Since passing of the motion reflects the will of the majority of the shareholders, I assume the marketing manager (@tomjoad) or an integration developer will take the lead to modify the integration instruction and dev team member such as @Ben to lead the completion of LPC motion template he [already started][1]. I am not sure I should tell who does what in the motion because it is the job of the Nu team manager ( @JordanLee ?) .
Are my assumption correct?
Very very interesting and innovative motion, both in term of form and content.
on motion’s form
It is an excellent instance of shareholders steering the wheel of marketing and development team. And this I expect to be the future direction of running this as a DAO. There are challenges to overcome and the experiment should be controlled, aka, can’t go from no control to total control in one motion
For instance, I find declaring deadlines a bit odd for (at least) two reasons :
you do not specify a penalty for not meeting a deadline, nor responsibilities… Who will “pay”, when and how much?
a distributed group of shareholders cannot be completely aware nor in control of the day-to-day schedule of each member of the team.
Instead of voting on deadlines, I think shareholders should be voting on priorities. For example : “create guidelines before releasing a second video” , or “release the third party integration code before the nubot GUI” are more realistic DAO’s goal.
Before achieving control over anything, however, measurement is required. In our case, that would be a visible priority roadmap, or something similar. We do now have several fragmented roadmaps, that will make any attempt of controlling priorities at least suboptimal.
So maybe I would drop restrictions from this motion, and if anything, I’d do another motion requesting a transparent, standardised, public, overall roadmap .
on motion’s content
The course of action defined in the motion along with its rational makes perfect sense and will likely be a step towards increasing the overall value of this network. I am all for it.
I think the motion should define concrete responsibilities, even if its just one person who will be responsible to distribute responsibilities. These person or persons of course have to agree on this beforehand.
From your answer I assume that you would like the Nu dev team to shift some of the team capacity to this endeavor. I would be extremely happy if you can make this happen, but they would have to agree.
I think having some existing PEGs to integrate Nubits to their sites will demonstrate and validate the usecase of using internet e-currency to trade Nubits from a web page. Without such step (Method 2) a developer can write “Method 3” code with skills and vision. But with such step the code could come out in better shape.
I really don’t want to be the downer, but this is not going to happen, and if this would be the case then I am asking myself why we invested into the development of the nubot, which is just the same: a tool to support LPCs, in this case on regular cryptocurrency exchanges.
However, the nubot IS required to be delivered by Nu, not because there aren’t people out there who can implement their own method, but because you really need to put a lot of work and passion into it, which in turn requires a deep trust into the project idea, which in turn most likely makes you a shareholder. I think after developing the TLLP I am in a good position to make this claim: People who are not attached to Nu will never take this risk without a monetary compensation that goes beyond their revenue afterwards.
So in the end its again about printing NBT, which we don’t have, so we would need to print more NSR to burn the NBT. Since we are just about to have a >12% dilution, it is questionable if shareholders would be willing to take an additional dilution into account. If they do, then I would do it quickly before BKS launches so you can ask for more NBT to get burned.
I am OK to remove the deadlines as they were not set with good quantitative reasons anyway. The intention is get this going quickly. I think depending on crypto-exchanges and paying high fees to NBT/crypto LPCs to increase Nubits adoption is sinking the boat.
My first answer post to creon came out minutes before your post so I’d reiterate what I said - I really don’t want to be the manager. I understand everyone is busy with good reason.
If I can do it all by myself I won’t bother to post Some of the tasks such as sending offcial emails are best done by the Nu team.
From the responses in the rationale thread I gather that people like the idea and no one is against it. It’s a matter of priority whether/when the Nu team member can do it. If they all agree to do what I wish there won’t be the need for a motion. So this motion is here to give the team the basis to set priority to this task.
I haven’t done any dev work on nubots. I assume the difficulty in implementing it is mostly due to bitcoin volatility and exchange complexity (orderbook mirroring, wall-shaping etc.). These complexities are greatly reduced with dealing with NBT/USD pair only, and having no orderbook on PEGs. That is why I imagine writing wrapper code to interface with PEGs are much easier. I could be totally wrong.
If you think it is difficulty to develop the Method 3 code, would you agree it makes sense to get it from the PEGs who already done it?
Coinffeine? No. Coinffeine is an application that lets end user to trade in a decentralized way. Method 3 code to let anyone to set up a web site or add something in his/her current webpage so that the users can use the site or the page to buy/sell Nubits.
In short Method 3 code lets anyone who has access to a web server or a webpage (at JS, PHP, html level) to become an exchange or gateway.
Sorry I still don’t get the difference. With NBT support in Coinffeine you can just do exactly what you describe, using BTC or OKPay initially. So every plugin for this decentralized trading system would allow for more possible payment gateways for NBT, which everyone could use to provide liquidity against various fiat units without counterparty risk.
EDIT: Thing is if they do not implement it on their own, then we would need to license it to be allowed to provide it to our LPCs, This could become an issue but can be discussed.
There is no guarantee that Coinffeine or any of the DEXes involving fiat will work any time soon.
Even it works it could become a centralized target for government crack down. The Chinese government is able to render eMule, tor, and many other p2p applications and prorocols it doesn’t like mostly unuseable. Method 3 could just use port 80. You can’t disallow it.
Even the application does work, users have to install something locally, which turn off many people.
I agree that there are more classical ways to implement method 3 options, but still see Coinffeine as one of them. Everything happens between the traders and on the blockchain, you cannot shut it down and there is no deposit to seize. It requires LockTime, but we said so often now that we want this, that I think a motion to implement this would pass.
In fact every LPC could provide several options for the service, a centralized website or this. This would be just the method getting the coins from A to B, not how to be able to provide this offer in the first place.
With liquidity provision project efforts oriented towards trading market places (nupool, nulagoon, liiquidbits etc…), LPCs are mostly certainly not going to make any money and this is not due to the exchange being hacked because it is centralized. This is due to the nature of the business. You just cant make any money when you are being used as hedge by an ultra volatile token.
Now question: Are PEGs going to make money for certain (figures needed in the draft) by being NBT LPCs?
If so, this is a no brainer and shareholders should support the draft as we should pivot.
All LPC can make money if the fee they get exceeds their expenses and exchange rate loss. It doesn’t matter if it is a PEG that becomes an LPC. The burning question is if the shareholders want to foot the bill for the NBT/BTC LPCs. As @Benjaminpointed out, subsidized NBT/BTC could inhibit NBT/USD peg growth. That is why i think a total cap of LPC fee per month should be in place to stimulate market competition for lower fees.
In that case, B&C could not be as much profitable as expected. There would be a conflict of interests between Nu sharesholders that want to cap lpc fees, therefore the liquidity provided into B&C and the B&C shareholders that want to maximize trade fees, therefore liquidity, therefore lpc fees overall.
But both shareholders are the same group…Oops.
There would be a dilemma leading to a balanced middle?
We ll see.
Some of the tasks such as sending offcial emails are best done by the Nu team.