Discussion : A bounty-program manager custodian (?)

Since the idea have been bouncing around for a bit, with this thread I would like to kick off a discussion among the community: this is not a grant proposal.

tl;dr : What do you think about committing a certain amount of funds to the creation and initial funding of a bounty-like program for nu-related projects ?

I’m interested in hearing the shareholders and community opinion on the matter. The Nu networks is young and need resources to grow its infrastructure.

Here is why I think we need a sort of bounty program :

Problem Rationale

When building something new, it is very important to focus on making a solid infrastructure to rely on. Without the infrastructural tools and protocol, innovation is hindered. This is especially true in the crypto-currency domain, where the smallest protocol flaws can lead to disasters. The nu network is now in its very early days and as such, the core-development activities should be the main focus of the nu team.

However, with new functionalities added on daily basis, NuNet enables an always growing array of possibilities. It is very hard - if not impossible - for the core-team to explore new territories while focusing on the critical day-to-day activities. With a growing code-base and user-base to maintain and improve, the needs also increase drastically : keeping documentation up-to-date, building apps, tools, plugins, websites, marketing, support, campaigns, communication and recruitment, to mention a few, are only some the challenges that NuNet will face when growing.

To remain competitive in the crypto-currency space, we must deliver excellent solutions in the whole spectrum. The scarce and critical amount of resources that the core-team can provide, is simply not enough to fulfil all the pressing necessity that it takes to scale up the network in a healthy way.

I would like to find a way to provide network participant with a possible solution to the above problems. The creation and the initial funding of an open bounty program for (small-ish) Nu-related projects.

Why a bounty program

If done properly a bounty program - and in wider terms an open crowd-funding platform - can have multiple beneficial effects on the network. Bounties, that comes in the form of economic incentives to tackle and fix a wide spectrum of problems, can be an extremely useful mean for :

  • speeding up development by freeing core team’s time
  • funding projects quickly
  • explore uncharted territories
  • keep track of ongoing open projects
  • prioritise most important projects by funding them
  • outsourcing resources
  • attracting smart individuals or groups
  • generating interest and competition around NuNet
  • creating a self-sustaining and meritocratic eco-system
  • building community around the network
  • putting NuBits in circulation
  • foster development of NuNetwork

A Meta custodian

A bounty manager custodian(s) role will somehow overlap with the role of the so called purpose-specific custodians . However, especially in the first stages of Nu growth, shareholders cannot afford the luxury of going through the whole custodian election process for each and every project that requires funding. Background checks on the custodians, proposal analysis, discussion, vote casts, fund release, fund management. A custodian grant for each small project is not a viable option. Can you imagine having to vote for things such as : ‘20 NBT for the best blog post on how the nunet function’ , or ‘15 NBT for each merchant convinced to accept NBT’ ? It will be a tracability nightmare for shareholders.

Having a bounty program - with some shareholders fully committed to its success - will free up the need of creating several small custodial grants for each small projects, fostering the effectiveness of the decision process.

Some random examples of bounties

The list below is more a stream of consciousness , so please forgive the random numbers and silly ideas. It is just to grasp a sense of it.

  • 10000 nubits for a kickstarter-like platform that works with nubits
  • “20 nubits for waring a nunet t-shirt at public event xyw”
  • “150 nubits for a plugin to identify custodial grants in this forum”
  • “150 nubits for a plugin to authenticate via Bitmessage on this forum”
  • "400 nubits for a twitter tipping application "
  • “200 nubits for a tipping plugin for this forum”
  • “400 nubits for writing an eBook about Nu”
  • “300 nubits for curating and maintaining a Nu wiki platform”
  • “15 nubits for each merchant convinced to accept NBT on their online shop”
  • “5000 nubits for porting trezor to nubits”
  • “2000 to implement a proof-of-park baked spam prevention API”
  • “300 nubits for a vanity address generator for nubits”
  • “30 nubits for a blog post about nubits”
  • “5000 nubits for porting bitmessage to nubits”
  • “15000 nubits for porting lighthouse to nubits”
  • “30 nubits for each article that explains nubits to newbies”
  • “100 nubits for a youtube video that explains Nu net”
  • “1000 nubits for security bugs found in the protocol”
  • “30000 nubits for a p2p echange of nubits”
  • “10 nubits for each merchant you convice to accept nubits”
  • “100 nubits to write a woocommerce integration for nubits payments”
  • “9999 nubits for organizing a nubits conference”
  • “300 nubits for organizing a nubits-workshop for minimum 20 people”
  • “900 nubits for a mobile app to track shareholders motions”
  • " you name it"

All of the above bounties can be funded by voting a single custodial grant worth ~40k Nubits, a small % of the size of the grants we are currently voting on.

Possible problems

Problems with a bounty program can be more or less categorized in two categories :

  1. Intrinsic problems of bounties (how to assess quality, what if two solutions are presented together … )
  2. A bit of centralisation : the bounty manager(s) will be invested with a great responsibility and shareholders must be ready to delegate such responsibility.

For both nature of problems there are mitigations strategies and possible solution that we can discuss.

Space for a custodial grant

I propose that this kind of custodian needs to be made responsible of :

  • using the custodial grants to partially initate and fund bounties related to the nu-network
  • create and manage a website with the list of open bonties and give the possibilities to shareolders (or just anybody else) to contribute.
  • advertise bounties around the community and pick the best bounties around
  • report weekly to shareholders

My final question is: As shareholders, what are the elements that must be present in a custodial proposal that will make you confident enough to vote for it?

Requirements for the platform, for the funds, for the kind of projects to allow, for the quality assurance policies, for the storage and release of funds…

For example someone will be more comfortable in voting proposal that already contains a list of bounties.

Please, lets work out a solution together and get a power boost of epic dimension :slight_smile:


Lots to digest and comment on, but I appreciate that you took the time to put this together.

Looks like a great idea. I think it may serve well to have at least 2-3 people to serve this role to ensure accountability and allow voting on for quality.

Agreed. Do we have the ability to use 2-of-2 or 2-of-3 multisig in a custodial grant?


Spending coins from a multisig address requires to either load all the keys in the same wallet or use the raw transaction RPC commands.

1 Like

I like the idea of a mandate from the shareholders to get on with a stack of things. But the scope and responsibilities must be very clear. So some voting mechanism should apply on a regular bases e.g. every 3 or 6 months or alternatively running motions (when available) so custodian can see on a daily bases how well they do in the eyes of shareholders (real-time polling). If they move below the 50% threshold they should allow election for another custodian. This process needs to worked out a bit further.

Regarding scope I think we should have larger projects voted for separately. The definition of large is difficult as it is not always the money but also about importance and direction. I think we should learn from the Swiss model. Keeping the lights on (ongoing projects) can be trusted to the custodians, but when new projects occur beyond certain agreed size, a motion should be presented to the stakeholders.

With that you have short term project accountability and longer term confidence votes which enables shareholders to direct without having to vote for every little grant or bounty.

The challenge is in finding the right boundaries.


Just wanted to bump this to see if there were any more opinions. I think this is could be a very powerful and important custodial process in the upcoming months as NuNet progresses.

I am looking deeply into this and will write an update and an official proposal soon.