I will vote for this if this is what you mean 
I was just hoping for more feedback and some backup of a person who is very familiar with operating a NuBot gateway on Poloniex 
ā¦who offers a competetive contract for a NuBot gateway at Poloniex!
You gave birth in this gateway concept! you have more experience than anyone here
But Iām known for offering my services too cheaply
no cheaply, but costless 
this is the first ālogicalā proposal of you 
edit: about poloniex
I was trying to stay close to yours, while slightly undercutting your offer 
What about that?
1 Like
I am fine with the terms.
Sounds good. Bring it on
I changed it from āMotionā to āCustodial grantā.
There are only minor adjustments besides that, but nothing I consider relevant.
The reason for that: I need a new liquidity broadcast address very soon (currently only in use for the sell side operation at hitBTC)
ā¦and back to motion - I already have a new liquidity broadcast addressā¦
Didnāt notice this on first read:
āThe fee will be paid by FLOT, taken from funds on the exchange account if sufficient funds are available or raised by grant.ā
Why are you so keen to not use the grant and being paid by FLOT? It doesnāt make sense to me. Why not just have a 60 or 90 days grant and have shareholders confirming that they are happy for you to continue. This instead of having to gather a bunch of unhappy shareholders voting against you when they want something changed.
Iām not a fan of those endless subscription models as you know.
To me it makes a lot sense.
Itās not endless, but only creates efforts to end it opposed to a limited contract that needs to be renewed, and renewed, and renewed.
Whatās the benefit of that increased effort?
You realize that FLOT can end that contract as well?
To me it is as very close as it requires an effort for the Shareholders to end it.
The benefits are:
- Every 60 or 90 day period the performance can be reviewed and that the onus is on the custodian to raise another
offer. - There is space for other to raise a competing offer at the same time every period. This improves the competitive environment which increases the chance that Shareholders always get the best deal.
Did you get FLOT to agree to pay you? I still donāt see FLOT as a governance group or group of directors for custodians.
I keep this proposal on hold unless the FLOT payout is removed. I wonāt support FLOT in that kind of role and neither do I like termless proposals cutting potential competition.
Iāll have a look at the voting behaviour for some days and will change it to a grant, if it doesnāt get traction.
I thought it would make things easier.
If Nu wants to have precise control via grants over 90 NBT monthly, Iām fine with going the grant way.
It will be hard to scale Nu up, if you have to approve all recurrent costs monthly (or in whatever cycle).
Just think of the future products when assessing the situation!
I think the road I was going to take is better, but I wonāt fight for it.
My Nubot proposals (term2 and term3) are also motions and be payed by FLOT at the end ot each term.
I found it very comfortable for both parties and didnāt get any complaint about it!
Yah, i think we need to use FLOT to pay these operations more and less shareholder grants. If you want a monthly report, the operators can give monthly reports. Like the NuLagoon contract thatās being voted on.
Well, I didnāt say that. Iām keen to get longer terms than just 30 days. 60-90 days would be a good start and whenā¦[quote=āmasterOfDisaster, post:20, topic:3829ā]
It will be hard to scale Nu up, if you have to approve all recurrent costs monthly (or in whatever cycle).
[/quote]
things are really taking off you can go to half yearly or yearly accounts approval and reviewing contracts. Nothing extraordinary in most businesses. In between you will still need reporting of proceeds costs etc. which most business do at least monthly anyway.
And that is exactly the reason why Iām against it. It encourages āunconsciousā behaviour for both custodian and governance groups.
You have my complaint as of this email as for some reason I also did miss this, which I suspect many others also did. This might have happened in the rush to get from the āfree MoD botā (pun intended) to a paid custodian against market price.
I donāt think FLOT is ready to manage operations, it will require another structure and a decent mandate from the Shareholders. I think it is way to early and it would hurt transparency and further strengthens behaviour which goes against decentralised networks and governance.
So how do you feel about NuLagoon? Arenāt all the complaints the same? Why are you supporting that motion?
Thereās a huge cost associated to voting on small issues that encourages centralization in other ways, such as forcing shareholders to become lazy or tired. It may be too early to give FLOT a large amount of power, but I think it is also already very late for us to focus on making things happen.
One pair of eyes is enough to spot a problem. Then an issue can be raised, and the community will participate in a discussion. Finally shareholders can vote if needed.
I agree to an extent that we already have a lot of regulatory debt by not defining the powers and responsibilities of various entities. But I personally think this debt is inevitable because we have an inadequate reward system to encourage solving problems of the network. Weāre a little on the stingy side on rewarding development work, fine for an average start up, but definitely too frugal on the āsofterā aspects of the business.
You know how I feel about NuLagoon, the last time I complained I did something about it to at least control future damage on a proposal passed, I had to create a big fuzz. More than happy to leave it to others this time. Thank you.
Iām supporting your motion as it further reduces the costs.
I might support their grant as it is an interesting case for Nu to actually make some money which is desperately needed. Iām not entirely convinced though as I donāt fully understand the value or popularity of those deriviates they are intending to offer.
2 Likes
Iām talking about the motion that i wrote. It only reduces costs by like 5%, a pretty trivial amount. Basically, the entire point of that motion is to have nulagoon paid by flot instead of shareholder. Itās pretty explicit on that point, i thought.
This one:
https://daology.org/p/d9fee1a6617a7f0201afc61bc61f548b98bcb62d
Itās all about that monthly report, whether paid by FLOT or shareholder obligation the result is the same. The monthly report and grace period is all that matters, not where the money comes from.