Although I don’t think there’s any room for discussion, I created this as draft first - as a matter of principle:
Proposal RIPEMD160 hash: d3e8929433000f5740d0309a1df6c5def6a2864e
=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=
Custodial Address: B8CVEVW5PXSKeJwHsgba2NqKY3etuzN7uK
Amount Requested: 225 NBT
Strategy: Moderate Peg
Spread After Fees: 1%
Liquidity volume: 1,500 NBT
Bid target volume: 50%
Ask target volume: 50%
Balancing bid/ask: at least each Wednesday
Balancing goal: each side between 45% and 55% of volume
Bid Reward Rate: 0.5%/day (pay back for 2015-12-12 to 2016-01-11)
Ask Reward Rate: 0.5%/day (pay back for 2015-12-12 to 2016-01-11)
Duration: 30 days
Operator Fee: 0 NBT
Total Grant: 225 NBT
Rollover from term 1 grant : 0 NBT
Requested compensation: 225 NBT
=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=
Verify. Use everything between and including the <custodianhash></custodianhash> tags.
As stated here modPuddle at hitBTC is out of order until further notice.
Before I start the next term, I will question the NSR holders whether they want to have me continue that service and make a proposal for it.
Why don’t you make it passive, like in Polo?
Im confused, are you asking for backpay or another 30 day term? If this isnt a 30 day term proposal, please remove the body of the grant and just state that it is owed to you by shareholders, citing the previous grant or whatever.
then it is voted already!
So, is it better to make also our Nubot grants the same way?
…just like the NuLagoon payments are…
I’d recommend applying for a grant valued 0 just to test this:
Backpays or requesting payment from FLOT (could be stated in the terms and voted for with them) after the service has been provided seems to make sense.
It makes sense, its just the wording of the grant is confusing. You make is seem like you’re going to run for another 30 days.
Is it this:
which creates the confusion?
I thought all would point to a backpay with the announcement that I’ mnot intending to continue modPuddle without being elected (again) to do so.
I’m going to remove the text outside the grant, if that created the confusion.
It’s that you are laying out rules like spread, the whole makeup of the grant.
Here you state the starting parameters for the pool:
[Passed] Grant to provide liquidity using NuBot on hitBTC - the begin of modPuddle
Then you write 2 more grants which specify more parameters. 3 terms, 3 grants with parameters in them. So what term do the parameters in this grant correspond to? If term 3, then which term is parameterized twice? Term 1?
Seriously - I don’t understand what’s unclear.
Each of the grants just includes the parmeters from the first grant to document them.
I made an initial grant to get a custodial address and to get approval for th eoperation. It was agreed that I offer services with backpay, because I promised to keep the funds there even during turbulent times.
I was aware of the trouble pulling funds could make. If I hadn’t provided liquidity, Nu wouldn’t have needed to pay in full.
I operated 3 terms, each 30 days. That’s why there are 3 grants with 225 NBT each, except for the first one, which was 224 NBT, because I wasn’t aware that 0 NBT grants are possible.
I changed from operating it with foreign funds to operating it with own funds. That didn’t change the type of the operation.
I mean, i understand now, and it’s fine i suppose. I just would prefer it not be in the form of a pool grant witha duration and everything because those are usually proposed ahead of operation rather than after. If you notice, NuLagoon fee grants just say ‘you owe us this, pay up’.
I try to be less precise in the future
Not sure about the draft. Please put this up for voting as I don’t see a lot of value as the original motion is quite clear that you are eligible for this. Will add it to my datafeed when it is [voting]