I won’t vote for anyone who is requesting NuShares. I prefer if members receive NuBits as payment and then use them to purchase NuShares on the open market. Looking forward to seeing this motion hashed.
I don’t think we sold too many NSR at all. Most of us here have a healthy stake in the network. As a selfish shareholder though, I prefer retaining as high of a percentage of the network as possible. I won’t support share dilution in any scenario except peg maintenance. This is also why I’m pleased with the current buybacks that are taking place; every week my equity ownership percentage of Nu increases, just like all other long-term shareholders.
I think we should be using our own product (NBT) when it is perfect for paying contributors in a stable value. Paying in NSR could lead to jealousy (if the fixed NSR rate becomes lucrative for contributors) or abandonment of dutes (if the fixed NSR rate doesn’t become appealing enough for contributors to continue their duties).
The same can be said to NBT. Some asked for no compensation argh
To me printing NBT to pay for goods and service is a slippery slope to fiscal indiscipline; paying in NSR leads shareholder to be conscious of personal cost and appreciative to the goods and service, for the reasons you said.
But at the end of the day, NBT and NSR are the same thing.
Since payment grant request will probably be approved individually just like this motion to join, asking of compensation in NSR shouldn’t add more administrative overhead than in NBT.
I agree, and would have no problem giving NSR grants at a reasonable price over NBT grants. However, I basically proved via vote that shareholders would rather give NBT than NSR even if the chosen price is beneficial to shareholders. Go figure.
I might be unclear. What I mean is that there is no need to reduce compensation if your max response time only increase so little. The compensation is a token. There are many aspects of quality of service.