[PASSED] Motion to modify terms of custodain grant

Hi Everyone,

Please accept my apology for the delay in proposing this motion. It has not been easy for me to decide how I wanted to handle this. On one hand, I am very excited to see Nu succeeding and I want to do everything in my power to help it continue to succeed. On the other hand, I am concerned and disappointed that I do not see more community members rising to task of liquidity support. Without the peg, we will likely fail, and for long term sustainability of this network, we are going to need other primary custodians besides Kiara and myself. I signed up for this to help get the network off the ground. I very much hope that after our first year of operation, mine and Kiara’s role will be shared by many and that liquidity will be much more evenly distributed amongst all custodians.

Please bear in mind that given Kiara’s new dividend distribution strategy, the more liquidity this network has, the more everyone will earn in dividends and thus ultimately in share value. I want to thank Kiara for all of her hard work and commend her for coming up with such a brilliant plan to strengthen this network and provide incentive for others to offer liquidity.

Concerns being addressed by this motion:

  • The Nu network cannot currently afford to loose any of the liquidity being offered by the grant I operate.
  • Stability of the peg in this early stage of the network is far more important than profit from dividend distribution.
  • Dividend distribution should be based on network liquidity and not a sales goal or set point in time.
  • The role of Nu custodian carries great responsibility. This can be stressful at times. Custodians need to have a way to end their duties in a way that does not harm the network.

The following motion gives me a way out of this operation at the one year point from which it began. If the motion passes, I will consider continuing it’s operation past the one year point only if an additional fee is granted to help with my operating costs. If this motion does not pass, the grant operation will switch to sell-side on February 5th and dividends will begin being prepared for distribution.


Motion hash: 4C1FA7B6B7B435BB215B93A771681232F1FD6237

Begin Motion
Passage of this motion will amend Proposal to Provide Dual-Side/Sell-Side Liquidity and Shareholder Dividends (amended), Revision 0.1.1, by Jamie Miller (https://gist.github.com/jmiller99/8273219429deec2f0381) in the following ways:

  1. The grant will continue to provide dual-side liquidity to the Nu network until 01-Oct-2015, at which point the funds will be removed from exchange and secured until further directed by shareholder motion.

  2. Custodian addresses are only able to submit liquidity info to the Nu client for a period of 260,000 blocks, or approximately six (6) months. Therefore, on 20-Feb-2015, the grant operator will request that a new grant address and amount of 1 NBT be voted for. Upon passage of this address, continuing grant operation will provide liquidity info through that address.

  3. Dividend distribution will be removed from the conditions of this grant. This applies to currently held funds as well as any additional funds accepted from other Nu custodians. Release of any funds being stored or operated under this grant will occur only if one of the following conditions are met:

  • a) The grant operator is requested by shareholder motion that some or all funds be permanently destroyed (burned with no compensation to shareholders or custodian)
  • b) The grant operator is requested by shareholder motion to transfer some or all funds to a different custodian

End Motion

Edit: Found issue with hash. Corrected.


I found and corrected a problem with the hash. I used these two site to verify:





I just wanted to point out that you have a typo in your title jmiller. It says trems instead of terms.

1 Like

Thank you! :slight_smile:


I’m not able to reproduce the hash, neither with the websites you posted nor with hashlib. Maybe because of the list formatting?
I’ll set the hash since apparently the community agrees that this is the hash we should vote on to get this motion passed, but I’d love to be able to confirm it. Can you help me? How does the raw text you’re hashing look like?

EDIT: fyi, I am getting 05df242e4521b9da6c40d2a2cc45ad1e76ca221f using carriage return + line feed (like on the websites you posted) and 260cd8b79fc3c4a5ebf1e96ca8e44734c0affe19 when using line feeds only.

1 Like

Thank you for reporting this, @creon. When I generated the hash, I copied from the beginning of the word ‘Passage’ to the end of the word ‘custodian’ in condition b).

Is anyone else having trouble with this? If so, I will reformat the text and resubmit.

@jmiller - At this point, it may be worth leaving it as ~250 votes have already been cast for 4C1FA7B6B7B435BB215B93A771681232F1FD6237.

We need to work on a better method for posting motions, but it isn’t something we’ll be able to get done today.

I am returning the correct hash using both of the linked hash generation tools.

@jmiller Yes that’s what I am doing too :disappointed: But as Ben already said, the voting process started and it wouldn’t serve anyone to resubmit this proposal. I also believe you and pennybreaker that you are getting this hash, but I think its worth figuring out how to reproduce it on every machine.

@pennybreaker Could you do me a favor and create a pastebin with whatever your machine pastes into the text fields of those websites?

@Ben I really think its a browser / OS related problem in combination with the interpretation of the html produced by this forum. There are motions where I get the correct hash when replacing the newline characters. And there are other motions, where at least in my browser some newlines are inserted, which aren’t actually there (but will be copied), and which also don’t show up when quoting the text (e.g. Grant to provide 50,000 liquidity to Exco.in for 60 days).

I agree. My hypthoetical solution looks similar to a Github gist’s “raw” output. That way, browser differences don’t matter because all characters (visible or invisible, including whitespace and line breaks) would be captured in a copy/paste.

soon, thanks to @assistant this won’t be a problem for long

Hi desrever

I didn’t recognise your command

Send me a PM with the first word ‘help’ to see a list of available commands

Well, this doesn’t look good. I created the pastebin here but when I run the text from the line numbered text as well as the raw data from the pastebin, I get two completely different hashes. 966d0f3a0952d5961e5322640eea2c855c80fe4b and F6EFB54913520D6D5057057483D5AB95CE7C553F

I’m not sure if we should agree to let this stand. I think that the ability to verify in the future is more important than cutting it close on a deadline.

I am getting the correct hash now with your pastebin and carriage returns :smile: The problem was that my Chrome here ignores html paragraphs when copying, while your browser apparently translates it into 4 spaces. Likewise the list tag gets also translated into 4 spaces on your end, which isn’t the case on my machine.

EDIT: F6EFB54913520D6D5057057483D5AB95CE7C553F is correct if you don’t strip the string, both websites do this.

I agree that this is probably a browser issue. I’m used Firefox.

I think we already can reach a lot of consistency if we say:

  1. Copy the text from the forum to a text file
  2. Remove all trailing spaces and tabs of each line
  3. Remove all newline characters
  4. Calculate the RIPEMD-160 hash

This hash should be equal on most machines, at the cost that motions that only differ in newlines or trailing spaces/tabs would result in the same hash, which is ok in my opinion.


I confirmed that the hash matches what @jmiller posted using both hashing sites listed when the content was copied in from the forum and the browser was Firefox (v35.0).

1 Like