I like the idea of having multiple persons do it, both as a way of sharing the workload as well as means of oversight if auctions are done according to shareholder requirements. Its far easier to see trade history on the account itself then shareholders having to check the Poloniex order history if reported sales correspond with what is reported.
If this is possible and no else steps up to form the first “NSR buyback team” I might join you.
I am also up for it, have level 3 verification on polo, but would also require a fee.
@NSRBuyback Did previous executer receive compensation?
I think it has been done for no compensation.
No, the service has been provided free of charge. Buybacks have taken less than an hour per week, so I doubt shareholders will have much enthusiasm for compensating the role.
I may be available too. I guess there is no need for any bot thus only the transactions and order setting?
Not more than the cost of an hour per week I suppose. The problem is the collateral requirements. Collateral is generally ‘dead’ money. What is reasonable to expect and what would be the cost of it? Looking forward to proposals.[quote=“Dhume, post:3, topic:3214”]
I like the idea of having multiple persons do it
[/quote]
I support that to some extent, but I hope it doesn’t get in the way of response times, especially when timing of putting orders on sale is important as OP states. This might require some further thoughts/discussion.
The idea of multiple operators is briliant. Especially involving different time zones.
In that way the price updates of the orders would have a random and distributed flavor 
Shareholders should consider electing someone to continue buybacks. There are less than three weeks remaining until there is no executor.
I’ll post a motion soon. I intend on charging shareholders an unstable fee, similar to what JL did to get us to make FLOT. Others should consider proposals of their own in case you find my terms unagreeable.
Thank you for taking the initiative. However, given the very minimal time requirements of completing buybacks, I’m inclined to not vote for any proposal that requires compensation, unless it’s a token amount. Buybacks do not have the time-sensitive urgency that transferring our Tier 4 + 6 reserves had. In that sense, I prefer no buybacks versus committing to an escalating fee schedule.
I have level 3 on Poloniex but I can’t say I’m very comfortable with money that’s not mine going in and out of my account on a US-based KYC exchange, even though I’m not anonymously involved with FLOT. I understand @tomjoad has provided consistent service without compensation, but personally I won’t take the risk for free. I’m sure some other shareholders have the same concerns, so some enlightenment on potential legal risks etc. would be very helpful.
Perhaps flot can take this responsibility, too?
This is a job for a single person (or several single persons), because it requires personal exchange accounts.
These persons can very well be FLOT members, but there’s only a weak trust argument why they should be preferred: in difference to managing FLOT funds buybacks deal with funds under full control of the person who receives them.
This is similar to my gateways on Poloniex and requires an election.
An alternative is to again set up something like NuLagoon tube for NSR/BTC. For emulating the current buyback solution off-exchange it only has to be one-sided and the price feed is going to be much simpler.
And another alternative would be a kind of seeded auction with a NSR/BTC pair instead of NSR/NBT (which was pioneered by @Nagalim).
The executor would seed the BTC and participants would offer NSR; very low effort for the executor and this could just be done by FLOT. Instead of depositing the BTC to exchange accounts, they would be seeded in the auction.
This would not require a price feed, but instead create one.
As an American citizen, the primary risk in using an AML/KYC exchange with identity requirements would be the exchange reporting financial transactions to the IRS. This would be done to identify potential money laundering and/or unreported capital gains. However, in the case of buybacks, the Nu blockchain can verify that all shares purchased have been destroyed. This means that you would not realize any capital gains/losses, and instead would be acting as a contracted agent for the network. This might actually be an argument for forgoing payment, so that an executor could state that they were voluntarily destroying shares for the network, if they were questioned.
The other risk in using an AML/KYC exchange is if you are seen to be issuing new securities in violation of existing regulations. It’s debatable whether NuShares even qualify as a security (most of us view them as equity in a company that allows all shareholders to act as managers, through blockchain-based decision making like custodial grants and parking rates), but luckily with buybacks there is no new issuance of NSR.
Are there any specific concerns you have that shareholders could help research? With Level 3 and your established community trust, I would be willing to vote for you.
Seeded auction seems a much cleaner solution, without using an exchange, but with the same trust risk. To prevent irregular prices when participation is low we can require bidding prices to be within +30% of a market price ( Long-term solutions of a better price feed is being discussed in the market maker thread ) .
I don’t want to state what seeded auctions will be, as I think the potential is greater than I can really comprehend. However, I don’t think they will replace buybacks. I see them being used to provide a few very important things, such as a dependable nsr/USD price, direct shareholder control over nbt supply, a new nbt use case and gaming potential, and a direct nbt/nsr gateway for Nu aficionados. However, I do not see it replacing the need for dumping counterparty risk in a public and efficient manner like doing it via bid order does. I could make more statements here, but without a good grasp on the price-finding mechanism of seeded auctions, this discussion will leave most people out.
Suffice it to say that I think we need to find an interim executor while we write nsr wrappers for NuBot and then spread the process out over several bot operators.
I reside in a rather crypto-friendly jurisdiction (at least for a while) but often need to travel to the US. Thanks for your consideration though, I’ll draft something soon, in language that hopefully gives me no more additional risk than simply being an NSR holder.