FLOT compensation discussion

It seems neat, but I don’t like it. We handle the private key for that address every time we sign using Cointoolkit for example (one risk being clipboard snooping), which is also currently under your control (and how many of us even check to see the code hasn’t been changed before signing?). I don’t mistrust you, that’s just the situation and everything should be considered. Though, that’s more of a concern for all the multisig funds in case you’d decide to go rogue.

Arguably, that should be OK if the member doesn’t mind the (perhaps considered minor) risk, but if they prefer otherwise I think we should allow them to.

Do you mean we should normalise the FLOT contracts into a “one size fits all”? It would be convenient, but I’m not sure I agree. Maybe.

1 Like

I think we should. Or we shouid appoint a FLOT manager who oversees FLOT performance, which I wouldn’t be keen on, but is an option to explore.

Decentralised governance is already hard, to have 8+ different proposals to govern is for most of us not feasible including myself. If we pay the proposals blindly we could as well just transfer a monthly amount to an address like we do for MLP and have one person overseeing the the eight proposals and all Shareholders overseeing the FLOT performance in general.

1 Like

I am not talking about using cointoolkit. You can do it from the desktop client, or using you own tools.

I am the first one encouraging people not to trust anyone. Please don’t trust me. That is why cointoolkit is downloadable and can be run offline. Signing offline is the only way to be somewhat secure, so if you don’t, it does not matter if you use the official client or anything else. You are at risk. Always.

I am trying to address your same concerns with paying to the pubkey.
Can you prove you are paying the signer by sending to his signing pubkey? I can.
Instead, can you prove that the posted address is, in fact, the signer payment address? I can’t.
Forum could be compromised and automatically replacing addresses depending on the user viewing the page, among a rainbow of other kind of attacks. You would be surprised how easy that is. Even the hosting company, and its employees are a risk.

As you say I also don’t think people check the code every time before signing, but you can, and you can eliminate that risk going offline.
I don’t think you can do anything about the forum, your desktop client or even your own online computer.

All said, this is slightly paranoid, but real.

1 Like

Valid points. Still feels bad to use the address we handle the private key of so frequently. Are those concerns unreasonable?

Members could sign the desired payment address with the private key of their multisig single address. Should improve trust. Probably not going to happen, I guess.


FLOT NBT multisig single address: BAg28y78t2FyQKsWuFoTpHFuXdFjMyGeCs



Cointoolkit online is very convenient, and not trusting someone for that would break the smooth workflow we have now where we just link to it. Perhaps hardcode a link in offline use … Hmm. URI scheme links! :smiley: nu://verify/<rawtransaction> (not really an around the corner feature)


That is the cost of decentralization. It’s like a jury has to have a diverse set of members. Having a manager is centralising.

I am with @dysconnect above. This very discussion of possibly not to pay after asking each FLOT member to jump through the hoop to get approved individually via a motion, and after the FLOT perform their duty for the first period, without any evidence to show any disqualification, leaves a bad taste.

At this point it’s not a big issue I think. We read addresses from the forum to send tens of thousand around.

Let’s spend time worrying about the bigger things, like profit model of Nu.



Compensation for FLOT - cryptog #1 (2015-11-18 to 2016-02-16)

Address: BTZtxMx6yfbNzL1jdqPFZnJJYtNZzHuFnx
Amount: 366 US-NBT

Compensation for FLOT - Dhume #1 (2015-11-26 to 2016-02-24)

Address: B9oFTqTqduqKKRcxHndyHzqbV9HRQjZVYu
Amount: 435 US-NBT

Compensation for FLOT - dysconnect #1 (2015-11-14 to 2016-02-12)

Address: BTDNMAPojdgJy2coacM4nKKMQ2Ywh6EVy7
Amount: 435 US-NBT

@dysconnect: You removed this address (BTHw62hSByoAnYzKQJvdgqcmw6qTJ6dFEy) from the original post, and I see no new one. Which address do you wish to have your payment sent to?

