Having this vector will drain any liquidity in liquidity pools or the redemption exit liquidity there no matter what the rONE price is because there is arbitrage on both sides (unless they can correct me on the assumption that the 33% redemption window also is limited to snapshot holders only).
There’s many aspects of this, including this point here where I agree that could result in millions being wasted on this endeavor through its sheer complexity and level of assumptions in any interpretation. It increases the risks. Not just to rONE minters, but also any funds allocated to this plan. Have you ever heard of Murphy’s law? If it can go wrong, it will go wrong. These are some flaws to this fusion of redemption liquidity and DeFi liquidity and tying it to the depegged liquidity already out there on the chain in a way that can be exploited.
They may also resoundingly reject that. If you asked them in the context of receiving the compensation in locked ONE only withdrawable in 3 years with a confusing redemption schedule and 5% going to grants, partnerships, launchpads, governance, to the tune of millions v. receiving 1.6% parity a month for 3 years under a modified Stephen’s proposal and incur the same inflation, they may agree. I think people are divided on it but there hasn’t been a ONE snapshot vote over it which would put the issue to bed.
Its a lot easier to keep users you already had retained than bring new ones in. Harmony continues to ignore the users who were already here and loved it. By prolonging this to figure out this Frankenstein, they are mostly all gone now. Harmony always looks for greener pastures only to find out they had the greenest one.
They should, I agree. It can be turned into a massive marketing ploy and even Flu said this a while back. It was a phenomenal idea. The only place I disagree is that these funds then go to “ecosystem partners” and not as some value add to wallets affected by the hack.
I mean its not bad, but they asked for $500,000 for development + a significant amount to this liquidity hole.
I am only seeing the pathway to this growth differently. First, take care of users who were most affected. Then, rebuild with ecosystem. Then bring in new users. Even giving millions of dollars to projects doesn’t necessarily bring growth. If that were true, giving out grants would have shown growth on Harmony but where is it? We seem to only be on different sides of the spectrum as to the success of something like that.
Thank you for the continued discussion. There is a lot of creativity here. We all come from different places but I think we all want the best reimbursement plan.
Recovery One began with positive community discussions back on 6/27/22 and we started proposing solutions from facts and fundamental assumptions.
First, the bridge incident happened on 6/23/2022.
Second, the assumption that Harmony will recover and the ecosystem would grow in the future.
From the beginning, the Recovery One team has acted in good faith and volunteered our time to help build a positive future for depegged asset holders, the ecosystem partners, and Harmony core. We will continue to do so.
Also, as I read through the discussions above there are a lot of good points that may be included. Conversely, there are also a lot of comments based on different facts and negative assumptions than what Recovery One derived in the beginning. We all know if your frame to analysis has different facts and assumptions there can be negative bias and that negative bias towards anything invalidates objective analysis and creates fallacies in logic chains.
With that point being known, we see this process as a negotiation. The community is negotiating a better reimbursement plan with Harmony. Recovery One built our framework from a snapshot of the Bridge Incident date, 6/23/2022. We had also proposed similar plans with different types of frameworks, one that did not include the rONE token but Harmony counsel advised against that idea.
Let’s continue to work together as a community to receive the best reimbursement plan possible. It is good that Stephen is actively engaged. We still haven’t heard from Harmony regarding their feedback on the Community Proposal.
Mission
The recovery of depegged assets and the strengthening of the Harmony ecosystem through a community-governed action.
Purpose
The structure promotes collaborative action. Committee members 1) create proposals with community input and facilitate discussions and initiate the voting process with its members 2) provide grants to take on problems and build solutions.
Thank you and we will continue to stay focused and press for the best solution for the recovery of depegged assets and the strengthening of the Harmony ecosystem through a community-governed action
Recovery One is happy to share, How to stake depegged tokens for rONE (Explorer method). Logan (Pioneer) has created an instructional video. We will have an easy UI shortly.
Last night was a soft launch. Today we will release an official tweet from Twitter, Recovery One.
