[Passed] Passive Liquidity Source on Poloniex: @Nagalim

[Cybnate]

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.

[Nagalim]

[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

[cryptog]

This looks reasonable.
It is way cheaper than @zoro s proposal and equivalent to @Cybnate s proposal.
What are the differences though?

[cryptog]

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?

[Nagalim]

Custodial Address: BN3XDdiNQw858WWpPEZ3kVr5WsgwYjMRy3
Amount Requested: 1 NBT

Please do not vote for the hash.

[cryptog]

Custodial Address: BN3XDdiNQw858WWpPEZ3kVr5WsgwYjMRy3Amount Requested: 1 NBT

ok. but how do you make sure that the terms will be kept if we do not vote for a motion?

EDIT: voted

[Nagalim]

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.

[zoro]

Finally, it has passed!

[Nagalim]

I think this is ready:

1ASJhaxeTccnnAf4Dbb1GfKks6LBhFUNkt
BRbYwT4AS4prm2NXWZk8zQntPwyHWoQdZP

[zoro]

Is your nubot operational?