This was one of the misleading aspects I discovered. It was so they could call it 66% parity when it amounted to no more ONE than Stephen’s. 50% parity value if ONE is $0.02 is the same amount of ONE as 66% parity value if ONE is $0.0264.
No because they asked for it in the tranquil grant from Harmony. It was coming out of the Treasury or inflation funds.
You are confused. I am saying leakage that will go to unaffected wallets who were not hacked but can buy depegged assets, mint rONE and then swap for ONE in the liquidity pool taking away value from hack victims. These same traders can buy rONE at a discount after a price shock and redeem it for 33% (unless this is also subject to the snapshot)? If there are these kinds of holes in the plan, the exit liquidity will not be enough. Then we are stuck and there is no redemption unless more liquidity is pumped in but the same flaws exist.
I am asking them to confirm that this is correct or incorrect. If they can’t confirm it, then why would I assume its incorrect?
$3M is probably not going to be enough. If you add in the fact that again, unaffected wallets can buy rONE if the price does drop due to arbitrage and then redeem it for 33% after the first window, this $3M will again leak some to unaffected wallets and run out. What happens then if there is not enough exit liquidity?
Until Recovery One put out the same exact inflation that was decried.
I have never once suggested more from the Treasury - just the same amount Recovery One was asking for.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it the best reimbursement proposal.
Its not my job to provide the numbers for them. They ignore it so what assumption should I use?
I am not hating on them, just don’t see why they needed to turn this into their grant application. They were going to get all the supplier debt wiped out under Stephen’s proposal. Why do they need $1m for their own development on top of it?