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
- 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
I’m much happier with it being the NBT multisig rather than a single custodian.
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.
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.
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
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:
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)
Amount: 435 US-NBT
Compensation for FLOT - mhps #1 (2015-11-19 to 2016-02-17)
Amount: 435 NBT
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.
I will do so, too - soon.
Because then FLOT could reward say, NuLagoon: NuLagoon could pass a motion asking FLOT to pay for its monthly compensation instead of passing a custodial grant.
To me the only argument that is in favor of using FLOT for FLOT compensation is because it is very efficient compared to passing 8 separate grants.
My NBT address for receiving the compensation: BTZtxMx6yfbNzL1jdqPFZnJJYtNZzHuFnx
Rewarding NuLagoon via FLOT would require NuLagoon to report to FLOT with a monthly compensation report and FLOT to accept it via consensus. Good point though, that is the slippery slope argument; my rebuttal being that a fixed signer compensation is different than a variable amount.
Efficiency is the name of the game. Think about it this way: we don’t want to wear our shareholders out. The lower the number of consensus statements we require the better the quality of those statements will be.
Compensation for FLOT - woodstockmerkle #1 (2015-11-19 to 2016-02-17)
Amount: 435 NBT