Reimbursement Proposal [Horizon Incident]

i agree with your chain of thoughts but when it comes to kicking out Stephen good luck with that !
i too have created some projects in the past , as a founder and core team programmer u grow to love and care for your project like it was your own baby !
asking Stephen to step out is like asking a father to hand over his baby to a stranger and walk away …


This is not a good path to go down if you want to attract people to ONE.
I’m conservative. I buy and hold.
Now the value of my ONE will be diluted because everyone, except me, has made bad decisions or was negligent.
This is not a good precedent to set.
Those who lost money (I’m sorry) took on the risks of messing with defi.
That risk should be worn fully by them and not spread to holders like me.
I feel like there’s a few whales who are throwing their weight around and little guys like me lose out.

The reimbursement should not be done in this inflationary manner.


in such market condition , let’s say you are the VC and you have $500 mil , would you actually put 1/5 th of your networth into sthg like this ?? would you ?? i would not …
why ?? it is too risky and why bother with harmony where the whole market is down , i can diversify into other solid projects like Fantom , Solana , Atom , Matic etc… i can double , triple my money , maybe 10 X less risk compared to 3 years vesting and so on … on a chain that might go to Zero !!

Well, our “project Daddy” has strangled one of the kids, and is now hell bent on throwing the other twin out the window along with the bathwater. Mate, there is so much about this project you don’t know.

Not only that, he is continuing to do so & putting the health of the project into risk to sell NFT’s starting Q3. Good luck with that, but I’m OUT.


there is no plan for a repeg in this proposal


Harmony’s proposal to “save” the blockchain is to…KILL the blockchain?

Am I reading this correctly? Shirley you can’t be serious.

I want to have Harmony core members on here to discuss and defend this proposal. @lij @Givp @rongjian @ganesha @dpagan-harmony @sahil @Jacksteroo @Sam @papi @leo


Affected assets are currently depegged due to DEX arbitrage trading. Harmony has sought out options to bring these assets back to a pegged status. However, we have identified that repegging is not a feasible strategy due to market and treasury conditions.

The team is working on plans to reinstate DeFi on Harmony despite these limitations, and we aim to publish more information on our DeFi strategy in the coming weeks.

Do you actually think there will be a future “defi” on Harmony if you refuse to re-peg the current defi stables/bridged assets? How can any future users have any faith in Harmony to back their assets in the event of another crisis? A crisis that was possibly the fault of Harmony’s (lax?) security measures.

There would be ZERO trust in Harmony in the future if you force this through (there’s already next-to-zero trust).

You said you were discussing options with your defi partners. Your defi partners agreed to this? They thought this was a good idea; the best idea available? It will be a really terrible look for Harmony if/when some of the defi platforms speak out in opposition to this proposal.

I know you - the core Harmony team - realize this is a poor proposal. You are all smart enough to know this is not going to solve anything and that Harmony will be a dead blockchain.

No re-peg = No Harmony.

Option #1

The first option proposed is an estimated 100% reimbursement with a minting of 4.97B ONE, which equates to a 3-year monthly emission of 138M tokens ($2.76M using the token price of $0.020). Minted tokens will be gradually brought into circulation over the 3-year period.

Option #2

The second option proposed is an estimated 50% reimbursement with a minting of 2.48B ONE, which equates to a 3-year monthly emission of 69M ONE tokens ($1.38M using the token price of $0.020). Minted tokens will be gradually brought into circulation over the 3-year period.

The community was lead to believe there would be multiple proposals to discuss and eventually vote on. However, this is one proposal

Members of the community have been discussing how to REDUCE the total supply of ONE. Many believe ONE is already too inflationary.

Now you want to increase total supply by upwards of 40%?

How is that sustainable? How does that not devalue the assets of all of Harmony’s current investors and ONE holders?

Explain yourselves.

6. What is the strategy if validators don’t agree?

  • Given that the validators are aligned with Harmony chain’s growth, we hope they will be easily persuaded that reimbursing the losses will reinstate the trust that is key to Harmony’s success. We encourage communicating with your validator (if applicable) to ensure their decision is made with your thoughts in mind.

In the event of failure to obtain required validator participation, we will resort to “no reimbursement”.

You’re actually threatening to not reimburse anyone at all, on top of refusing to re-peg the bridged assets?

Have you no shame?

You’ve literally lost people tens of millions of dollars. You’ve driven countless users, holders and dApps from your blockchain. But you still have the impudence to treat your community like this?

Also, you - the Harmony team - know governance voting has been impossible since February (as documented in this post). I fear you added this clause knowing full well that: 1) It would not receive community or validator support, 2) It would be impossible to pass given that governance voting isn’t functioning.

This would guarantee you wouldn’t have to reimburse anyone.

Is this entire proposal a disingenuous spectacle?


“In the event of failure to obtain required validator participation, we will resort to “no reimbursement”.”

What is this, a threat? If the validators don’t agree with making the community pay for the core team’s mistake, then that’s it, there is no solution. How arrogant and out of touch do you’d have to be to think threats like this will convince everyone to dilute their own bags. This is just ridiculous.

I don’t know what the solution is but I absolutely know what happens when tokens unlock.


I would’ve also tagged @stse but he doesn’t actually engage with the community. He hasn’t even been on the Talk forum since last November.


For reference, new supply schedule would look like this…


How about this:

  • sell all apes
  • consolidate treasury
  • repeg ALL assets
  • rebuild trust and bridge
  • move forward stronger

Will require sacrifice on part of the core team, but is it really sacrifice if the problem came from your negligence anyways?


Pretty shocked we waited this long for these options.

There has to be another way. I am not supportive of either of these solutions and…

In the event of failure to obtain required validator participation, we will resort to “no reimbursement”

This is unacceptable. No transparency leading up to this. “Radical transparency” huh? Pretty sad to see the team resorting to this after all the work the community put into this chain. This project is nothing without the community and this proposal is slap in the face to the community.

Please be real. There are other solutions.


Have you heard of the Judgment of Solomon?

If the baby is going to be split in half, the sane, logical, loving, responsible parent offers to give the baby up in order to spare its life. The other “parent” does not make that concession.

Which one is Tse?


Speaking to some of the Harmony core team, I was informed this proposal was decided by Stephen and Li only. All other proposals were rejected.



I think scrap both ideas, repeg a new token and move on. NO ONE gets compensated. It is what it is.

1 Like

new token will be Harmony TWO, lol


Rename the blockchain, create a burning mechanism, reimburse the people 100%

Blockchains always moon when they are renamed!!!

wow “brilliant”, if the validators were not on board, it is “their” fault for not compensating people who made losses in their bridged assets.


Please have the members speak up on their own, not through a messenger. At this point, I have no idea why none of the core team members dare to speak up against the duo.


@lij @stse I appreciate the care, thought, and planning that went into making this proposal… so it grieves me to say this but the proposal is extremely disappointing, very insulting, arrogant, cowardly, tone deaf, and entitled. Minting and distributing over 3 years? This is what everyone has been waiting for? Seriously, no buy in or responsibility taken from the foundation treasury? Proposal is posted by a generic faceless account made 10 hours ago? Where are all of the other options presented by your team that you rejected? Why were they rejected, and why can’t the community vote on those options also? If validators choose to not accept these options, “we will resort to no reimbursement” … that’s how you choose to end a proposal to the Harmony community, the so-called “critical component” to Harmony’s success?