@CoinGame beat me to it…
Thanks guys, i LOVE the yellow pencil
lets see now how i can hash the grant!
Here are the verification results of all the motion and custodian hashes I could find in this thread:
I found the following hashes:
0 Motion | 0 Custodial
You have to send the assistant a private message with the contents you want to have hashed.
PM the assistant “help” to get a list of supported commands.
Can’t we have this hashing procedure more simpler? I lost time to search around for the hashing page!
All you do is send assisstant bot a pm saying:
Motion hash text
That’s pretty simple.
Thanks. I think i made it.
Before, i used the site
and i got a different result!
How much is expected to be deposited into this gateway and what if you run with the funds?
In other words, I think we should now impose a collateral from the gateway manager.
I expect such proposals to include a collateral from now on.
Collateral would drastically raise the bar for this operation, because the operator would be forced to deal with the risk of exchange default instead of Nu. This operation is intended to be cheap and risky and make shareholders painfully aware of the gaps in the current liquidity model.
T3 can be collateralized because the custodian takes little to no risk and so the only thing they are collateralizing is the possibility that they may run with the funds or make an operator error, both of which are entirely within their control.
Collateral is the same as MLP. This is a passive Nubot proposal. I have written about the risks. You decide
Not exactly the same, but damn close.
That 0 NBT seems to be causing trouble.
I’ve added this combination into my personal data feed and my client keeps crashing every time it fetches the data feed.
So far I’ve been able to reproduce this behaviour with 2.1 RC 8 multiple times.
Changing the value to “1” or removing the address solves the constant crashes.
I already notified @coingame about this.
Meanwhile I would like to ask our data feed providers @cryptog, @cybnate and @crypto_coiner to NOT add this custodial address until this error is resolved.
The potential is quite huge if data feeds can crash half or more of our network!
Thanks for the info!
Then i should make it 1 NBT?
Yes, if you look through past voted in custodians the minimum value you can enter is 1. 0 will break things.
Can you elaborate?
As Nagalim corrects me, it is similar not exaclty the same.
It means that the LP risks his/her own funds in the exchange in case of collateral as in case of MLP or ALP.
adding this to my voting data feed – this grant proposal is a direct kaizen execution of MoD last proposal to support the peg besides MLP and ALP
I think we should impose a collateral or make the gateway manager bear the risk for the reward he or she earns in the near future but this proposal is a necessary band aid solution.
There’s no reward from trading the funds, which the operator earns. All funds on a related account belong to Nu. All deposits and withdrawals come from or go to Nu addresses.
The operator receives a compensation for the efforts. That’s all.
You can require a collateral in the future. In the end this will either be more expensive for Nu (due to the compensation for the collateral) or skin the operator.