A constant rate has risks for Nu as well as for @mhps - if the work is less than expected, good for @mhps; if it’s more, bad for @mhps!
What about leaving 1.) like it is and making 2.) a payment by FLOT up to x hours per month without further need to approve it.
From an administrative point of view, the conditions in 2.) should be part of the grant, because this way there’s no need to create and vote for a grant and a motion.
This way x hours per month at a rate of y USD/hour can be paid by FLOT for the services @mhps (or somebody else - just in case somebody else gets contracted, because @mhps is unavailable) provides for Nu.
If for whatever reason the required compensation exceeds what FLOT is entitled to pay, a grant is necessary and is under full control of NSR holders.
I’d rather not mingle one service with another.
If the NSR groups is more idle than e.g. the NBT group, the compensation for the NSR group should be lowered - or the compensation for more active groups should be raised; whatever seems appropriate.
I prefer keeping services distinct from each other where possible; makes it easier to keep an overview for responsibilities and performance and it reduces (potential) conflicts of interest.
Well, then we can make it “up to z NBT per month” instead of “x hours per month” and the one who updates for the best price, can do it.
…only I don’t like that approach for reasons most of us know - it provides an incentive to do the job bad while fulfilling the requirements.
@masterOfDisaster is right. Asking for a constant pay rate implies that I will accept any workload spikes. It’s a significant consideration and I am not sure it is a good idea.
I only used past workload to calculate pay rate. It doesn’t mean I’d work the same number of hours per week in the future.
Right. There are much more to do in the future – the comprehensive liquidity model, new reserves, new currencies … Nu has just become able to stand on its feet by shareholders instead of by JL alone. Shareholders start to see endless possibilities to shape Nu and try to implement the ideas. The work will be endless.
Good idea. I put a motion there so that I can get paid at the end. But your idea has the same effect.
This would limit risk on both sides which I like. But the PM triangle cannot be cheated – there could be situation that work cannot be completed on time. I hope this is acceptable.
I will be glad if someone can post a competing proposal to take over maintaining and improving at a better price. This includes FLOT NSR if they can come to an agreement.
Note that some updating/improving work is easy and can be shared by anyone with some programming skill (e.g. JL’s BTC stash change), while some need keeping oneself updated of a thorough understanding of the full liquidity model and operation details. The later can take much more effort than most community members are willing to give as I observe. I certainly feel the per-month work is way more demanding than my BTC FLOT job.
I will adjust the monthly rate for a possible renewal proposal for the next term based on work/time spent in this 3 month term.
As you know I’m not a great fan of this because of centralisation (FLOT operating as a foundation) and transparency. To maintain transparency to the Shareholder, it requires FLOT to produce monthly or quarterly overviews of their books. Did you check with the team whether they are good with that?
I would rather see a grant proposal after 3 months where you present your services to the Shareholders and justify the costs.
Producing report regularly is not a trivial thing to ask. I don’'t want to single out this one proposal of mine. I think a procedure needs to be defined among individuals who produce work, the FLOT, and the shareholders. Such procedure shouldn’t give too much discretion power to the FLOT, or burden shareholders with too many votings, or choke off contribution and innovation with too much bureaucracy. Maybe a dedicated thread should be open for this.
Anyway for this proposal, I am fine with being paid by a grant. Would you (and other shareholders) think this modification (bold) in 2a is good
The payment will be made by a grant proposal at the end of the 3-month term.
A few has tried, this is a topic with many questions and very few answers. It requires a certain consensus which will be difficult. That is why I asked in the first place when you presented this as payable by FLOT.
As said, I’m good with that hope it pleases other Shareholders too.
I’ve given it a second kick and it seems to have hashed your proposal.
I need to re-examine my last fixes, it works initially but then the main loop that checks the forum for private messages and mentions seems to get stuck.
It’s on the list.