I would agree, but on the other hand it is a little bit difficult for non-FLOT members to evaluate FLOT’s performance!
I think it is more easy for FLOT members to evaluate each other.
Their work is only to sign transactions or to work in the background in something we cannot be aware of?
The only criterion that can objectively measured is the “reaction time” between creation of a (valid) request to transfer coins and signing it (or explaining why it can’t/shouldn’t be signed).
For most FLOT members that’s 36 hours and I’m not aware of a single occasion where it took more than a few hours to get requests signed.
If NSR holders are not satisfied with other actions of FLOT members, that can be a reason to remove them from their position by motion.
But not paying the operating fee in this case is no option!
2 Likes
Then it is better to have one grant for all FLOT members in order to avoid the voting workload? 
1 Like
This is just my opinion.
There’s no reason to act according to it.
For the sake of simplicity (and because I consider only a proven violation of terms to be a reason to not pay the FLOT operator fee) I’d vote for a payment of FLOT member fees by FLOT itself (from T4 funds) and address any concerns about FLOT member behaviour through motion.
This is rather an “opt-out” than an “opt-in” scheme and it would help focussing on the improvement of FLOT operations rather than waste time with discussing payments.
If NSR holders want more rules than mainly a reaction time to measure the activities of FLOT members, a rule set based on SMART criteria needs to be developed.
I wrote a lot about it. I don’t intend to derail this thread by going into greater detail here.
1 Like
I like distributed governance but am not a big fan of too much bureaucratic burden at this state. I do prefer to assume FLOT members should be paid every time until shareholders vote otherwise, without even needing a separate custodial grant.
3 Likes
I think it is fair to say that every FLOT member behaved as it was specified in each motion.
I am fine with making a single NBT grant, at an address controlled by one FLOT member and ask this FLOT member to distribute the rewards to each member
- dysconnect : 435 NBT
- cryptog: 366 NBT
- jooize: 435 NBT
- mhps: 435 NBT
- dhume: 435 NBT
- woodstockmerkle: 435 NBT
- masterOfDisaster: 435 NBT
- ttutdxh: 435 NBT
TOTAL: 3411 NBT
2 Likes
I’m much happier with it being the NBT multisig rather than a single custodian.
1 Like
If it is not that troublesome to issue new nubits in a multi sig FLOT address, I would prefer that over a single sig of course. I do not think we should grab nubits from the FLOT reserves though.
Why not? I tried to come up with some solid arguments for or against it but I can’t really think of anything damning one way or the other. On the one hand, using a single address is very convenient financially because then we only have to count that one address when doing buyback calculations each week. On the other hand, using two addresses to keep it separated has a lot of political appeal. In the end though, the convenience of using the address already in place is very tempting to me. What’s your argument against?
T4 funds are by design not limited to support the peg:
There’s no reason to make things more complicated than necessary.
I won’t actively support anything but paying the FLOT members from T4 funds directly unless somebody can explain why this is a bad idea.
1 Like
I am ok either way. Paying the FLOT by the FLOT seems a bit odd but voting for 8 grants is a bit too much, and very unscaleable.
In either case FLOT members should post addresses where they wish to receive funds.
1 Like
I prefer a single motion/grant where shareholders vote to pay all FLOT members, either through a grant or out of the NBT FLOT multisig, if there are objections/complaints towards a specific FLOT member the same topic could be used. 8 different motions seems like an unnecessary waste of FLOT and shareholder time.
Edit: Payment receiving address @Dhume : B9oFTqTqduqKKRcxHndyHzqbV9HRQjZVYu
1 Like
We can’t use the same custodial address twice. Creating one has some overhead; we might just rearrange the pubkeys to get a new one though.
If we’re doing motions anyway we can consider setting up a motion where we ask shareholders to pay ourselves out of T4 funds every 90 days until further notice.
Again, multiple feed support or alike would let multiple grants scale. I’m fine with having FLOT pay FLOT for now, but I want to establish a long-term solution. Please say why if you disagree with me.
I also think we shouldn’t have to shy away from multiple threads, because it would be difficult to keep track of the different members’ compensation discussions, and as Nu grows there will inevitably be more threads anyway.
We could have a category for them. No, I don’t like too much fragmentation either, but if it’s necessary. It’s possible to hide categories from the Latest view by going into the category → Edit → Settings → [X] Suppress this category from the homepage. (may need to be the startpage)
With multiple feed support, or simply a way to input multiple grants/motions at a time, shareholders could find a feed or compilation thread and vote for all of them in one action.
Is URI scheme links a bad idea? I.e., something like the following:
nu:grant:BT9AWq9r1i6kghZc6LtrvNb2wRFh7JLCdP:100000nu://grant/BT9AWq9r1i6kghZc6LtrvNb2wRFh7JLCdP?amount=100000
Perhaps I should split this out to a new thread.
It appears to be going in the direction of a motion letting FLOT pay FLOT.
Compensation for FLOT - jooize #1 (2015-11-18 to 2016-02-16)
Address: B9dQqqjoX81jLBecRwCEYXSYJgQdYXeLfN
Amount: 435 US-NBT
Compensation for FLOT - mhps #1 (2015-11-19 to 2016-02-17)
Address: BBxdEgU93Lb5UNtiWVPRSnDjXhtkcxvnnV
Amount: 435 NBT
1 Like
Because I think it is bad practice.
Each individual should ask for a custodial grant and get it pass in the same way as each FLOT member had to pass a motion to become a FLOT member but I think it would be acceptable for the first payment to use FLOT and T4 as pointed out by @masterOfDisaster since T4 does not deal only with liquidity operations.
I will post my NBT address within 10h from now.
Can somebody please explain why a motion is considered necessary to execute a payment that is based on a motion that has passed long ago?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to
- remove FLOT members who failed to act according to the terms by motion and
- continue the FLOT memberships like stated in the terms (including payments)?
Why is it bad practice? Is there some attack vector I’m not seeing? Is there even a slippery slope argument for this? The amount of compensation is clearly defined.