There have been objections based on the perception that the reward may be given multiple times to different pool operators. That certainly wasn’t the intent, which I think was generally understood. The following phrase uses the singular form for “A reward” and “the operator of liquidity pool”. It does contain a grammatical error which is probably not helpful. It could be more clear, but I’m not sure it is worth editing, rehashing and starting voting over. I would like some more input on whether there is really enough ambiguity to require modification. If all agree the intent was to provide a single reward, that is sufficient.
There is also concern about the level of liquidity provided and other types of gaming. Condition 6 requires that the pool operator “Meets above conditions for 30 days with the intent of continuing to do so indefinitely.” I think this gives shareholders the leeway they need to to exclude to exclude pools that don’t really meet the intent of the motion, which is to provide incentive for the creation of a sustainable multisig pool where pool participants simply hand their funds over to the multisig operators. Even if little liquidity is provided in the first 30 days, that isn’t important to me as long as there is reason to believe the pool will persist and grow.
Basically, is there anyone who refuses to vote for the motion because of these ambiguities that would vote for a clarified version? If yes, I will change it. If no, I think it is sufficient as is.
