[Passed] Motion to join FLOT - masterOfDisaster

[masterOfDisaster]

I would like to be a member of the FLOT. I think this is a very important role for the peg in times of pressure. I take this very seriously and felt the need to adjust the standard motion most other candidates use. I tried to stay as close to the standard version to make comparing it with the others’ easy.
The reason for the most important adjustment (an additional requirement) is that my day job requires travelling from time to time on short notice and maybe for several days. I have no access to a computer with GUI and a Nu wallet then, but still access to my RaspberryPi via SSH from my mobile phone.
I need to be able to do the FLOT job that way. Doing complex things via SSH on a mobile phone will likely end up in a mess if not assisted by proper tools.
I intend to create the necessary tools myself, but as long as there’s no workflow, no framework, no organization available, because that yet needs to be formed by FLOT, I can only say that I need that type of tool and need to make this a requirement for my job…
I bet most other FLOT members find tool assistance helpful and might assist me in creating them.
@woodstockmerkle already sketched some ideas that would help the FLOT to their job.
I think this is the way to go and I want to go the way with the FLOT. This motion would pave the ground for me to play a role in this endeavour.

Please tell me whether you think I can go forward with this motion.

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: f3450db474cd284aab3ab20ae6bea6787864c131

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

@masterOfDisaster shall be one of the members of the First Liquidity Operations Team (FLOT). @masterOfDisaster will coordinate with other members of FLOT, and members of FSRT if necessary, to defend the peg. @masterOfDisaster promises to be a part of FLOT for at least one year and to abide by all shareholder motions governing the use of funds. @masterOfDisaster will be able to respond to any request for signing within 36 hours of its proposal; shareholders must be promptly informed of exceptions.Being able to sign any request within 36 hours requires tools like a script or scripts (Bash, Perl, Python) that allow timely and error resilient signing. Until these tools are available, the 36 hours response time can’t be held in case an absence prevents from direct access to a computer.

Compensation for @masterOfDisaster will occur in 90-day cycles, for a total of 4 cycles. By the end of each cycle, a total of amount of 435 NBT shall be paid to @masterOfDisaster, conditional on satisfactory performance, which shall be measured in terms of his presence, effort and contribution. @masterOfDisaster reserves the right to withdraw from his service if he does not receive the full amount of compensation by the end of any cycle or by personal discretion.

The service of @masterOfDisaster and the compensation cycles will commence from the passage of this motion.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the <motionhash></motionhash> tags.

[dysconnect]

Being able to sign any request

I wrote this as “respond to …” rather than “sign …” in case I choose to decline a request or don’t have access to the software.

[masterOfDisaster]

I could only decline a request if it were not compliant to the motion(s) which govern the use of funds. Access to the software mustn’t be one of the important limitations. That’s why I require tools to make signing available as easy and often as possible.

edit: I decided to promote this motion from [Draft] to [Voting] because I find having FLOT rather sooner than later important considering the increasing involvement of @JordanLee.
He has other important things to do.

Keeping the peg is of paramount importance for Nu, but can be achieved by FLOT (and FSRT) as well with the benefit of having it less centralized.

I hope that the constraints I tried to voice (regarding the lack of structure, tools, processes) will be mitigated soon. If not I can still retire from the position, but promise to do my very best to make FLOT successful, help by creating and testing tools and developing processes.

[crypto_coiner]

ok - voted

[cryptog]

f3450db474cd284aab3ab20ae6bea6787864c131 verified and voted.

[Cybnate]

I hope that the constraints I tried to voice (regarding the lack of structure, tools, processes) will be mitigated soon. If not I can still retire from the position, but promise to do my very best to make FLOT successful, help by creating and testing tools and developing processes.

considering the increasing involvement of @JordanLee.

Thanks for your proposal. Your voice is heard, but we need to get on with it for the exact reason above. A gradual handover would be good to allow the FLOT team to get used to available tools and gradually develop ways and better tools to make it easier and more accessible including committing to a nice overall framework with proven rules and discretion limited where risks are relatively low.

Adding to my datafeed.

[zoro]

passed!
congrats!

[masterOfDisaster]

Availability notice:
I have been informed that I’ll be on a trip from 2016-02-08 to 2016-02-19.
Other trips might follow.
I will have limited or for some time even no access to the internet.
I will not be available on short notice, but hope that I can keep the 36 hours response time.

