I’ll have a look at the voting behaviour for some days and will change it to a grant, if it doesn’t get traction.
I thought it would make things easier.
If Nu wants to have precise control via grants over 90 NBT monthly, I’m 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 won’t 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 didn’t 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 that’s being voted on.
Well, I didn’t say that. I’m keen to get longer terms than just 30 days. 60-90 days would be a good start and when…[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:20, topic:3829”]
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 I’m against it. It encourages ‘unconscious’ 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 ‘free MoD bot’ (pun intended) to a paid custodian against market price.
I don’t 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.
There’s 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. We’re a little on the stingy side on rewarding development work, fine for an average start up, but definitely too frugal on the “softer” 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.
I’m 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. I’m not entirely convinced though as I don’t fully understand the value or popularity of those deriviates they are intending to offer.
I’m 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. It’s pretty explicit on that point, i thought.
It’s 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.
Have to admit that I’ve been lured in by the reduction in cost. 5% sounds trivial, but is still 250 NBT each month. We can run a few managed bots for that.
And no, not happy with FLOT’s role in this proposal. I’m seriously concerned by the lack of accountability and terms of reference of FLOT for these kind of operations. Will be interesting to see if FLOT manages to run this properly and is able to report on the books or ensure that this will be done properly as a transparent organisation should do. FLOT may question itself to what measurement they are being held. I won’t have an answer to that.
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?
Hi-jacking your thread in response to Nagalim.[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:29, topic:3829”]
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?
[/quote]
Just 3 words; accountability, control and centralisation
Something is usually better than nothing. But that doesn’t mean it is good. As said, popcorn is out and I’m more than happy to be proven wrong. Problem is it will hurt greatly when I’m not and only hurting would then be the best outcome.
Accountability is not really different if FLOT pays bills compared to shareholders approving grants.
One advantage of FLOT paying bills that comes to my mind: you have less NBT addresses that can be (ab)used to broadcast liquidity information!
Control and centralization are more or less necessary evils if you want to be more agile than when shareholder consensus is required.
This is not strictly related to FLOT paying bills, but rather to FLOT as a whole.
If you want to fight centralization and partial lack of control, you need to suspend FLOT.
I’d be more than happy to find motions from shareholders that aim at creating a set of rules about how to measure liquidity operations.
How do you imagine shareholders start taking that responsibility?
Would you prefer FLOT members sitting idly and waiting for train wrecks to happen to awake shareholders?
I’m fully aware that this road (FLOT starting to act when others don’t) is risky for several reasons.
One is that shareholders are relieved from the need to act.
Another is an accumulation of (de facto) power in the hands of FLOT.
It’s not that FLOT is secretly planning to take over control.
On the contrary all is openly discussed in the forum.
It cries for being stopped by shareholder motion, if shareholders disagree!
I’m still gonna talk about NuLagoon because I think it’s a great example. Giving FLOT authority to pay for NuLagoon is not giving them any governmental control at all. The governance still lies with the shareholders. That’s why there is a report and a 10 day waiting period. Then, if there is no action from sgareholders FLOT is obligated to act. There is no room for FLOT to deny or approve of any funding for NuLagoon, it’s simply not in the contract. They are a rubber stamp in this context.
Not much room to act. So what are we trying to achieve. Are we saving a monthly custodial grant the datafeed providers need to add. Until now that hasn’t been a problem, except that some reminders are required sometimes.
Or are we trying to set up a foundation who provides some governance on behalf of the shareholders for the contracts we have. If that is the case then I’m ok with that. Let’s start the terms of reference for such a group and do it properly. Are we a DAO/DAC or not?
This is all we are doing. It is a vital step toward making shareholding an easier task. The more grants a shareholder has to add, the more likely they are to hop on a datafeed and increase centralization. Not to mention the less likely someone like me will start up my own datafeed to decrease centralization.
So yah, using FLOT for this increases decentralization rather than reducing it.
I can’t make your mental loop unfortunately.
What I do understand is that we need some centralisation to be more effective in managing Nu. As I said earlier let’s set that up and separate FLOT accountabilities regarding managing the peg and related reserves from managing the contracts and related pay. We still need to following:
making sure that all contracts still have terms, but they can be longer, e.g. a year,
This to guarantee they can be renegotiated by FLOT when conditions change
shareholders can still raise a motion or grant to substitute services managed by FLOT
budgets for contracts are separated from reserves to keep the peg
FLOT members can be voted in and out by Shareholders by motion, once a year FLOT steps down and election is held.
