after a grace period of 45 days my NuBot gateway operation on Poloniex was active for 6 days (including today).
Based on [Passed] motion to permit dual side NuBot on Poloniex this entitles me to raise a daily fee of 15 NBT totaling 90 NBT for the 6 days.
The gateway operation was terminated by FLOT request (FLOT BTC Operations (buy side)) and once the withdrawal of the funds is complete, the operation will be converted in unattended standby mode.
The NBT address from this grant might be used for broadcasting liquidity of future operations.
While it’s technically not necessary to state that (as each NBT grant address can be used for that), I wanted to include it into this grant.
The proposal’s details (RIPEMD-160 hash e14ce8790d500ba53e756d4ca9d24eecd45c8308) are here:
To support this grant please add the following details into your client:
I sincerely struggle with this one, here is why:
Technically you are right to charge for those 6 days after a free period. That’s why I don’t like free subscriptions which go automatically over into a paid one without notifications. I think it is even against the law in the European Union.
So I have two issues against it:
You haven’t given the Shareholders a heads-up in time that this was about to occur in order for them to stop it. This is good practice at least.
There are a NuBot and a PyBot active on Poloniex so one could argue that strictly speaking it was not needed to have your NuBot running especially not at a premium. More is always better, but there is a cost element we need to assess as you know.
In favour are:
- Appreciate your work in general and I’m therefore not keen to alienate you over 90 NBT.
So this time I will vote in favour of it, but going forward I won’t vote for any motion which don’t have a clear and timely warning built-in for the Shareholders when either significant cost increases are about to occur or implications with significant impact which were not there at the start of the motion or grant. A warning can just be a public post in the thread of the motion or grant, but with the onus on the custodian or motion submitter.
That much about warning:
A discussion about the fee structure followed. There was awareness.
But then nobody remembered.
Oh, not nobody - it was me who remembered that date!
I’m close to forfeiting that grant, because I don’t want to create the impression that I tricked someone.
Please don’t, I just want to try to prevent Shareholders finding themselves in this position. More might be at stake.
I’m sure that is not your intention, we all do forget at times. We just need to have better communications to remind us e.g. a Nu Calendar or just a post in a public thread in advance.
Will add this to my data feed
Very sorry for the delay.
It got 51% of blocks with 19% of share days.
I think it passed, right?