Controversial actions from FLOT

I have recently approved:

I am in favor of the paradigm shift suggested by masterOfDisaster, but it hasn’t been voted for via motion by shareholders.

FLOT NBT recently reached internal consensus to activate a sell-side gateway at HitBTC. Shareholders have previously approved dual-side operations by masterOfDisaster at HitBTC, but this time we also commited to compensate the service at 30 US-NBT per 30 days. I’m now also wondering why not all of FLOT was involved in this decision.

Is this what shareholders desire? May FLOT use discretion to initiate new approaches for peg maintenance? I can see benefits in less bureaucracy, but I believe that isn’t up to me or FLOT to decide for.

There is some discussion about this in [ANN] sell side gateway at Bittrex by masterOfDisaster.

As I am gaining better understanding of Nu’s liquidity situation, I think the paradigm shift makes a lot of sense. The overall idea being that shareholders choose exchanges where Nu will protect the peg (dual-side operations), and in addition to that sell NuBits at other exchanges without peg guarantee in the manner I recently approved (sell-side operations).

I may have overstepped, and wish to clear that up.


Thanks for posting this. I’ve raised my concerns before. I’m ok with FLOT making decisions in emergencies. The latest decisions don’t appear to me as such. If there is a desire to reduce the number of proposals, I suggest to encourage more long term contracts. At some stage we had ALP going into 60-day contracts but this seems to be reversed to 30 days again putting a lot of pressure on the Shareholders and datafeed providers. Just moving that into FLOT is I believe not the way to go.

I share your doubts - one of the reasons I didn’t sign any of those tx and announced that.
I just thought doing it this way makes Nu more agile.
If shareholders don’t agree with that way, they can easily stop that by motion.
If they are fast, it will have cost them 30 NBT to tell FLOT to not do this; I - as a FLOT member - could live with that.


Thought a bit more about it; if FLOT look for a more operational role, maybe it can advertise contracts with 60 or 90 days which are required to hold/sustain the peg. Those contracts can then be managed and paid by FLOT. Just an idea.

I am happy to see FLOT acting as a board of directors than just signing transactions.

That’s another challenge getting tackled by my approach.
I proposed each of the sell side gateway contracts in an almost uniform way with 30 days duration, automatic extension by another 30 days, convenient termination modes (FLOT majority vote, NSR holder motion) and at a dirt cheap fee.
That’s the part I feel I can contribute to a more effective, more efficient, more agile, more flexible, more focussed and cheaper liquidity provision.

I really think Nu has little alternative to push the liquidity provision costs down, but by focussing and pulling back as much as possible from supporting the NBT/BTC pairs dual side while offering sell side only operations at a lot of exchanges (without “NBT price guarantee”, without obligation to keep the peg everywhere).

Focussing on fiat pairs where possible and supporting NBT/BTC dual side only at selected exchanges is the way to go; at least this is my firm belief and I haven’t found a better proposal after I proposed the “paradigm shift” in the liquidity provision scheme.

I think this is just as far outside or within the responsibility of FLOT as engaging in contracts that support the liquidity provision is.
If NSR holders want to see such a role, they might create a motion, define rules, elect members of that group.
If FLOT is asked to support that group in whatever way by NSR holder motion, FLOT will of course follow.

I have more than once done things, which have been in grey areas or even violated contracts.
You might remember early this year when I abused single side gateway funds to create dual side gateways at Poloniex?
If I hadn’t done it that way, I would have broken down completely. I just couldn’t support the peg any longer around the clock.
I was torn apart between doing what I thought necessary and what I was bound to do.
I felt there was no time to do it in another way. Gladly I received a subsequent pardon from NSR holders by having a motion passed to support dual side operations.

I learned a lot from that.
I try to involve NSR holders earlier.
It’s not that I hadn’t explicitly asked them to voice concerns, if they don’t want to have such single side NBT sale gateways.

I think the Bittrex gateway was the first I proposed. That was almost a fortnight ago and no motion to stop that followed.

The gateway at hitBTC was activated 1 week ago:

No motion from NSR holders to stop that.

The Bter gateway might come next.

The NSR holders don’t seem to be troubled enough from that to even start a discussion whether this is good or bad or what should be adjusted, let alone drafting a motion.

The only people that are troubled by that are FLOT members like @jooize, whose pricks of conscience made him write this post or you, who rightfully doubt that’s the best way to go.
I’m sorry for @jooize’s trouble, but at least it demonstrates that it was a very fine choice (no pun intended!) to have him elected as FLOT member!
It might be better to have way more rules, metrics etc. that get refined based on experience over time.
If we want to automate the liquidity provision, there’s no way around that.
And there’s no way around automation if Nu wants to grow.
I just don’t have the energy or time to do it better. I’m sorry.

