Michele_Harmonic
Badges (7)
Michele_Harmonic is an active Cardano DRep, registered in epoch 509. They hold 1.6M ₳ of delegated voting power, about 0.03% of the active stake. Michele_Harmonic has cast 38 on-chain governance votes (31 yes, 5 no, 2 abstain). Since registering, they have taken part in 35 of 136 decided actions (26%). They have published 7 rationales explaining their votes.
Payment address: addr1q9mh...9qgnr0h0
On-chain data as of 4d ago.
Forum activity (0)
No forum posts yet.
Voting stats
- Yes31 (82%)
- No5 (13%)
- Abstain2 (5%)
Voting history (38)
YesBlockfrost's transformation to not-for-profitRationaleActive18d ago
for the memes
Show 33 moreShow less
NoUpdate Plutus Cost ModelsEpoch 638RationaleEnacted2mo ago
The proposed changes should be proposed under Plutus V4 instead of as an extension of Plutus V3, according to CIP-35 (https://cips.cardano.org/cip/CIP-0035), as they include not backwards-compatible changes.
Additionally, even if all the changes were backwards compatible, extending the set of builtins tends to break all downstream tx builders (classic PPViewHashesDontMatch). This practice should be abolished in favour of upgrading the Plutus version when new builtins are added.
YesThe first node in the browser; a Cardano USPEpoch 636RationaleExpired2mo ago
good proposal, would recommend
good proposal, would recommend
YesPebble & Ecosystem maintenance: TypeScript core of CardanoEpoch 635RationaleEnacted2mo ago
good proposal, would recommend
good proposal, would recommend
YesPebble + Gerolamo - HLabs 2026 BudgetEpoch 628RationaleExpired4mo ago
Don't mind me, I'm just collecting my voting reward at https://voting-rewards.harmoniclabs.tech/
YesDingo: a Production-Grade Block Producer in Go by Blink LabsEpoch 625RationaleEnacted4mo ago
Dingo is an incredible value added for the long term reliability of the network.
The choice of independent submission is more than appropriate for a properly decentralized (and not subject to third parties) decision making.
AbstainStablecoin DeFi Liquidity BudgetEpoch 589changed from NoRationaleClosed10mo ago
I'm changing my vote from NO to ABSTAIN.
This is done as a vote of confidence in the goodwill of the committee members, trusting that they recognise the importance of their role and will act in the best interest of the protocol rather than their personal interests.
Additionally, this decision was also influenced by the announcement by CF of their plan to invest an 8-figure amount in the same market.
With this in mind, the context changes considerably,
In the event this proposal does not pass, but CF still invests a considerable amount in the small market, the problem that I was trying to avoid by voting NO would still persist.
In this context, the two entities should be able to balance each other in the event of poor decisions. With this in mind, a YES vote is on the table, but I would need to receive some feedback from the people I'm representing before such a change.
Earlier votes
No10mo agoSuperseded
The proposal lacks any safeguards against the inevitable bias of the committee members, namely, a prohibition for committee members to hold tokens associated with protocols that will inevitably benefit from their decision-making.
I would also strongly discourage a UI on top of the smart contract, as it constitutes an important security issue (see ByBit hack via the Safe wallet UI), I would suggest a local cli tool to be used on an air-gapped machine.
If any of the committee members do not know how to use a cli tool, they are not qualified to manage such liquidity.
I will consider support once these issues are addressed.