[Draft] Grant Custodian Fund to NuLagoon in advance (07 Aug to 07 Sep)

Dear Nushareholders,

With the discussion in

, we would like to propose this draft of granting to NuLagoon in advance. We believe granting in advance will benefit both NuLagooners and Nushareholders.

We are looking forward to hearing your suggestions.

Thank you.

NuLagoon manage team

=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Custodial Address: xxxx
Amount Requested: 5000 NBT

NuLagoon will operate from 07 Aug to 07 Sep on both Bitcoinid and Poloniex.

The targeted liquidity over that period will be 47,500 NBT or greater.

The maximun daily custodian fee rate is 0.34%. Any excess fees above 5,000 NBT in one month won’t need to be paid. The manage fee will be custodian fee * 10/34

Custodial funds remaining at the end of the operation will be rolled over to fund the next operation or burned in the case that the operation ceases.

The total amount sought in this grant is 5,000 NBT

Duration: 1 month
Target: 47,500 NBT or greater
Maximun daily Rate: 0.34%
Maximun Monthly Fee: 5,000 NBT
Pool Manage Fee: 1470.6 NBT
Grant for Compensation: 3529.4 NBT
Total Custodial Grant: 5000 NBT

=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=


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.

1 Like

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.

Does it mean that if the pool generates more than 47,500 NBT of liquidity in case it gets more participants than expected, you would not ask for additional fees later on at the end of the operations?

This is the same condition as the network trusted liquidity pools.

Erm, you already had the answer here:

and were replying to it :wink:

Well I wanted ideally a mention of that aspect in the motion or in the the thread that contains the actual motion just to make sure.
Sorry for double checking :smile:

1 Like

is already in the motion - the relevant part for the NSR holders:

The part about reduced compensation needs to be included in the information for people providing NuLagoon with money.

1 Like

I would be fine with such a motion.