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?
