What do you refer to? Not this motion, right?
Because this motion deals with
And seriously - what’s the difference between FLOT paying the operator fee with funds granted by NSR holders or NSR holders pay directly by grant?
Accounting wise it’s the same: Nu NBT are used to pay the operator.
Controlling wise it’s the same: somebody needs to keep an eye on the service to make sure the performance is sufficient.
This is no question to FLOT, but one that goes to the NSR holders:
- what are the criteria to measure such an operation?
- uptime of NuBot (how to check that?)
- response time to questions?
- tracking of the liquidity situation of NuBot?
Frankly said: I think FLOT spends more time trying to find a sound liquidity provision scheme than the average shareholder does.
FLOT members deal with liquidity and are more often in contact with that business than shareholders are.
If shareholders think this is going the wrong way, they might start a corrective action by motion.
FLOT is bound to follow shareholder decisions.
This might sound bold, but I dare say that the average FLOT member has a much more in-depth view of liquidity related operations than the average shareholder has.
That makes FLOT the natural choice for such activities, decisions, payments.
Again, ultimately it’s up to the shareholders. Whatever they decide, FLOT will follow.
Isn’t it better to have an initiative from FLOT members than having no inititative from shareholders?