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 don’t feel FLOT can do much about NuShare price or NBT volume levels other then make sure our liquidity is in order.
They are usually an indicator of how the network is run. I agree that this is not all in FLOT’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.
I understand your position and agree with it, the same issue has also been discussed with @Nagalim before. The
problem is that we don’t have such a statistic/report that can measure FLOT performance and last time this was discussed no meaningful way to track this was brought forward. Do you have an proposal on how we could measure this?
Note that the same argument can be made for evaluating developer contributions for example, how can we have controls and visible performance indicators of the work done by the developer team which Nu also pays for? Some things are just incredibly hard to quantify and measure.
I understand this has been delegated to Jordan Lee. I’m sure he has some kind of performance measures for his team in place. When people don’t deliver, they usually don’t get paid or get paid less.
Managing developers is done by sprint boards or issue lists which needs to be picked up. Teams or individuals are measured by what they picked up. More advanced sprint boards could also have e.g. complexity or time bound levels which would earn more value. So performance measures for developers do exist in the real world. The alternative is fixed price where you agree a set of requirements against a fixed price for each functionality, that is how I run the NuDroid contracts.
The transparency of the performance of the development, test and marketing has been raised before. This is indeed not transparent. This touches on a privacy and HR aspect as no one want to see individual rates, wages and KPI measurements seen published. I do advocate for some transparency in funds spend for e.g. each release. Besides Jordan reports on the amount of developer funds on request so some measurements can be taken from that.
Measurements could be done by reporting the deviation of the liquidity balance over a period of 3 months. Alix has represented some of that here: https://alix.coinerella.com/charts/# With access to the underlying figures one could establish th percentage of deviation at any moment and the amount of time this occurred. That would provide a KPI for the level of balancing. I’m sure Nagalim can come up with a smart formulae for this.
The outcome of this can be measured against the response from FLOT and how effective they have been.
I’m sure there are other way of measuring this. This is nothing unique for Nu or cryptocurrencies.
If no indicators are brought forward, how can we expect FLOT to monitor and improve their performancesit’s? only matter of time before individuals attention decays, how to react on it and maybe find more active person?
Pretty much the only KPI in the motions, which elected FLOT members, is this:
I dare say that FLOT more oft than not delivered way more than that.
We can measure liquidity provision and balancing quality though:
Not that hard to translate that for FLOT performance itself.
There has been debate about FLOT being a governing body. I think handing them responsibility for things like spread and nsr price very much endows them with responsibility to be a governing body. If they are just rubber stamps then they have no say in these things. As a governing body they do.
It’s an idea. We need a motion to spell out the details and find someone to calculate it or creat a tool to show the metric.
For my own performance I have been over-performing what I agreed to in the join flot motion
I am not asking to get bonus for over-performance and don’t expect shareholders to blame me for things I didn’t agree to do.
The only problem I see with such a measurement is that it implies we’re always striving for a perfect 50/50 balance while in reality we’re not necessarily always doing that. For example at the moment our liquidity has been on the low side of 60 sell 40 buy however seeing as BTC is going down, I (and I suspect other FLOT members) thought it was worthwhile to wait a bit with a rebalancing to see if demand picks up (as is not uncommon when BTC price declines). How can we incorporate such rationale in a static measurement tool?
FLOT’s fee is made small enough that basically very little needs to be seen. Monitoring walls is no small task and whenever people sign and propose transaction there has been many things going behind the scene.
Then is FLOT cost-effective? Technically, minus the decentralization I don’t think it’s worth 1k a month. But I don’t think this is beyond the actual costs imposed on the individuals as a result of decentralization.
I don’t think this is the place, the moment, or the people to discuss such issues.
If anybody has a problem with how FLOT runs, it should be raised with a discussion when it happens and create a motion accordingly.
If such problems exists I don’t see the point of FLOT members almost exclusively discussing about them. We would obviously be completely biased.
I think it is not entirely clear what is the purpose of FLOT, let me quote part of the original motion f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003
If sell side liquidity in tiers 1, 2 and 3 for a specific currency drop below 40% of total liquidity, signers shall sell currency in the open market until the sell side is restored to at least 40% of total liquidity.
People didn’t need/propose indicators when voted for that motion, or voted to FLOT members.
Nobody raised an objection whenever a FLOT transaction have been signed, but we somehow have a discussion on payday?
Come on, it is not a problem until I have to partly pay for it as a shareholder?
If all the efforts raising concerns in this community were put towards actual work on solutions we would be so productive.
There is always a problem and a concern with every little detail, and every potential solution, and in the end, actions are almost never taken because obviously there is always a small technical downside that Nu can’t afford in the search of perfection. This somehow reminds me of modern feminism.
Edit: When I say nobody raised objections, I am sure someone did, but in my opinion it highlights the problem that there are so much information/opinions/proposals across so many post that we don’t have a way to organize them and acknowledge them.
This is why i would prefer a single monthly report where someone says a blurb about what happened that month. It can be detailed, or not. Then, 10 days later, take your pay. Like the nulagoon contract.
So it does not seem we have any opposition from shareholders to pay ourselves.
So let us take a rapid vote from FLOT members.
I propose that if more than 50% of FLOT members are fine with self payment, we pay ourselves.
I am fine with self payment.
@dysconnect @jooize @mhps @Dhume @woodstockmerkle @masterOfDisaster @ttutdxh ?
I’m for it. This is a wiki entry. Edit it to keep a better overview.
For it:
@cryptog
@masterOfDisaster
@Dhume
@dysconnect
@ttutdxh
@mhps
Against it:
Abstaining:
Not yet voted:
@jooize @woodstockmerkle
My last words on this:
Self-payment comes with self-declaration. In a DAO such as Nu that is supposed to be transparent.
It is very unfortunate that I have to witness actions against the basics of a DAO and good governance principles. This likely will have negative consequences sooner or later and that is not a threat, just a fact of life from my own experience.
I just like to thank @mhps to at least have made an effort of self-declaration. I would have hoped the others followed.
What about this?
If you want governance, somebody needs to govern, which is in the case of Nu the shareholders.
I still find no motion that expresses shareholders’ concerns about the FLOT payment or FLOT member performance (as measured by the motion which elected them).
Sorry I do not get what is a self-declaration? What should I do here?
EDIT: self-declaration
I believe that I have performed the job defined here correctly .Therefore I believe I am entitled to receiving the fee
I’m in favor to, I also feel I’ve abided by the conditions of my own FLOT motion.
I’m also in favor of starting this discussion about governance in terms of sensible oversight rather sooner than later.
Fair enough. I too believe I have overperformed compared to what was stipulated in the motion. One can examine my post history to see I have been active and usually thoughtful in performing my duties.
I feel that all FLOT members have performed at a level matching their own pledges, and support the transfer of funds for our compensation.