Thanks willy! What exactly is the question for me? Yes NuBot does monitor the balance and places new balance on order, everytime a resetorder is triggered (time elapsed, t1 gone, btc price shift…)
How about triggering on total account balance increasing by over $1000 (nbt+btc), or something like that?
I’m gonna take a look at running nubot this weekend.
You will need 1-2 hours to master it. Voting needs 1-2 weeks!
MoD will get a stroke until then 
Any success with that?
Yah, im ready to hash, life stuff is making me hesitate. Ill do it soon i think.
2 Likes
This has been reworded somewhat and hashed. Please note that I have not completely set up NuBot (and haven’t heard a thing about the certificate or whatever that i need; I filled out the form) but I’m fairly confident I can get it up and running in a jiffy after this passes. Of course, I will not charge shareholders a dime until NuBot is putting FLOT funds on the order books.
1 Like
I’m still torn as it is a limitless operation hard to control for Shareholders. There is no end date and the only way to end this operation appear to be raising a motion or the custodian saying they had enough.
The compensation is also not entirely clear to me. When the gateway is used for a couple of days during a 30 day period would that become chargeable for a full 30 day period? And what if FLOT doesn’t use the gateway for 30 days in a row at all after having it used at least once?
I’m holding my vote for now.
You’re right, i forgot a clause about if the bot has no funds for a full period i won’t charge. But yes, if FLOT deposits funds for 1 day and demands a withdrawal the next day i intend to charge 150 nbt. If you want me to rehash with the clause i will. (Note that such a clause allows FLOT to discontinue my operation)
I like that clause as it provides at least FLOT a way to discontinue services in a way we don’t have to actively vote for discontinuing services when no longer required or better proposals are superseding it.
[WARNING] I HAVE CHANGED THE HASH!!!
Please be aware that I have edited the grant since inception but maintained the same address. I think the grant is now unilaterally better for shareholders, but awareness of this change is very important to avoid calls of foul play. @cryptog
3 Likes
This looks reasonable.
It is way cheaper than @zoro s proposal and equivalent to @Cybnate s proposal.
What are the differences though?
92263daf3b89a605f9302ad212d12799c0c7bcee verified.
EDIT: I suppose that this is a motion. So people should vote for the hash not for the custodial grant but the block explorer says the contrary.
Can someone confirm?
Custodial Address: BN3XDdiNQw858WWpPEZ3kVr5WsgwYjMRy3
Amount Requested: 1 NBT
Please do not vote for the hash.
1 Like
ok. but how do you make sure that the terms will be kept if we do not vote for a motion?
EDIT: voted
We’ve been doing it this way for a long time (for instance, the grant I basically copied [Passed] Dual side Nubot gateway in Poloniex (by zoro)). Please bring this up in its own thread if it concerns you.
1 Like
Finally, it has passed!
I think this is ready:
1ASJhaxeTccnnAf4Dbb1GfKks6LBhFUNkt
BRbYwT4AS4prm2NXWZk8zQntPwyHWoQdZP
1 Like
Is your nubot operational?