[Passed] T3 Trusted Custodianship: @Nagalim - Second Attempt

aa341d7e915d40b3b2bf1889110a5f59db9ca998 verified and voted.

It seems you were just a little bit ahead of time :wink:

Finally shareholders seem to have understood that some buffer on T3 is required to make liquidity provision scalable and sustainable.

Some trust is required, if an operation needs to have some agility.
Even BCE will require trust that is embedded in a framework to ensure a high level of security despite the trust.

1 Like

A large number of people are voting for this as a motion rather than as a grant. @Cybnate @CoinGame @cryptog are your data feeds correct?

1 Like

Oops. I made the mistake. Will correct that asap.




50% of the network is voting for the hash of this, which they shouldn’t be. @cryptog did you remove the hash? Aa34 something something.

My bad. I forgot to remove it. Very sorry. l ll fix that within a few hours from now.

Sorry for the delay. Fixed.

Adding this to my voting data feed –
Sounds reasonable to experiment T3 liquidity providing custodianship.

This proposal passed.


If anyone wants to buy nbt for $1.003, let me know. Otherwise, im gonna wait till next week’s buyback calculation to start this up.

1 Like

I’m glad to see that this proposal did pass.
Would you mind telling the BTC address which will be associated with this custodianship (you might want to add it to the OP)?

The FLOT shouldn’t wait until next week to send you $2,500 in BTC.
The recent days showed that there’s much need for more agility in liquidity provision.

As far as I understand, you will handle transactions exclusively using the custodial address BAoDAU3GwBVyaWC99kfUgJftzgi2FwuXDF and the BTC address you are going to provide to make the process transparent.

Although this is likely an edge case, I conceived a potential problem for T3 custodians dealing with business partners.
As T3 custodians will require to receive funds first and send the exchanged funds afterwards, (a few) trading partners might feel uncomfortable with that.
I have absolutely no reason to expect anything going pear-shaped with your T3 custodianship, on the contrary!
The Nu network trusts you with $5,000 funds and for good reason!

Still some might be hesitant and shy away from making a deal.
That would create unnecessary friction again and we need as much agility as possible in liquidity provision.

I’m aware that the knowledge and skill for doing what solution I have in mind, is not widely available.
But if a trading partner sends a deposit to one of your addresses (NBT, BTC), the OP_RETURN could carry the address to which the exchanged funds shall be sent.
This way a business partner can prove to not have received the deposit of the exchanged funds.
In that case it would require to check that OP_RETURN field for each transaction, because otherwise fraudsters could request deposit in communication to address A, put address B into OP_RETURN and claim to have been cheated.
I bet this can be based on Cointoolkit - at least the part sending messages along a tx with OP_RETURN.
I don’t know how to investigate contents of OP_RETURN, though.

This would only be necessary, if we can agree upon this:
The Nu network needs to insure damage that is done by T3 custodians not sending exchanged funds back to business partners (and now some might realize why the original proposal, that contained a collateral, was superior).
T3 custodians act on behalf of Nu. Nu is held liable for their wrongs.

I’m sure that you don’t take this personal.
I’d trust you blindly. But I know you for some time. Maybe others don’t.
This is a potential issue for all T3 custodians, of which hopefully some more come soon.
We need to reduce friction wherever it is possible as long as it’s reasonable and affordable.

Yah, i mean that’s why i wanted to collateralize this, so that Nu would have collateral if shit hits the fan. But basically, the idea is that if shareholders trust me you should too. You’re right that there’s clearly a trust barrier, but that barrier is there almost no matter what. You want proof you sent me money and I sent you nothing? It’s on the blockchain for all to see and I’ll have to report the deposit in my weekly report, or send it immediately back. The only situation where users lose funds is the same situation where I take Nu’s funds and run. I do not intend on doing anything to alleviate that concern, though I do suggest shareholders demand collateral in the future.

As for starting up now, I’d really rather not. I’m kinda hoping to concentrate on the buybacks for this first week.

Only if I can prove what address I gave you to deposit the funds to.
I’m just trying to think one or two steps ahead and try to mitigate issues before they arise.

I appreciate that you applied for that role!

Ah, so you’re saying I send the payment to one of my addresses instead of theirs. Yah, that’s possible. The OP_return thing would work for that, as would a public statement of deposit address on the Nu Forum. Good concern, actually. Can I check the OP_Return messages on the block explorer?

I don’t know. http://blockexplorer.nu/ is down at the moment and considering how often it’s down, I wouldn’t want to rely on it for that activity.
I will dig deeper later into this (or simply test it with Cointoolkit). It looks like getrawtransaction can do that:

is inferior to a message in the blockchain, but might do for most as well.
It wouldn’t hurt to manage trades publicly in the forum (the involved addresses are public anyway).
Someobody who wants to make a trade can make a post and T3 custodians can battle over it :wink:

Maybe we need another category to separate it slightly from “Liquidity” in general?

To preserve pseudo anonymity and improve shareholder trust, I can post my record publicly before receiving any user funds. This way, the user need not oust themselves publicly but can still verify the pay address and price before doing the transaction. So I can post the following line here whenever I receive a prompt for a sale:

Buy/Sell | UserAddress | Time | Exchange(usuallybifinex) | Price | markup% | finalPrice | VolumeRange

If this forum fails, I can use my github account.

1 Like


I tested it already. FLOT can do whatever they want here, I have no direct say over their consensus process. I won’t be reporting network liquidity until next week, but we can call this a testing week if you want.

1 Like

I don’t know exactly when this motion passed, but I suppose after end of last Friday UTC.
That means the next cycle would be the end of the next week, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to have a T3 custodian as soon as possible ramping up operation.

Although I’d rather calculate the amount of NBT with the current BTC price, I think the rate should be taken from the weekly overflow calculation.
The price per BTC at end of last Friday UTC was $427.66.
$2,500 equals 5.846 BTC based on that rate.

I’m going to prepare a transaction, but delay posting it in the “FLOT Operations - buy side / BTC related” to not create more confusion than necessary.

1 Like

Refilling my T3 address is totally doable mid week, even in the future during normal operations, but i would urge you to use an updated btc price.

That makes so much more sense to use the price from when the refill is calculated.
After all we want to have $2,500 equvalent under your control.

I’m going to use $385 per BTC, which equals roughly 6.5 BTC, for the initial deposit.
I guess for the near future it won’t be possible to schedule the refill/withdrawal to once per week.
We might need to do that on demand to keep that T3 buffer refilled.

My withdrawal happens after 24 hours of being over-full. Refills happen once a week at a minimum. If all T3 custodians run dry on one side, it says we need more T3 custodians, but FLOT can choose to do a midweek refill of all custodians in a single transaction without any real input or confirmation from the custodians (seems to me anyway, just thinking about it logically).

1 Like