I won’t be voting for this. Nu’s creditworthiness has been perfect so far and there is no reason to abandon that approach. As a shareholder, granting funds in advance is a bigger risk than paying after services are rendered. As long as NuShareholders continue to honor previous agreements, there is no reason to needlessly increase our risk.
There are reasons.
The first is conceptual: to my knowledge by design and definition a custodian is trusted with NBT (soon NSR available for that as well).
In NuLagoon’s case it’s a payment after a service has been delivered. That’s another reason and is different to all other services Nu authorizes; all get paid in advance.
Or can you show me one grant here that wasn’t in advance?
…maybe there is one.
But NuLagoon is from the beginning treated differently than other services that are based on grants.
I think it’s time to change that.
Nu’s creditworthiness has indeed been perfect so far.
NuLagoon’s service as well.
I see no reason to treat NuLagoon differently from all other liquidity providers.
NuLagoon is as well as the TLLP liquidity providing what keeps Nu going; the only ways to provide liquidity for Nu!
Joining a TLLP is easy, requires little maintenance and people can withdraw their money from providing liquidity at the blink of an eye.
NuLagoon provides Nu due to its design with more constant liquidity providing.
Both ways to provide liquidity are important.
I don’t see why the grants for their service should be treated differently.
Because it was this way from the start doesn’t sound like an explanation to me.
That is also the key reason to me. Drawing one line. But I’m definitely willing to consider to have the other pools retrospectively, although that is a lot more complex with the automatic payouts. Some amount of credit would be required although the custodian could provide that at their own cost for a fee. I suspect that we would loose a few pools though given the amount of credit required.