[Passed] Phoenix rate


#1

Motion hash to vote for in Nu client: 9c3f3dad7a2d20d3f6a62bd3450ac79887e5541c

This motion is stored on GitHub. To verify the RIPEMD-160 hash, the GitHub version should be copied using a RIPEMD-160 calculator like Browserling. The text is included below for convenience.

-----Begin Motion------
Phoenix, which should be understood as a brand providing a variety of services for Nu, shall be paid 180 US-NBT per hour for work invoiced to the Manager of Liquidity Operations, effective as soon as this motion passes. The type of work invoiced for is at the discretion of Phoenix. The limitation is work must be calculated for the benefit of NuShare holders. It will include Phoenix’s duties as Chief of Liquidity Operations. The nature of Phoenix’s role at Nu is to facilitate work as needed in other areas of endeavor, including, but not limited to, development or marketing.
------End Motion-----

Commentary about the motion:

My role in the development of Nu is unique and the value I bring to the organization is unparalleled. The cost of mistakes in our business can be tremendous, as we saw in June 2016. It can be argued that the failure of our multisig teams cost Nu hundreds of millions of USD when looked at from the viewpoint of where we were ranked on coinmarketcap.com just before the crisis and after the failure had played out. Had we just maintained the same ranking, we would be worth over $200 million USD. There can be little doubt that if I had been Chief of Liquidity Operations in June 2016, the peg would never have been abandoned and Nu would be many times larger than it is today. While there are many people who have a better understanding of specific areas within Nu’s operations, no single person has the combination of liquidity related knowledge, understanding of our blockchain protocol, our client source code, NuBot, our history and so forth. No one understands more about the inner workings of Nu as a whole than I do. This deep knowledge, combined with an excellent record of making good decisions justifies this exceptional compensation level. At 180 US-NBT per hour, work for Nu is probably the lowest paid work I do presently. It is to a certain extent a charitable rate I accept because I strongly believe in the potential of Nu and I am delighted to be a part of developing it. This implies that if Nu were to grow more and could afford to pay me a higher rate, I may provide additional hours of work for it.


#2

A post was merged into an existing topic: MaVo’s removed posts


#3

A post was merged into an existing topic: ConfusedObserver’s removed posts


#4

What was not supportive of the shareholders with my last post?


#5

@ConfusedObserver your comment was grossly and provably false. That doesn’t help anyone, especially shareholders. Problem is, we can’t spend the time it would take to correct everything false claim you make here.


#6

It is not crystal clear if you will be filling out some sort of time card and reporting what work you do for your compensation. We shouldn’t have to take your word for anything. You say your rate is modest, yet you are looking for a crypto developer based on glassdoor prices in the general market. You don’t seem to be putting a whole lot of worthwhile energy into this endeavor based on your forum posts. It is mostly arrogance and pushing the blame on others.

Can you modify the motion to include some form of reporting of your compensation so we don’t need to take your word for it?


#7

I’m not getting paid anything and I’m trying to shed light on some claims here. Whether they are false or not can’t always be proven. Forum visitors should have a broad source of information, don’t you think?


#8

Detailed reporting is to the Manager of Liquidity Operations, like many other contractors. Payments made to contractors are public in all cases, but we don’t identify publicly which contractor the payment is to. We have chosen not to reveal the compensation agreements for any of the contractors working in liquidity operations or development. That is the most common practice in business. There can be a debate about whether this is best practice in our case. I recognize there are some advantages to revealing what all contractors make. Still, most businesses decide not to make this information public for good reason.

@lissajous you are free to advance a motion that adds additional reporting requirements.


#9

It’s really hard to compare Nu to “other companies”. We would likely know for certain what happened to all of the money you stole or lost and there wouldn’t be any uncertainty about the initial distribution if Nu was on the same level. I think transparency of compensation for each contractor would help if Nu intends to market itself as decentralized.

I have no motivation to advance any motions on this network because share distribution and your opinion on this subject makes it a waste of time, in my best estimation.


#10

I really believe this should be specified, even if it is only under categories such as Marketing, Development or management, but more detail would be better. I believe the shareholders have a right to at least approximately know on what their funds are being spend. It also allows for reviewing the performance and value of contractors. A basic principle of good governance.


#11

Voting has begun.

Motion hash to vote for in Nu client: 9c3f3dad7a2d20d3f6a62bd3450ac79887e5541c