In a few weeks my liquidity broadcast address will become invalid. I could use another one, which lasts longer, but won’t. The liquidity broadcast address I currently use was granted for reporting sell side gateway liquidity, albeit for a Poloniex only sell side gateway.
I’ll request a new grant for 1 NBT to continue the sell side gateway contracts.
After all, NSR holders will have an easy way to stop this without lifting a finger - they just need to not vote for it…

1 Like

I want to say something about the name of the topic as well.

I don’t see much controversy - neither within FLOT not between FLOT and NSR holders.
It’s primarily you and @Cybnate, who are troubled by it.

While it speaks volumes of your integrity, it also shows that this topic doesn’t nudge NSR holders enough to become active.

A devil’s advocate could ask why you complain if NSR holders don’t :wink:

We could and should have more bureaucracy around all this, but maybe it’s ok at the moment the way it is.
We will improve it over time.
NuLaw will offer a framework for that.

Lack of universal consensus is controversy. For every 1 or 2 speaking out there are others hanging back in the wings.

I have a hard time dealing with this supposed controversy.
Why not making this public?
Is this only slightly controversial or is a majority of NSR holders (weighted by shares) against what’s happening?
I can’t believe that a majority stays silent.
Where are the better alternatives?

How do you interpret my gateways (that can be activated by FLOT) in the light of:

It’s good that @jooize brought this up. This action just further validated that the FLOT is judicious in making the call in new situations. By and large, these days only three groups seem to care about liquidity: the FLOT (10 members), liquidity pool and gateway operators (8-9?), and data feed providers (3, who happen to also belong to the previous two groups). If the FLOT has a majority opinion, it probably represents what most shareholders think. (I do wonder how many shares the above three group own and if they are just a vocal minority compared to those who don’t usual speak)

1 Like

Data feed providers have de-facto veto power over many motions, so to some extent there’s a probable majority opinion against some recent FLOT actions. FLOT should refrain from further action that might attract complaint while this is being sorted out.

I don’t think one motion per operation is going to be very feasible. We need a protocol of making sure things are done well without too much explicit shareholder intervention, and let shareholders remain faithful in our integrity.

For example, some basic requirements along the line that FLOT decisions and currently funded operations are documented and properly announced. Then a running minority vote (like 20%) is sufficient to pause further commitment to controversial operations for a certain number of days. Then, for example, once we get 40% of opposing votes, the operations should be stopped until a motion supporting said operations is passed.

This can be drafted to put up for voting, while in the meantime can be adopted by FLOT in practice.


I can only speak for myself if I talk about how I’m trying to improve things and make them easier.
I’ve thought about that before I even started proposing contract after contract.
But I wasn’t sure whether I can offer NuBot sell side gateways at each exchange for the same conditions when I felt need for them. You might acknowledge that 30 NBT per 30 days doesn’t buy many hours of operation.

Maybe I’m already in the position when I propose for a new NBT grant to broadcast liquidity for the gateways.
I hope I can unify all the contracts into one grant and treat each additional exchange that might come to the list as an amendment of that contract.
At least that’s my plan.

I hope to create a kind of standard for operating gateways as I think the current distribution of operators and funds they manage is less than optimal.
At the moment I’m still testing the waters.


I hear you, and the HitBTC gateway + 30NBT aren’t really controversial per se, just that a better way to draw consensus is needed. The fact that @jooize who also voted for the activation speaks out about this shall be a good indicator that FLOT won’t go too wrong for the time being. I’d say most of us have you back and I hope there’s a way that the bureaucratic burden can be distributed.
It gets more important that some decisions need to involve an actual majority of FLOT, rather than just 3 out of 5. Next time we’ll ping more members, for a start.

1 Like

I’m happy about this discussion.
And I’m still confused why so few people chime in.

Where are the NSR holders?
Maybe they find ok, what FLOT does, but don’t think it’s necessary to voice that formally in a motion?
Maybe they find it not ok, but just not to the degree that motivates them to start a discussion or draft a motion?
If I don’t find an explicit expression of the NSR holders’ opinion (motion!) I tend to believe we are on the right way.
It’s just to easy to tell otherwise.

Oh, I could create such a motion myself.
I could say I’m too lazy to create such a motion, but the truth (at least my truth) is, I’m busy with improving the liquidity provision :wink:
…and sometimes opt-out is more convenient for somebody who wants to change things :wink:

I’m very glad to find people like you all in the FLOT. It makes me confident that very good people proposed for a position and got elected.

Discussing such things amongst all FLOT members might help evaluating pros and cons, but ultimately the decision is in the hands of the responsible group - the members achieve consensus for one side or the other.
The bar for activating my gateways is high; activating one of my sell side gateways doesn’t need 3 of 5, but 3 of 4 FLOT NBT group members instead.
I did not and will not (provably on blockchain!) sign the tx that deposits the funds, which activate the gateway.