Thanks @woodstockmerkle for a well written post that is professional, factual and focused on solving problems. It is just the sort of conversation we should be having.
You are correct that it isn't spelled out anywhere that FLOT must burn its NSR and US-NBT. That is why I not only asked FLOT members to respond if they would burn funds, but also asked if the answer to that question is no, then would they burn funds if instructed to do so in a passed motion. It seems apparent that burning FLOT funds is the sensible thing to do, and there is considerable (but inconclusive) evidence that shareholders wish to have FLOT return all funds. The most recent FLOT request for funding was rejected. In the official shareholder endorsed explanation of the default, FLOT was pinpointed as the cause of the failure, along with @masterOfDisaster. Most FLOT members aren't active anymore, and that is a problem.
Your response suggests to me that a motion would be helpful, so I will add that to my list of tasks, but important and complicated questions remain about what the scope of such a motion should be and what its content should be.
Permanent is a long time, so it is difficult to say. The key issue regarding Liquidity Operations is that it requires expertise which very, very few people have. This won't change. I suspect hierarchically organized departments getting funding from shareholders will be an important part of our future. That is what I am doing. It is what should be done in development too. We should have a dev team defined by a leader who gets funding from shareholders and pays subordinates. Other teams may also form. Along side them, we will have individuals getting compensation from shareholders. We will have companies and corporations doing the same.
As to the question of the degree of decentralization within liquidity operations, first I will say the value of decentralization has been taken too far by many on the forum. We need to avoid seeking decentralization as an ideological imperative. Instead, we should look at what works and what is efficient. Nu needs to be practical, not dogmatic. With that being said, there today a modest decentralization in liquidity operations by spillting responsibilities among myself, @jooize and @henry. If there were much more funding available, multiple liquidity operations departments might make sense. All it would have taken to save the peg in June was for one person or multisig group holding shareholder NSR to sell it and buy NuBits. With that in mind, we can see the more groups or individuals that have shareholder NSR, the more likely it is that at least one will not fail. Additional separate teams conducting liquidity operations introduces new problems, one of which is an enhanced risk of theft. There are others. We will need to put resources into mitigating them. However, for the time being, our funding levels are nowhere near adequate to begin considering ways to provide redundancy in liquidity operations. As is often the case, the only way to decentralize is to grow first. Ironically, those most concerned with decentralization on this forum have been the people doing the most to undermine it, by making the organization smaller. The formation of Augeas, for instance, has been a potent factor working against the decentralization of Nu, even as it has yielded no benefit in any other way. I would encourage those that want more decentralization to examine whether their actions are developing decentralization, or inhibiting it.
I believe all FLOT groups should be disbanded. Once funding is sufficient, we can approach using multisig groups again. They should consist of professionals specializing in the handling of funds subject to regulations and rules. They should use their birth names as they conduct business.
The bottom line is decentralization has some important benefits, but serving our customers in a cost efficient manner is in most cases more important. We are focusing on those things now. After all, the big problems we have experienced in 2016 didn't come from a lack of decentralization. They came from not focusing on serving our customers.