Grant to provide 50,000 liquidity to Exco.in for 60 days

[muchogusto]

Did you considered asking for the 10k NBT equivalent in NSR?

The system can not do this. I want to use the decentralized system that is Nu. @JordanLee has said of the importance of using the decentralized mechanisms available in the system. My proposal requires no action of specific individuals.

This makes me wonder… Is there any trust-less method that do not require an additional grant to pass and make the whole process a bit faster? For instance, releasing the whole 10000 grant now to a multisig address held by two shareholders + @muchogusto.
As soon as the 10k are granted, the two shareholders can park 9.999 NBT for 60 days. If service was successful the 9999 sum can then be transfered to an address owned by @muchogusto.

The method is not decentralized. My proposal, if passed, will test the creditworthiness of shareholders in group, and I believe they will make proof they deserve credit.

can I suggest @muchogusto to edit the title to “draft” until we reached some more clear agreement on what we should vote for?

Sorry for the confusion of changing from motion to grant. I didn’t know a grant was essential for broadcasting liquidityinfo. The proposal is proper now, I believe.

[masterOfDisaster]

20% seems too much as a reward, to me though the duration is 60days.

This basically valid concern has been addressed by Jordan Lee and put into a proper relation to the @KTm and @jmiller grants. One important part in @JordanLee’s pleading for more support of LPC activity is this:

Decentralized liquidity without counterparty risk not yet implemented

My advice would be that if you think it is too expensive, present a competing proposal that is less expensive. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, you cannot demonstrate that it is too expensive.

[tomjoad]

Voted.

[crypto_coiner]

“JordanLee:
My advice would be that if you think it is too expensive, present a competing proposal that is less expensive. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, you cannot demonstrate that it is too expensive.”
—> convincing
I am considering voting

[Cybnate]

It also appears expensive to me given the risks. However the alternative is ‘Do nothing’. The issue is that this is somewhat attractive as long as JMiller and Kiara Tamm are still around. It is clear that the market for liquidity providers is not yet mature because of the perceived risks. The problem is that these risks can only be addressed by having a multitude of liquidity providers proving that the risk is low while still being very profitable.

It is good to read this: Decentralized liquidity without counterparty risk not yet implemented to gain a better understanding of the situation before making the decision to vote or not to vote.

I will vote for it given the above, the 60-day term which I like from a continuity perspective (90-day would be even better) and the lack of competing proposals.

[cryptog]

This “state of union” from Jordan Lee is I believe a crucial one.
I also called for more competition in my own LPC proposal here and for more providers here, since after more than 1 month of voting my proposal did not pass while at the same no other competing proposals were made.
I am convinced now shareholders should vote for @muchogusto 's proposal since there are no better proposals right now.
I will vote tomorrow since my computer where Nu is installed is away. I wish I could use my own json data feed but it seems a bug regarding some formatting need to be fixed.

[mhps]

If you are unable or unwilling to do so, you cannot demonstrate that it is too expensive.

It cuts both ways. I cannot demonstrate it is not expensive, either. Many don’t propose because they just can’t cough up that much money.

I suggest Nu just offer a compensation for exchange rate loss directly to the LPC, and a cut of exchange rate profit from the LPC, after the term is over. In current proposal Nu is paying for like 40% BTC loss (10k / 25k) up front but getting nothing if BTC price goes up.

For the long term if Nu can remove exchange rate risk from LPCs many more people would be interested in becoming LPCs by asking for compensation for their time and exchange default risk. If @Excoin wants to have bots, it would be attractive to do it out of its own pocket after the exchange rate risk is removed.

Edit: I wrote the above before reading Jordan’s decentralized-liquidity-without-counterparty-risk-not-yet-implemented, which sets the perspective right. I am now neutral to the current prosal and even stronger suggest that the shareholders remove exchange rate risk from LPCs to stimulate growth of LPCs, for the reason I said above

[cryptog]

For the long term if Nu can remove exchange rate risk from LPCs

So in your view, there are 2 type of risks:

• exchange rate loss risk
• exchange default risk.

In my understanding, the former corresponds for example to the decrease of BTC/USD in case LPC offers liquidity on NBT/BTC.

I believe that if we could somewhat minimize that risk by offering some hedging instruments (contracts) that Nu could pay for and that the provider would include inside the LPC proposal, we would be able to grow drastically the market of LPC mentioned by Jordan Lee.

[mhps]

Right. There are many ways for Nu to remove or greatly reduce such risks – offering compensasion after the term, hedging, developing bots that exchange NBT/BTC by making an atomic execution of NBT/USD and BTC/USD transactions (this needs the exchange to cooperate and is basically what ShapeShift does, as I know. The liquidity offered won’t be as great but that is the cost of being exchange-rate-risk-free)

[wengone]

voted

[seki]

voted

[cryptog]

voted.

[cryptog]

anyone can verify the hash of the proposal? I cannot verify it using http://crypo.in.ua/tools/eng_ripemd.php

[creon]

@cryptog The proposal text shows newlines which aren’t there. Select the proposal text and quote it, then copy the text from the input text box to the website.

[cryptog]

indeed. but i had to use this site [http://www.md5calc.com/]. hash of this proposal confirmed.

[crypto_coiner]

Voted

[desrever]

The text of the proposal (previously a motion) is unchanged and the hash will remain just for reference, not because it should be entered in the client:

There is no motion to vote, only a custodian grant.

Do you see what I mean now @muchogusto? Proposals must be lay down cristal clear, no edits, and be simple to follow. Otherwise things like this happens

[desrever]

let’s see how this proposal is doing

@assistant custodian vote BB1eCrqde2g5vWTH7RsaBJ8NWTUF2D8ogq

[Chronos]

You can also check here: http://blockexplorer.nu/votes

[Yurizhai]

This motion is on route to pass, but we have Learnmore about to bring in $20k on Excoin in a few days right?

And the bot can’t support both at the same time yet?