FLOT compensation discussion

Moved thread and changed title. This thread is used to discuss about FLOT compensation matters. Removed obsolete content from post.

1 Like

Maybe adding an ID to the title just like the buyback threads? e.g. “#1” or a date period?

Wouldn’t that become messy?

I wonder which is best. Date period feels better. FLOT members may have different cycles (though we all currently have 90 days). Not sure that makes a difference for the choice.

I think both.

As an aside, what if a member works half a period but needs to withdraw even when having been of good use to Nu? Could Nu grant partial compensation?

FLOT can compensate themselves using signer consensus. If it obeys previously passed motion i dont see why that would be dangerous.

I prefer custodial grants, but I feel like multiple feed support might make that more feasible.


In this case I want one feed to have the last word in what it votes for. Priority, in other words.


  • One motion granting FLOT permission to pay its own members through internal consensus.
  • FLOT members put up custodial grants before the end of their cycles and shareholders vote. Multiple feed support would allow shareholders to trust specific people for this purpose without intertwining the duty with their primary feed supplier.

Custodial grants: Less controversy. Shareholders decide. No pressure on FLOT.
FLOT discretion: Easier to execute at this time.

How about feed consensus? :smiley:

I slightly prefer a grant request for each FLOT member. This enables shareholders to withhold their vote if they didn’t perform in their opinion. The suggested numbering and naming with date periods would be of great help. Having them all in one thread might also help to reduce the number of threads in the forum.

I’m fine to add them all into my datafeed as I think FLOT performance has been great.

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!


Then it is better to have one grant for all FLOT members in order to avoid the voting workload? :wink:

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.


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



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.