FLOT compensation discussion

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:

Against it:


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).

1 Like

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.


FLOT should simply submit a report when they want to pay themselves, and treat it the same way they would the NuLagoon report. i.e. they should pretend that they are a third party when considering their own report. Clearly, they will be fine with the report, but by announcing it all very loudly and proudly they give shareholders a chance to intervene and say either “What you reported isn’t good enough” or “Your report has errors”.

I’m working on tying this all together. If I have to split this motion into two I will:
[Draft] Spread and Nu Ownership


If Nu shareholders have the ability to raise motions anytime without any kind of censorship, why we are having this discussion here? There will always be some detractors of every decision, but ideally, as we want to be so transparent and we are FLOT members appointed by Nu in passed motions, we should only listen to other passed motions.

As I said before, and in favor of transparency, reached the point where shareholders think a FLOT member don’t meet the obligations, a motion should be raised in that precise moment and passed to end his work and his payment.

I don’t think would be transparent from shareholders to withhold the role fulfillment decision only after a payment deadline. It is a disrespect to the FLOT member, as well as irresponsible for Nu to allow fund control to an individual Nu no longer trust.

I am in favor to self-payment, again.
Done once, shareholders have had around 3 months to make changes, and this is something every one of them should know about. Not a single motion passed.
I understand that as shareholder support.


This is how it was for NuLagoon for a while too, and there were several threads like this one and it ended up with the concept of self-reporting. Self-payment is fine, but there needs to be a sense of accountability for one’s self as much as others. By asking FLOT to provide an official report I am asking for transparency. Having a long continuous thread filled with txn hashes is not perfectly transparent.


FLOT members are contracted for at least a year of 90-day cycles. We are to be paid unless there is dissatisfaction with our performance, or we’re otherwise taken out of service.

Nu can handle that part either by having shareholders vote for payment at the end of each period or let FLOT handle it (publicly). As FLOT is in control of a significant amount of funds, it is expected and trusted not to misuse them anyway.

Last cycle FLOT paid itself.

Shareholders can and should complain about members when an issue surfaces. Unless that issue occurs in the last days of a cycle, there should be sufficient time to address it and potentially adjust payment. It could also be delayed until resolved.

I’ve shifted in attitude towards having FLOT pay itself, which I attempted to have us avoid initially.

I think FLOT should pay itself. I’m happy to discuss and change that if shareholders desire. I believe we are operating according to motions doing so.

Any suggestions for how FLOT members can report their performance?

You don’t have to justify how long it took you to sign stuff or anything like that. I’m not asking you to prove your pay, I trust you. I want you to give some transparency to the transactions that you participated in. For example:

Product = (Average price of NuBits sold)(Volume sold)
Expenditure = (Average price of NuBits bought)
(Volume bought)
Flux = (Volume Sold) - (Volume Bought)
P&L = [(Average price of NuBits sold) - (average price of NuBits bought)] * min (volume bought , volume sold)

Or even just an excel sheet with all the txns on it and where they went. That could get really interesting and cool. There are so many ideas out there, and if we talk about it I’m sure we can find a solution that is simple, preserves pseudo-identity, and doesn’t put too much extra work on any one person. The community can help out as well because it is indeed all transparent.

So maybe we don’t have to link it to your compensation at all. Maybe if we just pass a motion saying we aim to do it then FLOT and the community will work together to keep a report up to date.

If someone is talking to shareholders about the details of FLOT’s operations in an easily consumable way, I would be fine with them paying themselves.


wouldn’t that mostly an explorer dump of tx history of FLOT’s multisig addresses?

Some txns are NuLagoon interactions with prices and so on while others are interactions with other services like gateways that ultimately provide a price themselves. Among many other things, the idea would be to separate buy/sell txns from moving money around txns. I’m writing this into the spread motion so that we have a clear concept of gateways as well. If all NuOwned operations report standardized statistics we will be able to get a full picture of when we are making money off trades and when we are losing it.

1 Like

We have 6 out of 8 signers that are in favor.
I think it s reasonable to make the transfer tx.
I ll sign it.

Edit: i forgot i am not part of nbt flot.

FLOT compensation #1 for reference.

FLOT compensation #2

FLOT compensation - cryptog #2 (2016-02-16 to 2016-05-16)

Address: BTZtxMx6yfbNzL1jdqPFZnJJYtNZzHuFnx
Amount: 366 US-NBT

FLOT compensation - Dhume #2 (2016-02-24 to 2016-05-24)

Address: B9oFTqTqduqKKRcxHndyHzqbV9HRQjZVYu
Amount: 435 US-NBT

FLOT compensation - dysconnect #2 (2016-02-12 to 2016-05-12)

Address: BTDNMAPojdgJy2coacM4nKKMQ2Ywh6EVy7
Amount: 435 US-NBT

FLOT compensation - jooize #2 (2016-02-16 to 2016-05-16)

Address: B9dQqqjoX81jLBecRwCEYXSYJgQdYXeLfN
Amount: 435 US-NBT

FLOT compensation - masterOfDisaster #2 (2016-02-20 to 2016-05-20)

Address: BLakYKdvewDsph5fY79eZXYrt1oc5qEsM4
Amount: 435 US-NBT

FLOT compensation - mhps #2 (2016-02-17 to 2016-05-17)

Address: BBxdEgU93Lb5UNtiWVPRSnDjXhtkcxvnnV
Amount: 435 US-NBT

FLOT compensation - ttutdxh #2 (2016-02-16 to 2016-05-16)

Address: BCtHqEGDjrc5sZXJogpxdUDhMcokZunXZs
Amount: 435 US-NBT

FLOT compensation - woodstockmerkle #2 (2016-02-17 to 2016-05-17)

Address: BA5xfjKc8hq7zJSJmaGVCLZkvg5dduEgME
Amount: 435 US-NBT



I would like to ask for compensation for my services as as FLOT member for the following period: 15MAY16~15AUG16 .

Would there be any other FLOT member that would agree with me that it is reasonable to ask for fees?

1 Like

I agree. I have over-performed my promised signing rates. The FLOT wasn’t acting with full force buy selling NSR with a full Standard every week so the peg drifted down by a few percent – but staying there. I think I was somewhat responsible there. Then the architect gutted the human part of Nu infrastructure. People lost confidence and the peg was totally lost. As a FLOT member I helped FLOT NSR selling until FLOT was circumvented completely.

I think 300nbt is a fair compensation for my service.

1 Like

Let s ask for compensation.

Not sure, but I think someone passed a motion about NBT creation and payments. You might want to consult with that alias first.

1 Like