I assumed all community members can participate in developing rules of the group, which will be approved by a motion.
Community members can all participate, but few can afford to get their hands dirty.
Jordan intends the burden of being a signer is worth some money. A number of community members are willing to do that for free, but it is not healthy to rely solely on charity, and some have stated they do not wish to take a large burden. On the other hand, there are clear barriers to making shareholders pay signers, so a good compromise would be paying those who are willing to go an extra mile or two.
The decentralization of management of custodian funds is a new component of the network, which means there is going to be a project with a fresh start, a clear goal, and a well-defined executive body. There’s a lot we can do for tier 4 liquidity - accountability measures, monitoring, data mining and automation, but we have so little manpower we can command or consistently rely on. It is a good opportunity for the expansion of network funded community efforts.
I understand that shareholders would have limited interest in this kind of proposal until they see deliverables or unless it is done by a more reputable member. There may be some better arrangements than this one. But I’m stepping up because nobody else has dared. I would be happy to vote for certain members had they proposed the same, perhaps more so than voting for myself.
Bump. I won’t hash yet, as I hope to synchronize with a few more signers/trustees before I start working. I hope others would also create their own motions soon.
5 days a week every week? Also, why 435 nbt?
Love the motion, thanks for being the first.
I strive to be available for 7 days a week for a large part of the year but promising to be online for all 365 days is too much. I considered 6 days a week but there’s still too little flexibility. Another way would be something like 24 days for any 30-day period, but that gives too little predictability. For predictability, ideally I should tell shareholders every time I’d be absent, which would be a significant sacrifice of privacy. So on so forth.
Perhaps a better-written clause would look like this:
must to respond to proposals to use tier 4 or 6 funds made by other members in FLOT within 48 hours at all times, where shareholders must be promptly informed of exceptions.
435 NBT for 90 days is 145 NBT per month, a bit less than 5 USD per day. Or 20 hours of minimum wage per month. I hope shareholders can decide that my work would be worth more than 20 hours of flipping burgers.
No not ideally. Make proposal which you feel you can comfortablly carry through. Or things won’t last.
It’s a good number, about 1 M NSR / year at IPO price.
Bump. It’s a bit early but I’m hashing. Seeing that FSRT is having problems bringing sell side liquidity, I guess it would also be on the shoulders of FLOT to help them. While this is voting I will see what I can do to lubricate sell-side operations to bring more NBT to the market.
The fee sounds fair in itself given the response times and related work. However, we need to take into account that we will have 6 others to be reimbursed. Assuming they ask a similar fee we spend 7 * 145 = NBT 1015 / month on tier 4 liquidity management.
JL is asking NBT 750 this month for his services re T4. Cheaper, but rising and it is centralised. Still scratching my head on how best to proceed. Wouldn’t it be better to organise a team offering fixed fee (e.g. the NBT145/month) and see what the uptake is and run for 3 months? Not perfectly decentralised but maybe a step in between until we have either more volunteers or more funds to pay members of FLOT team a higher fee to make it more attractive.
Not all of the signers would ask for the same amount as I do. Some want to take fewer responsibilities, and only a few want to or can afford to take active roles.
And frankly I think 1k per month for the entire tier 4 isn’t a lot, especially if some of it goes to some form of development. I think planning share buybacks etc. are also going to be in the scope of tier 4, and recent events convinced me that tier 4 would get busier in the next stages of growth.
I don’t want to over-promise right now; chances are that we’ll keep finding ways to agree upon a better set of governing rules, and smoother ways to do multisig, and issues with costs and benefits would surface long before this motion is taken more seriously. There’s room to discuss and we’ll keep our eyes open.
I’d also like to note that forcing JL to take care of Tier 4 imposes high costs on the network beyond the monetary compensation, so it’s not very appropriate to measure the costs to hire the FLOT team against the 750 NBT first-month payment.
By the way, eramospunk seemed to suggest that Nu can only handle at most 4-of-6 multisig at the moment. On the other hand lot of time has passed and I am no longer sure how many are still interested in working on Tier 4. Guess I’ll start with a roll call: @dhume @mhps @desrever @masterofDisaster @cryptog @nmei @woodstockmerkle; who would like to propose a motion for themselves, or want to be included in a grouped motion? I can help with drafting.
I’ve been thinking about a motion without posting even a draft, because I’m not sure what I can or should put in the terms.
If there are tools/scripts that make it possible to sign a multi signature transaction in a reliable way using remote access to my RaspberryPi, I might be able to guarantee response/action in less than 12 hours in over 90% of the cases.
If I need access to my computer it can very well be some days, because a part of my job includes travelling.
While I find it strange to have an individual motion of each FLOT member, I still don’t see the common ground for a combined motion to include all members.
No knowing the details about the workflows of the FLOT (they need to be established first), I can only offer what I have and develop the rest from there.
I’ll post my draft soon.
I am increasingly confused by how FLOT is supposed to operate. I could post a motion for shareholders to consider but it might be quite different compared to several suggested versions.
Can we commission some work to develop some Python or Perl scripts or something to take out the risk of manual error?
I still think some sort of dashboard tool for the FLOT would be super helpful:
- a utility to help create multisig addresses
- a place to store the addresses of the FLOT members
- scan the transactions as they come across, and identify the FLOT ones that require multisig action
- facilitate the actual work of doing the multi sig
- perhaps custom client-side alert generation facility (generating email, SMS, etc), to a FLOT member when action is needed – to help retain / enhance anonymity, as a backup to disruption to this Discuss board or gitter
Likewise I feel I will propose a motion for my candidacy soon. As for compensation, I have originally expressed to offer my services as none-to-minimal, but I think I will be mimicking dysconnect’s, for consistency with other motions.
I would be comfortable re-negotiating this in a future motion; I do feel like we’re a bit overdue in proceeding with the nominations, as voted by the Nu shareholders.
I would hope that the FLOT team gets T4 operations to a point where regular compensation is not needed to maintain, but seeing as how these motions will be cheaper than Jordan Lee’s rising payment schedule, I am voting for them.
I am interested in being part of FLOT. I will make a draft soon.
EDIT: draft created.
cb23c76e21e6ef7a568161e817869168f5273c4f verified and voted .
@dysconnect is the first shareholder that took the initiative to craft a FLOT membership motion.
I am still interested in joining the FLOT team. What is holding me back is that I’m still not quite sure as to the technical challenges being part of FLOT will produce. Maybe it’s an idea to have a test run week so to speak, so everyone who is voted to be a member of FLOT can have a few runs at signing and producing multi sig transactions.
Also similar to @masterOfDisaster is it possible to sign transactions without having to be near the same computer all the time? Aka can we find a method to sign multi sig from ones phone for example. Doing a practice run with some small amounts of funds would also allow us to experiment with ways to communicate between ourselves. I imagine for most actions a dedicated forum post would suffice but in case of emergency’s we might want additional means of communicating that are faster?
I was also thinking it would be better if there is a period when every community member is welcome to try out in a sand box and contribute to how best to do it. Then those who feel up to the task can be elected to the group.
Maybe we should do this on testnet?
I’m building some scripts that use github to track spendable inputs and broadcast signed transactions. Porting to a mobile device requires either a separate channel or a git library on android.
For now you should assume that the response times aren’t so strict until a viable tool comes out - you just need to tell shareholders you will sign transactions when you get home etc. See if you are comfortable with the most basic multisig work flow.
By the way, I want to know whether blockexplorer.nu has an API to retrieve transactions to an address…
Often all I have access to is a web browser. As a framework question, can signing be done over the web? even if a private web server is needed to be set up? (over a vps or raspberry pi maybe)