Hello,
I want to note that I think this proposal is dishonest in its premise and just a resurrection of the previous blame game.
Despite the devaluation, Aave maintained a 1:1 price ratio for these assets post-hack, allowing users to borrow ONE and drain it completely from the protocol.
Like noted and previous post of this type, Aave having 1:1 prices - not only on harmony - is a well known fact and the necessary evil to be remotely usable on smaller chains.
This is not a bug, but a well known design decision by the aave protocol(and others) as otherwise price manipulation would be far too easy.
The lack of immediate action by Aave to adjust pricing variables after the hack exacerbated the issue.
In previous threads where this issue was discussed the image is not so clear in favor of harmony:
- no-one of harmony reached out at all (not on the forum, and according to the forum no even in private chats - ppl learned of the hack via twitter)
- for quite some time, harmony let it seem like they would eventually cover the losses keeping all processes in the air (and making non-reaction the correct reaction as this way the pool would have stayed healthy)
- Harmony who was in control of incentives kept them going for a long time before they eventually pulled them - using exactly 0 WONE to cover any debt (ppl asked were these funds went, but noone ever answered - would be interesting to check, but harmony explorer is hell, so i’ll let this to someone else)
- All these „recovery“ shenanigans in the harmony ecosystem excluded aWONE holders from participating (first from governance, later from recovery)
Create a fund 10% (5,542,000 ONE) from Harmony Recovery ONE and 10% (5,542,000 ONE) from AAVE treasury.
The AAVE Treasury has exactly 0 ONE.
So I assume this would mean the DAO would need to buy ONE on a secondary market pumping the ONE price?
Overall this approach seems weird to me:
By just providing liquidity ppl will be able to exit yes, but you make exactly 0 progress on the recovery.
Why don’t you just liquidate underwater addresses, or repay on behalf of some - like suggested a few times by various people in various threads.
By doing so, in addition to providing liquidity to users you would also receive 1X tokens in return that you could burn. There’s 0 governance needed for that.
—
I highly doubt this proposal will find support by the community:
While this request is for „just 50k“ it does not cover close to the amount needed so in a few weeks another proposal will come.
Betting on the „good will“ of “Harmony” or „recovery ONE“ to do the right thing afterwards is more then naive, given the track record of ignoring the issue for over a year and doing exactly 0 to reimburse users.
The DAO can not be responsible for a bridge hack 
—
For me it’s hard to understand how it’s possible that recovery one - after all this time, managed to not liquidate a single $ and provided exactly 0 liquidity to users. It’s not that hard - one could have started/ still start with a few of the wONE that were pulled from the LM to provide some exit liquidity and see how far things go.
Chaos labs has a quite good dashboard to monitor positions: Chaos Labs
You could just liquidate any of the underwaterpositions with wONE borrows.
Disclosure. This comment reflects my opinion as a community member and does not represent any service provider I am engaged with or have been engaged with in the past