harmony VS horizon

While declining over time as the project reaches its final stages, the developer activity of Harmony ONE is commendable in spite of recent market conditions, meaning that its developers are dedicated to improving the network rather than being monetarily driven. Currently, there are an average of 5 commits per day.

The perception of inactivity on GitHub for the Harmony Protocol is a misunderstanding. In reality, our team is continuously working on enhancements and updates. To provide some recent statistics, excluding merges, eight authors have pushed two commits to the main branch and 248 commits to all branches within the past month. During this time, 148 files have been modified, with 6,977 additions and 952 deletions. We encourage you to follow the development progress on our GitHub repository and review our Q1 development priorities in the provided Medium article. References: 1. https://medium.com/harmony-one/harmony-protocol-development-priorities-for-q1-27b1c5a22255 2. https://github.com/harmony-one/harmony - Casey

Having spoken to a dev it’s worth watching the Dev branch instead to see active changes happening https://github.com/harmony-one/harmony/tree/dev

Have you seen anyone have issues on their laptop signing into metamask on harmony.one staking? Mobile phone staking through metamask browser works just fine, but I use a laptop quite a bit... I did disable the trust wallet plug-in, and I have the harmony mainet shard 0 in metamask setup...

for one thing I have two addresses, one harmony and the other is a ethereum address. What is fascinating is that I can send ONE to any harmony address only if I use the harmony.one website, however when doing so directly in metamask it has to be the ethereum address.

Sync stuck issues were fixed and caches have been optimized.

Are we looking at the same github repos? Consistent commits to the core protocol https://github.com/harmony-one/harmony/graphs/commit-activity

Agree. I was referring to the current state. Binance being the top holder can only be "fixed" by people using it as a ramp to purchase their ONE (lots of it) and sending them to a wallet and only then choosing a delegator. It will take some motivation and belief in decentralization for that to happen. So we go back to...convenience. How would you pitch the idea that having your coins on harmony.one, is better than keeping them on a CEX? And then pitch the idea that having more validators with a more distributed share is also better for the network? Will it matter to investors with an economist view of crypto or those like Binance for example?

🟡 The Harmony mainnet received a network upgrade to version 4.3.9 in May;

Also seems like there's a focus on the horizon bridge repository https://github.com/harmony-one/horizon/graphs/commit-activity

Some info in the readme here: https://github.com/harmony-one/horizon

Asked about it as well last month, there isn't one yet but it would be nice to have one. It would be a big win both for Polygon and Harmony IMO as transferring through Ethereum costs an arm and a leg. The Ethereum bridge is open-source btw (https://github.com/harmony-one/horizon) in case anyone wants to take a stab at porting it to Polygon.

I just asked about this earlier today myself. Hopefully someone from the team sees this. This is the Ethereum bridge logic btw: https://github.com/harmony-one/horizon

having a way to communicate with other blockchains in a trustless manner (only need to trust the two blockchains that you are connecting), gas-efficient manner (the cost should not exceed more than 1-2 ERC20 transfers) will be key to many future innovations beyond just asset transfers. you guys can track the trustless bridge development work here: https://github.com/harmony-one/horizon. for users utilizing the bridge, it is mostly the cost and an assurance that as long as harmony blockchain is live, the bridged funds are never lost. for developers, the bridge tech itself is versatile and exciting, as everything is on-chain verification.