Compensation for FLOT - jooize #1 (2015-11-18 to 2016-02-16)

Address: B9dQqqjoX81jLBecRwCEYXSYJgQdYXeLfN
Amount: 435 US-NBT

Compensation for FLOT - masterOfDisaster #1 (2015-11-22 to 2016-02-20)

Address: BLakYKdvewDsph5fY79eZXYrt1oc5qEsM4
Amount: 435 US-NBT

Compensation for FLOT - mhps #1 (2015-11-19 to 2016-02-17)

Address: BBxdEgU93Lb5UNtiWVPRSnDjXhtkcxvnnV
Amount: 435 US-NBT

Compensation for FLOT - ttutdxh #1 (2015-11-18 to 2016-02-16)

Address: BCtHqEGDjrc5sZXJogpxdUDhMcokZunXZs @ttutdxh (Do you want to use BCtHqEGDjrc5sZXJogpxdUDhMcokZunXZs?)
Amount: 435 US-NBT

Compensation for FLOT - woodstockmerkle #1 (2015-11-19 to 2016-02-17)

Address: BA5xfjKc8hq7zJSJmaGVCLZkvg5dduEgME
Amount: 435 US-NBT

I’m concluding that we want this done, and that FLOT has the right to execute the transactions for payment of the whole FLOT. I have in mind to create a transaction paying all of FLOT in one go, but I’m waiting for an address from @ttutdxh and confirmation from @dysconnect.

I’ve double-checked the addresses I’ve compiled, and I expect you’ll check them when verifying the transaction anyway.

Sound good?



Thank you for your efforts!

1 Like

Decentralisation doesn’t mean no governance. The model with 8 different proposals is not scalable from a governance perspective. I’m ok with it for now, but going forward we need to think about something better.

I agree that some kind of governance is necessary.
When thinking about the details, it gets more complicated.

I’m strictly speaking of FLOT, but it applies to a lot more areas.
You could try with a uniform proposal to which only members get added, instead of allowing each member an individual proposal.
What if you don’t find enough members that want to apply to that proposal?
The good thing is that the current proposals are quite similar.

How do you measure the members activity?
Do you intend to request that each FLOT member signs transactions to prove they are within the agreed limit?
Even if that utilizes and wears out FLOT members who aren’t necessary to broadcast a tx?

The basic question is: should the FLOT members need to prove that they are operating within the limits of the terms or does Nu need to prove they violated the terms?

All I’m trying to say is: governance is necessary, but not easily set up…

1 Like

I am fine with what you come up with here!

1 Like

I’ll use this address:


@jooize, confirmed I will use BCtHqEGDjrc5sZXJogpxdUDhMcokZunXZs

Thank you for all your work on this.


Transaction created.

Whole FLOT is paid for cycle #1.


My calendar reminded me that we should ask for compensation.

1 Like

With some surrounding controversy I’m not sure whether we should sign transactions to pay ourselves again. Perhaps we’ll create a thread and ask if there are complaints, and if nobody raises concerns in a couple of days we sign the payment. Otherwise we may need to propose a custodial grant.

Why not making a motion proposal that says that FLOT can pay itself for the compensation payment?

I suppose it’s the old question that circles around the point of view:

  • should shareholders actively allow actions (that are directly related to previously granted permissions!)
  • or should they actively intervene?

FLOT has a mandate to care for liquidity operations. Shareholders voted for that.
I could argue that the compensation for FLOT members is related to that mandate, because it was included in the terms upon which the FLOT members were elected.
So the compensation can very well be paid from FLOT to FLOT unless shareholders find the performance of FLOT in total or specific members insufficient.
I’m not aware of FLOT members violating parts of their contract.
But I’m not really tracking it closely - should I?

I don’t really see the benefit of creating a motion or a grant for the FLOT compensation, but I see extra work - for FLOT (if FLOT needs to create that grant or motion), data feed providers and for shareholders, that are not subscribed to data feeds.

I believe there should be either decent oversight within FLOT resulting in a clear statement that FLOT beliefs that all terms and conditions are met (self declaration with each team members underwriting this) OR the Shareholders will need to be asked whether they are fine with the current performance and team delivering in order to have payment occurring. Minimum levels of governance I would say.

1 Like

I still don’t understand why we waste time for this as there’s no single shareholder complaint about the performance of FLOT.
There might be discussions about the actions of FLOT and the limits of their discretion.
But if there are concerns about the performance OR the actions of FLOT, I’d expect to find a shareholder motion that regulates the grievance.
There aren’t any.

Ok then, I believe that I’ve acted according to the terms of my FLOT membership within the last term and request the payment of compensation by FLOT to keep the administrative efforts low.

If there’s no shareholder motion passed within the next 14 days, in which shareholders express their dissatisfaction with the performance of enlisted FLOT members, the compensation will be paid out.

1 Like

Neither do I.

How do we do this? Like this?

  1. Check every line of the membership approval motion, including special lines for particular members. If it happens that all terms and conditions are met, then a summary statement is made.
  2. Every member underwrites the results.

A motion literally like this ?

The Shareholders are fine with the current performance and team delivering of the FLOT and will pay the full compensation for the xxx - xxx period.