[Discussion] Paying contractors by FLOT or another representative upon motion

There are contributors, contractors, who provide services for the Nu network.
Not all are associated with liquidity provision directly.

I want to raise your awareness for a potential issue that’s associated with it:
each NBT grant produces a custodial address that not only receives NBT by protocol, but can be used to broadcast liquidity.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t trust those contributors!
I’m saying the more custodial address that are available and can broadcast liquidity for 6 months, the more likely it’s, that some end up in the hands of not so benevolent people.
Once an evil actor has such an address, he/she can broadcast whatever he/she wants. There’s no way to stop that until the custodial address becomes invalid to broadcast.
The harm is limited, as long as tools like ALix are available. Yet it’s something we should take care of.
And I’m saying we don’t need to care for that issue, if we change our way to pay conractors.

The clean and simple alternative is:
have those contractors create a motion that contains a payment address, let shareholders vote on the hash and once it’s passed, the FLOT (or a representative (can be another group) that is yet to be eclected) transfers the NBT.
The obvious drawback for the contractor is, that the funds don’t get paid by protocol. If FLOT would fail to transfer them for whatever reason (only important for backpay), an amendment should be in each contract that explicitly allows the contractor to demand a custodial grant to be passed by shareholders.
Make motions and not grants the standard way to pay contributors!


Maybe we should separate out liquidity grants from normal custodial grants? Not sure if that is possible, but also moving payouts for all the contractors in the network to FLOT is a bridge too far for me.