Thank you @mhps for joining this important discussion and for sharing your great ideas!
I very much like to see this develop into a direction that helps mitigating risks that are inherent with using the current custodian model.
For those who just want a brief overview, there’s a tl:dr section
I still see some “centralization” by having one NuBot that controls the tx-IDs and by that the cash-flow.
This would put the NuBot in the focus of attacks (more than it currently is; attacking custodians would be more simple).
Even if the NuBot could be considered an attackable entity it would provide some benefits to go this way:
- the custodian (human being) that currently needs to be considered a point of attack would no longer be needed that urgently (or at all!)
- the custodians would be assisted by the new NuBot and there would be lesser need to trust people with a huge grant
- by avoiding fiat transactions and utilizing crypto coin/asset transactions the NuBot could automatically verify the transaction to unlock the NBT
- especially payment with PPC could be nice to create a stock of PPC for dividend payments (while other crypto thingies should be avoided because of the volatility…)
might not be that big problem because the NuBot is already capable of determining rates to maintain the non-NBT/USD trading pairs.
There could be an option for not placing the bought NBT in a wall but having them sent directly to an address of the buyer. Because the buyer then needs to sell the NBT him/herself, an appropriate charge would be a appropriate (sounds a little bit like custodian job, right?).
I try to sum it up in my words. Maybe I didn’t understand it right and write nonsense here
Using the NuBot for automating the distribution of NBT (directly by the NuBot!) would ease maintaining the (sell) walls and by “buying NBT directly from the NuBot” it would be like going to an exchange office to trade whatever (PPC preferred!) for NBT.
The shareholders wouldn’t be needed to distribute the NBT (by custodian grant). They would decide (vote!) on the amount of NBT to be made available for the NuBot (similar to now where shareholders vote for custodian grants). So there would be times where this “exchange office” would have no NBT to trade…
A requirement for that would be a NuBot function that can’t be attacked/abused easily. I’m not comfortable with that single point of failure. I like automation but I’m aware that things can go horribly wrong if the AI of the NuBot is confronted with situation for what it’s not prepared…
A NuBotNet (multiple NuBots that use multisig tx to secure the funds even if single NuBots are compromised?) would make me feel much more comfortable at least in terms of DDOS prevention and successful single NuBot attacks.
The hardening of the NuBot and ensuring that the NuBot can’t be “robbed” are technical issues which I can’t properly assess. But I fear that this might be a problem that can’t be mitigated easy if ever.
This sounds technically very complicated and I bet there are a lot of flaws. But at least it sounds like a way to cancel out some trust and centralization aspects.