Reimbursement Proposal [Horizon Incident]

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

Repegging

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?

17 Likes