides. But keep in mind the context here:

You were complaining last thread about how rONE can potentially give up or leak a fair amount of value, and I tend to agree somewhat and if that is a concern there are solutions. But I’m fine with the proposal as is too. If $3m in ONE goes into the redemption contract and is locked until redeemed, but little of it gets redeemed with the early exit, but the same contract handles the partial redemption after three months then that’s fine too. But that’s $3m in ONE that could have potentially burned some more assets, even if just buying them and burning them at a chosen value to a point. But I do value the simple approach as well for this particular strategy, especially as it is early.

Nothing about what I suggested makes anything worse for anyone relative to what is proposed. It’s additive to what is already proposed and completely optional. It’s not offering any less to anyone as it retains the current proposal and things have been getting better. We were discussing 22% and it was like $2m ONE before or something along those lines?

Context here is important again. There was a plan suggested by other community members before who are not part of rONE anymore than you or I am, and it turned out as part of their proposal they wanted one ape. I assume that’s what this is referring to. Does that mean it’s the best plan for the apes? In my opinion it’s not and those have much more potential as part of a NFT focused growth strategy off chain to raise funds towards the repeg and where we can use the apes alongside some other Harmony native NFTs to create incentives for people to come here. It’s the type of thing we need flexibility for given the potential but also not an immediate concern.

I’m not trying to make it complicated. I just want the repeg to succeed and for Harmony to grow. You’re on one end of the spectrum where you essentially don’t want any plan at all, and many other people see the first phase and think ‘that’s it? that’s all we can do?’. There are lots of interesting ways to generate value and currently Harmony is in a state where it’s not generating as much as it could. But it will take a lot of effort and work.

It really feels like an impossible place to be in because holding back in describing possibilities for the future means you say some thing like “so Recovery One can figure out how to get this 5% cut. Its obvious that’s all that matters and the only difference between Stephen’s and this.” when in reality the actual point of what I suggest is to be able to have the option to pursue repegging strategies later that involve things that both add value to rONE the token in the literal ‘backing’ sense by being able to acquire some of the native assets we had stolen and possibly earn yield on them while we repeg(and of course real backing even if partial helps the repeg), and incentivize users from other chains to start bridging them to Harmony eventually by giving them a real reason to. Yes, this is more complicated and we should focus on the simple part for now but I want to minimize the risk here by making sure these things will be possible.

Those numbers don’t look right based on how I understand it, and it seems like you’re combining two different options into one. But I can’t give you a definitive answer.

One thing to consider is that you can always just hold the assets and sell them at some point during the repeg process when you’re satisfied with the price if you don’t think burning them for rONE is a good deal for you. What I suggested before should both add far more liquidity to the existing pairs if any gets bought, and also reduce sell pressure and enable a kind of optional price floor that can move. The fact that rONE burning has to compete with the available liquidity once people are over their $1k cap is part of why I want the extra flexibility even though things should even themselves out, because it’s hard to predict exactly how it will go. It should be ok since the early exit is not meant to be the solution, but just a beginning.

Ok, that is a bit different then. I was just going off what I can see with the contract and the diagram which is the minting part where it’s not guaranteed. I like rONE even more now with the linear redemption unlocking(that will give you an option to get whatever amount you want if the price of ONE reaches your target which is better than just relying on the liquidity or three years) and we should be able to use it much more liberally than ONE(which we have to be very mindful of the sell pressure) to acquire assets for backing and as well as new users. So I tend to prefer rONE’s slow release, but I mean obviously ONE works too if that’s what we end up with as a main resource.

You realize though that the team is still overseeing this though, right? Why do you assume everything to be unexplained and unaccountable? Why can’t this be the exact opposite of that? Clearly you see problems in this type of organizing between people, are those not valuable problems to solve then? Is it really that difficult to do so with a transparent ledger and governance smart contracts at the very minimum and possibly even more tools?

Isn’t everything I’m suggesting the opposite of that? I want the most amount of options in case one strategy underperforms and we need to adjust or pivot. I don’t want users to be disgruntled at all and if I’m the one sitting here all day worrying about the fact that I see individual users who are confused, or questioning something, or want to leave. Retaining and reengaging users and getting them excited about Harmony again is the most important thing here. That’s why a lot of real work has to be done, and primarily on growth.

That’s not much different than what I’m suggesting really with ONE being incentivized with everything Harmony has left. Except I like the idea behind using the extended release version of ONE and while liquid ONE is fine and suits many purposes, the idea is to do as you say and rally everything around ONE but with a longer term vision. This first part of this plan is simple. But also to others it seems too simple if they don’t understand that it’s a base from which the community, and those are who the “partners” are can work with to fill in all the gaps and cracks in the foundation and start growing again.


Remove this. Absolutely hate the idea of a “launchpad”.

It sounds like “pork”, pure wasteful spending. Any and all available funds should go towards recovery. This is not a dapp launchpad. This is a recovery plan.

I repeat: Remove this junk from the proposal. It makes R1 look less legitimate and more like some scam project.

Also, your google doc for the launchpad “does not exist”. The link didn’t post properly to the Talk forum.

1 Like


Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist.

Make sure that you have the correct URL and that the file exists.

Why are they assuming the value of ONE is 0.0264? Will this be updated when the contracts are released or be live through a chainlink feed?