[Draft] Motion to join BTF - masterOfDisaster

Copied from https://daology.org/proposals/d6cb661c7f9084efaa67b78f6d2660505c82efc9

The BTF - ***B***locks & Chains Exchange ***T***ask ***F***orce unites a group of people who stand ready to fulfill custodian roles.
The standard role will be a part of a multisig group. In special circumstances singlesig custodianship might be appropriate.

@masterOfDisaster - below called “BTF member” - shall be one of the members of the ***B***locks & Chains Exchange ***T***ask ***F***orce .
The BTF member will coordinate with other members of BTF to the benefit of Blocks & Chains Exchange.
The BTF member promises to be a part of BTF for up to one year and to abide by all shareholder motions governing the use of funds.
The BTF member will be able to respond to any request for signing within 60 hours of its proposal; shareholders must be promptly informed of exceptions.

The contract will have a 90-day period, automatically being renewed unless terminated by shareholder motion or retirement of the BTF member.
In case of retirement the BTF member will support transfer of the funds in BTF custody to a replacement member or a new multisig address, respectively, if demanded.
By the end of each cycle, a total of amount of 450 NBT shall be paid to the BTF member, conditional on satisfactory performance, which shall be measured in terms of his presence, effort and contribution. The BTF member reserves the right to withdraw from his service if he does not receive the full amount of compensation by the end of any cycle or by personal discretion.

###Rationale for the compensation
Compared to the Nu FLOT member compensation this motion offers a slightly increased fee, although the response time is increased.
BTF members are expected to have an increased need to discuss compared to Nu FLOT, because there’s no framework available yet to guide their actions.


Could you elaborate a bit on use cases? It is not entirely clear why we need funds other than for development to me.

Will keep this on hold. The need for a fund is not pressing yet. I’m not convinced we need 90% for the protocol vote. We just released a Mac client and no active communication have been send out. I think reaching 60% is already great without any personal message. Try to reach 90% of your target group without personal communication to do something, any company would have a problem. It is either lowering the bar or getting some targeted emails out, maybe both.
At least we need to give this more time, another month at least before taking action.

1 Like

Out target group at the moment is the minters.
It would be nice, if non-minters could join the “4.0 party”, but active minters upgrading would be enough for now.

I firmly disagree that we need to inform them.
They need to stay informed! They need to know what they do. Minting without caring is irresponsible. Not configuring data feeds or voting and not doing mandatory upgrades is irresponsible.
Maybe you can do that with Peercoin, but not with Nu or BCE!

This is no push model bringing information from Nu to the minters.
This is a pull model in which minters need to gather information from BCE (or Nu) - and the information is there: on Twitter, bitcointalk, here in the forum.

A mandatory upgrade was released 6 weeks ago.
Merely 60% of minters have made the upgrade.

This motion is just one step of many that need to be taken (additional motions, a grant with a project plan) to provide minters a stronger incentive to upgrade than making B&C Exchange operational already is/should be.

I don’t intend to wait another 4 weeks before I start making the next step.
This motion and the grant will take weeks. Let’s use that time to be ready if there’s not enough progress in the next weeks

If there’s no feedback about the body of the motion, I will promote this to [Voting] soon.

bcexchanged getinfo | grep blocks && bcexchanged getprotocolvotes
    "blocks" : 429224,
    "2.0" : {
        "blocks" : 806,
        "block_percentage" : 40.3,
        "switch_to_date_time" : ""
    "4.0" : {
        "blocks" : 1194,
        "block_percentage" : 59.7,
        "switch_to_date_time" : ""
1 Like

People don’t need to be informed of absolutely everything that is going on inside a DAO, which allows them to use a data feed to make it easier on those who don’t have enough time. But shareholders should pay enough attention to at least know when they need to upgrade their client.

Encouraging bad behavior like not paying attention at all (even to client updates) by making shareholders think that we’ll do all the work of informing them isn’t the right way we should be approaching this. As shares are spread out and distributed to more people over time, it may be harder and harder to make sure people know about upgrades if our policy says that we will contact them to make sure they know about it.

We shouldn’t encourage behavior like this, or else we’ll see even more of it in the future. We should make it a point now that besides subscribing to a data feed, shareholders need to at least pay a minimal amount of attention so they know when upgrades need to be made. The consequence of paying no attention at all could be dilution of their shares.

1 Like

Looking forward to seeing your proposal to become a BTF member :wink:

I would prefer it if existing FLOT members sign up, or those who already know how multisig works. I don’t know these things and can’t guarantee I would be available in the needed timeframe.

This draft sounds reasonable compared to the Nu FLOT standard motion.
Nu FLOT is about defending the peg - what would BTF be concretely about?

There’s a link referenced in the OP; it’s about [Draft] BKS grant to bring protocol 4.0 votes above 90%

The charter is not dealing with a precise mandate on purpose, because it’s yet unclear what challenges might arise.
I’m trying to form a group similar to FLOT, which is able to act on behalf of BKS holders based upon a mandate they receive.

One challenge I see is the upgrade apathy of minting clients.
So the first task for this task force would be the preparation of a BKS distribution to minters who are minting protocol 4.0 blocks (client version 4.0.0 and 4.0.1) or whatever other incentive seems appropriate.

If it’s done with a BKS distribution, that requires a grant to create the BKS, which are being distributed.
The grant itself would need to define the parameters for the distribution (besides granting the BKS).

Doing such a distribution is just not possible in a direct way (not that I’m aware of) by BKS holders.

A custodian (or a group of custodians) needs to perform the distribution.
Those custodians need to be elected by those they represent - in this case the BKS holders.

A group of custodians might be called BTF (a name and a scheme I made up here in this thread), for which my application can be found here.


I actually appreciate the proposal to give an economical counter incentive not to upgrade though I m not sure of the 90% threshold.
So I am interested in contributing to BTF.

1 Like

Go on and make a proposal to join BTF.

Help thinking about incentives for minters to upgrade from client version 3 to 4.
Help thinking about incentives for non-minters to start minting with client version 4.
(hint: for both parties a distribution of BKS to addresses minting protocol 4.0 blocks should be a strong incentive; there might be other incentives)


BTF is a natural idea, once again the initiative comes from master of disaster. A round of applause to him.

1 Like

You’ll like it even better once you’ve realized alternative meanings of “BTF” :wink:

1 Like

Where do you see this? I don’t see anything in https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/downloads.

Well it has been released by a community member ( Do you want to create OS X builds? ), but apparently no official build, no official communication. It is a pity that this is such a low priority, we are clearly stretching resources at the moment.

1 Like