How to stake depegged tokens for rONE (Explorer method)
One last thing today, I shared this with Stephen in a Telegram response;
Recovery One and our solution is the community you created reflecting your ideals back to you in positive action to restore the values of the ecosystem. Its an amazing dynamic that you fostered and I’m am here and Quoc and Logan are here to help.
Sorry to interrupt a beautiful Sunday morning, but we are working in the background an couldn’t wait to finally share the instructions on how YOU can stake your depegged 1ASSETs for rONE TODAY! This is a temporary measure that you can reverse to receive your depegged asset. The goal is to gauge the community sentiment towards the R1 proposal and to use that rating in order to determine whether we have an appropriate degree of support from hack victims and asset holders to continue forward with this recovery process, which is outlined above.
Step 1: Read through the instructions to approve the spending of your 1ASSET and to then stake it in exchange for rONE. This is a temporary measure in order to determine the level of commitment from the holders towards the R1 proposal!
Step 2: Next, see our video, in which we walk you through this process step-by-step! (By mid next week we are hoping to have a new frontend deployed to streamline this process! Thanks to
My funds are held in celer cbridge, at the time of the attack my address does not hold depeg assets and they are held in a celer cbridge smart contract, what about this part of our assets?
Due to the mechanism of celer bridge we do not hold any asset token corresponding to it, just the on-chain bookkeeping, how do we handle this part of the asset
@pioneer Can you answer my question above, if you want to exchange depeg assets, the celer cbridge smart contract certainly does not support the operation you mentioned, what should I do?
I will no longer be supporting R1 until they fix their snapshot which systemically disenfranchises and under-reimburses holders of non-stablecoins.
While R1 will peg stablecoin holders to the true (i.e., current) value of stablecoins ($1) - a 1:1 ratio - they will only peg 1WBTC, 1ETH, bscBNB at a fraction of their true (current) value.
For example: R1 who use the June value of 1ETH ($1100) and not the current value (~$1400). Instead of 1ETH holders receiving the same 1:1 ratio like stablecoin holders, they’ll only receive .78:1
This is an unfair implementation. R1 must return the ratio to a full 1:1 like with stablecoins, or perhaps make the ratio for both stablecoins and non-stables something like ~.9:1. Maybe even Harmony can use treasury funds to bridge the gap.
At this time we have communicated to the Celer team what our proposal entails and how they can interact with the contract on their user’s behalf. They may also be entitled to receive additional funding to free up their locked assets, but that is yet to be determined.
Whatever one’s beliefs about this proposal and the outcome of this vote, I think it is worth participating in the vote and thus staking one’s 1Assets.
Even if it costs me to write this and even if it’s to say no, I think this team and the work they’ve done deserves at least our formal vote. Even for a big NO!
Stake your deppeged 1Assets, you can always unstake them later, at any time.
At this point why not just vote yes? You made yourself heard. Probably even had some influence on then going from 22% to 50% which is potentially a lot less efficient for burning and a lot more money back immediately for the average person.
Wouldn’t you rather get something than nothing? You seem to say that you know it will cost you.
The thing that people shouldn’t forget is that the governance doesn’t end here. You can still advocate for quicker payout and such once there is at least something paying out…
And if the overall market gets better for a while and the price goes up, the more it goes up the harder it is to argue against increasing payouts while the price is up.
But if we have no plan and the market improves, then there are no payments to increase. Simple as that really.
Well the Aave issue existed before rONE did and will exist after them if they are unable to continue. It’s one of those issues that kind of need to be solved somehow and even if there is no recovery project something should be done. It’s too bad Aave is not really treating it with the same seriousness given their own lack of action. And the fact that their own protocol relies on oracles for related but different assets, meaning even if that’s the best they could do it’s still also a failure of their own protocol regardless of the ultimate cause.
It would be good if we could have some more concrete examples of what the implication will be for holders when they follow the R1 plan and the price of ONE is below cut off price of 0.0264$.
From the proposal:
rONE will set bridged assets at 66% (parity).
