[Passed] Bonus for multisig liquidity pool

[mhps]

1. “with the intent of continuing to do so indefinitely.”, as written in the motion, is different than 2) “there is reason to believe the pool will persist and grow”, as you explain.

2. is objective and hard to prove false; 2) is subjective and give the shareholders full control. I guess the question is if we want to take motions literally. Slippery slope here.

[cryptog]

Maybe add “decent liquidity” in order to avoid obvious attempts to get only the reward.

[Cybnate]

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.

Ok to take the modest risk here this time.

[crypto_coiner]

Voted

[cryptog]

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.

With above in mind, I think this motion is good to go.
Making a pool which gets only 1NBT for 30 days only does not meet the condition “with the intent to continue” qualitatively speaking because it is assumed that the pool would not be a dummy one.

806780895db71afc8302e59cd65765a35e598fc8 verified and voted.

[mhps]

it is assumed that the pool would not be a dummy one.

Who did the assumption? The motion didn’t ask shareholders to make judgement.
Let’s just admit that the text in the motion isn’t all the story. Interpretation in the thread also counts. So will interpretation of a later date, even after the deeds in question happened. Slippery slope. But perhaps the way it has to be.

[cryptog]

Well common sense.
Motions are not programming code pieces.
But maybe Nu would have to pay 500NBT for nothing. In that case we would have to learn the lesson.

Maybe we should add in the motion: decent liquidity, or liquidity which is obviously not dummy.

[JordanLee]

[Cybnate]

Motion passed

[Cybnate]