It is very important to develop the ecosystem around HOPR. So that it is widely used and used by as many projects and people as possible. I hope the new organization will help in this. And we, i.e. community will try to help in this.
Interesting enough discussions, but many of the legal aspects that are discussed here may seem quite complicated to ordinary users of HOPR products, as well as members of the community. And as you know, complex and intricate schemes often repel token holders, as well as new users.
In this regard, I think many of us would like to see some kind of simple roadmap, which would clearly spell out the main functions and tasks of each of the entities: HOPR Association, HOPR DAO, HOPR rise holding AG, HOPR Community Trust. Perhaps I already forgot something?
It’s just that as a token holder I already have questions, where am I in this chain and how can I influence any changes related to the HOPR project in the future?
But I’ll say right away that I like that HOPR is moving forward and continues to develop actively, while complying with the necessary legal standards …
1 Like
Is there already public information about what new HOPR-based products are planned to be financed by HOPR Rise Holding AG in the future?
I do not have alot of time to deep dive this proposal, ATM. I can invest more time in a few days (after the vote unfortunately). Would be nice to get more of a heads up.
I noticed people talking about the arrangement with Arrakis and Hats Finance ending early. Is that correct? I feel I should bring up this message that I posted back then…(
Split proposal specifics: What trial length? - #20 by Emmerson_Biggins) This message never got any response or acknowledgement prior to pushing that proposal through, which seems to be a trend.
The community investment appears to be limited to 10 to 24 percent ownership. Would a similar limitation be enforced on any other investor / VC?
Will this vote be the one and only vote that determines if community funds are put towards HOPR Rise?
Of course, would like to get more information, but as far as I understand, the experiment with Arrakis was not entirely successful?
Hey. I think there’s some confusion over the Arrakis and Hats proposals. Both were delayed due to longer than expected set up times and security checks (we weren’t prepared to commit funds if the deployed code differed from the audited code in any way, no matter how minor, so there was some back and forth to determine that both projects were indeed fully audited).
However, both are now set up and funded. The Arrakis trial will run for six months from deployment date. The Hats vault will run indefinitely.
Gamma checks are still ongoing but will hopefully be resolved soon. Things were more complicated there.
This clause is not designed to limit the community investment but to prevent dilution of their position. i.e., it sets boundaries on valid valuations for the HOPR rise holding company. My understanding is that this is a standard protection for both parties in this kind of deal.
I’m not directly involved in investment discussions, but from my perspective as steward of the governance system there’s nothing preventing future votes on this topic
The support from the community is overwhealming so far. Good to see that almost everyone is in the same boat!
I liked what i read. it sounds like a great opportunity for HOPR holders. I ll vote yes for sure!
Could you maybe share a breakdown of how you intend to use the money and how long your initial investment round should give keep you running? why do you need hopr tokens on top of the DAI and will they be vested similar to team token?
I will definitely vote positively, I think that this proposal will be of great benefit in the development of RPCh and web3 in general.
I am very glad that HOPR is moving forward. I’m not sure that I understood everything, because it is written quite complicated. There is certainly a need to disseminate HOPR as widely as possible. Only a working product can be profitable and used by end users. We need to reach out to the big market players.
Thank for the info.
1 Like
very good!
Thanks for the response. The concern was about preventing any one party from owning more than 50% and having majority voting power on every decision.
Well, this is kind discussible thing. To me, the most important thing is to continue active development instead of focusing on stuff list this. It’s been a while since we had significant progress in the platform development.
Sounds good to me…