○ Horizon Bridge incident date of 06/23/2022, ONE at .0264.
Initial Exit Redemption
○ rONE can redeem (50% parity) within 30 days of the initial mint date.
■ Capped $1000 (pre-incident valuation) in bridged assets per wallet.
■ Provides holders with small sums to exit early, with a snapshot date
of 06/23/2022.
Assume Wallet A has 1000 USDC, and anticipation of rONE has pushed the market
price for USDC to 0.20 cents (20% of parity). ONE on 6/23/2022 was .0264. The parity
is selected as (66%). Wallet A receives 25,000 rONE (~$660, with rights to receive
25,000 ONE at the end of 3 years while receiving 15% APR rewards).
So am I correct that if somebody had 1000 USDC and chooses the 50% parity rage quit.
This 50% is calculated at ONE = 0.0264$ right?
They will get 18939 RONE? Which they can exchange for 18939 ONE?
Which at current price would be 0.019$ => 359$? Which would mean a 36% recovery of initial funds instead of 50%?
People that choose to hold and after 3 months want to sell at 33% parity.
Again this starts from the assumption that ONE is 0.0264$?
In short, as long ONE is below 0.0264$ the parity is virtual and not a reality?
Basically I think we need more examples of potential scenarios when people will actually exit.
What if ONE price is 0.019$, 0.0264$, 0.030$,… at the different stages where users can exit.
And the impact of this on the exit value vs the initial holdings.
Is there an overview of that somewhere? Would probably help for people to get an idea what the impact of their decision and vote will be on their initial holdings given current market conditions.
This clause is flawed because for DeFi protocols, such as cBridge, AAVE and SushiSwap, when users lock funds in liquidity pools, their individual addresses will not show balances for the corresponding depeg tokens. This is actually the majority of Harmony’s TVL. Celer developer community have reminded Harmony team multiple times that each LP should be treated individually and we have provided a full list of LPs with balances of each LP a few days after the incident. However, it seems that our information provided were not considered at all. Up on seeing this proposal in details, we reached out to Recovery One again trying to correct this error, but no responses have been heard so far. It is not too late to correct this issue for all DeFi protocol users as the redemption process has not begun. This should be corrected for all DeFi protocols’ users on Harmony including cBridge, AAVE, SushiSwap and others.
In addition, we feel that with the contracts and instructions to do staking published just 1 day ago, without an user friendly UI and well written instructions, it is beyond irresponsible to make demand to users such as “You must stake & vote to be part of the reimbursement” and put up voting process in just 4 days. There was also no communication made through Harmony’s official twitter account to raise awareness of such urgent action item to the broader community.
Please correct the above and make sure community involved in Harmony incident are fully aware of this upcoming proposal.
Fully agree. This is going way too fast. I don’t understand why they would want a community vote and not provide a user friendly UI and sufficient time to vote.
Yes, it will set the locked portion at parity of 66% assuming a ONE price of $0.0264. If that price does not maintain for 3 years and at the end of 3 years considering the mass unlock, it would be less USD parity actually received.
For example, at today’s price, the 25,000 locked ONE someone who lost $1,000 would get - socalled 66% parity - is not actually worth $660 in USD terms in today’s price. Its $475 assuming a price of $0.019.
This is closer to Stephen’s claiming 50% parity reimbursement with ONE at $0.02. Even that has downside risk to ONE although it is received starting now - not in 3 years - so in my opinion there is less downside risk. But this month’s distribution if paid under that plan was received at this price, it would also have lost 2.5% of its parity value. 47.5% parity value v. 50% parity value.
The ONE price is central to the actual USD parity received.
This cannot be true. Otherwise its the equivalant of giving everyone the option of taking Stephen’s 50% parity value up front and there would be far more selling pressure added to ONE token.
We simply need to see the numbers on these and I don’t understand how you can have a vote when they won’t/can’t explain how the mechanics work.
And they originally botched the decimals which is concerning given they are asking for 2.5B ONE to be sent to their contracts.
