FLOT compensation discussion

NuBits
#44

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

#45

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

Iā€™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 donā€™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 arenā€™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 Iā€™m trying to say is: governance is necessary, but not easily set upā€¦

1 Like
#46

I am fine with what you come up with here!

1 Like
#47

Iā€™ll use this address:
BTDNMAPojdgJy2coacM4nKKMQ2Ywh6EVy7

Thanks

#48

@jooize, confirmed I will use BCtHqEGDjrc5sZXJogpxdUDhMcokZunXZs

Thank you for all your work on this.

#49

:slightly_smiling:

Transaction created.

Whole FLOT is paid for cycle #1.

2 Likes
#50

My calendar reminded me that we should ask for compensation.

1 Like
#51

With some surrounding controversy Iā€™m not sure whether we should sign transactions to pay ourselves again. Perhaps weā€™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.

#52

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

#53

I suppose itā€™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.
Iā€™m not aware of FLOT members violating parts of their contract.
But Iā€™m not really tracking it closely - should I?

I donā€™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.

#54

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
#55

I still donā€™t understand why we waste time for this as thereā€™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, Iā€™d expect to find a shareholder motion that regulates the grievance.
There arenā€™t any.

Ok then, I believe that Iā€™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 thereā€™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
#56

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.

#57

I have no way to check that or a reference to reports, so I rely on self declaration that FLOT members believe they have done their job properly. When FLOT members donā€™t think that is required I would see that as disregard to myself as Shareholders and potentially others. I wonā€™t raise a motion, but may vote with my feet.

#58

Iā€™m with MoD on this, if shareholders have objections or are dissatisfied in any way Iā€™d urge them to voice those concerns. Seeing as none have done so for as far as I can tell I see no reason why FLOT shouldnā€™t pay itself in a similar procedure as happened last time.

1 Like
#59

How clear can I be? But you may choose to ignore the minority of course.

#60

My apologies I was referring to the performance, you have stated your objection against self-payment very clearly.

#61

I canā€™t complain about the performance as I have no reference. What should I measure the NuShare price? Not happy. Amount of interest to be paid and level of reserves? Not happy.Volumes on NBT pairs? Not happy. Should I contribute this to FLOT performance? I donā€™t know.

1 Like
#62

I would argue that FLOT should be judged on whether they do a good job of keeping liquidity on buy/sell side balanced and if they respond in a timely manner? (as is specified in their respective FLOT membership motions)

I donā€™t feel FLOT can do much about NuShare price or NBT volume levels other then make sure our liquidity is in order.

#63

They are usually an indicator of how the network is run. I agree that this is not all in FLOTā€™s control.

Has it been timely enough at all times? Do we have statistics/reports of that? Why do we need huge spreads to keep the peg. When FLOT responds quicker or provides more liquidity in times this is required we could keep a closer peg and have to rely less on Nu funded NuBots and PyBots which pose a high risk to the network.

I can go for a while, but I hope you get the gist of it. Without any controls and visible performance indicators there is no way that anyone can assess FLOT does a good job or not. Even if FLOT did and I do suspect that, no one will really know and there will always be an air of potentially vague dealings and lack of transparency. Just like the central banks. It will be hard to sell Nu network when we continue going down that path.

1 Like