[masterOfDisaster]

###Announcement:
I’m seriously considering a retirement from my position as FLOT member, if a motion that restricts increased offsets passes.
This applies of course to

[Passed] 1% Maximum Spread in Shareholder Funded Liquidity Operations

Motion hash: b71a585de0b5e552648036fbc8282e11fea4a1cc This finalized proposal is being managed on Daology here. I will quote it here for convenience: Normally I provide some context and explain the reasons why motions I advance will help the shareholders. In this case, that context was provided in my recent thread about the importance of liquidity and tight spreads. However, I will briefly say that this should dispel the notion that liquidity providers will widen spreads when the peg appears …

and maybe to

[Withdrawn] 0.6% Maximum Spread for ALP/MLP, 1.2% for Nu Funded Liquidity Operations

Given the discussion here and a counter proposal here I believe there is place for another view. Key differences are: Lower spread (0.6%) for ALPs/MLPs to improve liquidity quality (with exemption when high fees are incurred) and with that likely the volumes Medium spreads (0.7%-1.4%) for Nu-funded liquidity but limited to maximum of 30% of total liquidity when ALP and MLP fails e.g. in high periods of volatility as a first line of defence. High spread (1.4%-2.5%) for Nu funded liquidity but …

I firmly believe that a sound liquidity operation can’t be established, if orders in the NBT/BTC pair are forced at a spread below 1%.
As I wasn’t able to convince the shareholders in the recent months that a combination of liquidity at a tight spread combined with orders at an increased spread is superior or even necessary to support the peg during high BTC volatility, I need to consider consequences.

This is by no means an attempt to blackmail anyone. Btw. I’m not even in the position to do that.
I’d find it unfair not to announce that in advance, though.

I won’t waste my energy and devotion in an impossible mission.

Recent events/posts that might help understanding my view:

Current Liquidity

BTC price made a jump and traders emptied all orders, that wee placed at a tight spread. NuLagoon can’t even balance the operation at Poloniex: nud getliquiditydetails B | grep BTRnV9uLSPVJw4jn1JMV2Ki2cfFqPYip9o -A 1000 | grep poloniex -A 2 | tail -n 1 | awk -F':' ... and some more stuff "1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.3.2a_1464322560378_083b7a" : { "buy" : 0.0, "sell" : 6014.1664 -- "2:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.3.2a_1464322560378_083b7a" : { "buy" : 1.06, …

FLOT BTC Operations (buy side)

The liquidity situation got derailed by BTC’s price jump. The buy side is almost empty (except for e.g. @zoro’s NuBot gateway at Poloniex): [image] status of the ALP last 15 minutes: bid total 7807 USD, bid side ratio 6% ask total 116152 USD, ask side ratio 93% I propose trading 65 BTC at NuLagoon Tube to balance the situation. That leaves a remainder of 15 BTC that might be useful to fund gateways if need be. 65 BTC ($30,732) to NuLagoon Tube and 4.23 BTC ($2000) to Cybnate’s Bittrex Py…

[Nubot Gateway] Poloniex @zoro (sell offset:0.25% , buy offset:5% ) - stand by

I hoped so. Good to see that there are over $9,000 on the buy side to support the peg on your gateway alone. I don’t know about @Cybnate’s, but there might be some more. Just imagine Nu had to rely on operations at a very tight spread that can get emptied in the blink of an eye if BTC starts to go haywire. An increased offset is not after the fancy of the traders. They refrain from trading. That way the gateways can support the peg longer than T1.1 can. As long as they have funds (on the or…

[Cybnate]

and maybe to

[Withdrawn] 0.6% Maximum Spread for ALP/MLP, 1.2% for Nu Funded Liquidity Operations

I firmly believe that a sound liquidity operation can’t be established, if orders in the NBT/BTC pair are forced at a spread below 1%.

I share your views for the greater part and that’s why I raised a competing motion. Although I do recognise that liquidity paid for by Nu (ALP/MLP) should be high quality liquidity. After all we pay for the risk taken by the LPs. Where Nu takes a risk with its own funds e.g. with gateways the quality should be decreased and the spreads increased. The percentages in my motion are a starting point and can be updated if they don’t work. But we need some time to gather information to see whether it works. If not we adjust as we do.

I won’t waste my energy and devotion in an impossible mission.

I recognise the severity of the situation and even though JordanLee is the architect, he appears not to have the experience a few of us have seen in the last few months during periods of high volatility of Bitcoin. It is actually happening right now.
It is also very unfortunate that we also loose our USD and EUR pegs on CCEDK at the same time. Pegging will be 100% dependant on Bitcoin from next week on. Not a great situation imo.

I wouldn’t call it a waste of energy and devotion though. There will be valuable lessons learnt, the question is if we can ever turn them into profit for Nu.

[masterOfDisaster]

Where Nu takes a risk with its own funds e.g. with gateways the quality should be decreased and the spreads increased.

The spread needs to be big enough to make the risk worth it.
Make a solid last line of defence with it - or at least make revenue getting it traded.

Pegging will be 100% dependant on Bitcoin from next week on.

We never promised to guarantee a super tight peg on USNBT/BTC. I repeat that until someone refers me to a motion that states otherwise.

I wouldn’t call it a waste of energy and devotion though. There will be valuable lessons learnt,

The lessons learnt are already there. But this knowledge seems to be limited to me although I write continuously about it and beg others to listen and understand.

Going a way I’ve already been gone before, a way that made me realize how important it is to have funds on an increased spread to provide a line of defence, is what I call a waste of time, energy and devotion.
I won’t go that way again.
But I won’t sit idle either.

I’m taking some time off while others learn, what they could learn from my experience. But they can learn the hard way, too.

[crypto_coiner]

We never promised to guarantee a super tight peg on USNBT/BTC

I think that is true