Dear Shareholders:
With the support and help from the community, the Nu Lagoon has successfully operated for 4 weeks. The accumulated Custodian Fee is 1175.869 NBT at 16 Apr. According to the terms in passed motion b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761, I would like to request shareholders to grant custodian fee to the pool.
BRW7kF2bGhq175ipJWor8aTjM5LBUdZi2D , 1175.87 NBT
Thank you in advance.
The Nu Lagoon manage team
Unless someone comes forward with evidence showing there is a miscalculation in the NBT amount asked for (I have no reason to believe that is the case), all shareholders should be voting to pass this grant right now, regardless of whether you support the Nu Lagoon or not and regardless of whether you voted for the motion promising this payment. This is because shareholders authorized this payment in the motion referenced in the original post. To not pay it would severely damage the networkâs ability to receive credit in the future, which is very important to the networkâs success. This is a bill for services rendered in accordance with a contract. If you oppose payments to Nu Lagoon, the appropriate course of action is to advance a motion to cease future compensation while still voting for this custodial grant.
Letâs show the world how quickly and decisively Nu pays its bills.
voted.
Voted.
My datafeed wonât be voting for this proposal. Iâve been very clear that I donât agree to open cheque books and contracts which forces me or others to do anything I or others have never signed up for including raising motions to counteract.Iâm slightly disappointed that Jordan which I highly regard is supporting this behaviour.
It is against my beliefs of how contracts should work and I think morally and ethically wrong. Iâm also not feeling obliged either ethicaly, morally or contractually to support this motion and I donât see why this would be the case as I have made it very clear why Iâm voting against it in the first place. So it is not possible that the networkâs or my credibility is at stake when this motion doesnât pass. When the shareholders think it is important enough Henry should address my (and potentially othersâ) earlier concerns and add reasonable caps into an amendment for his earlier motion.
Having said that I think that everyone who voted for this motion and its consequences earlier should now vote and is morally and contractually obliged to do so in order not to damage the networkâs future ability to receive credit.
On a slightly different note I will therefore support Creonâs request which is a similar credit request without hesitation and add this proposal to my datafeed later today.
Finally I like to wish Henryâs operation well as it is a valuable contribution to the network. However, I hope they consider applying better ethics into any future proposals.
Regardless of whether you think Henryâs operations can be improved (which I agree with), this is untrue. What would your opinion be on the matter if, for example, only half of the Android grant was delivered to you up front? What would happen if a significant amount of NSR were sold in between the time the grant was given and development was completed, and the new shareholders chose not to compensate you and Matthew for the rest of the work?
It doesnât really matter that you didnât agree with the initial motion. It was passed by a majority vote, and as a NuShareholder, we risk severely damaging our brand if we do not fulfill our commitments. While Henryâs pool can certainly be improved, heâs stepped up to fill a liquidity void that almost nobody else has filled yet. Shareholders should pay whatever rate is demanded for liquidity in the absence of competition. Doing so will establish a market for liquidity services and allow price discovery.
I feel that the only room for discussion about this funding is another motion repealing or modifying the Nu Lagoon motion or running afoul of the agreed upon terms. We are obligated to provide this compensation according to promises made by Nu shareholders.
Realize the damage you are doing to the credibility of Nu by protesting this payment.
I will not be subscribing to your data feed anymore if this is how you feel contractual obligations are supposed to work, even though I am just as concerned about you in regards to the limitless compensation amount. Have you considered proposing a motion yourself that would modify the Nu Lagoon operation to your liking? It is fully within your rights, and some might say it is our job as shareholders to do these things.
Letâs imagine a hypothetical scenario. I make an NSR bid and your data feed does not support my bid price for whatever reason, but the motion passes and I burn the NBT. Then you apply the same logic to my situation. You can use the same excuse with the same amount of reasoning, but is that moral? Shareholders have spoken that they will do something and it is our responsibility to do it.
If this compensation does not get paid in a timely manner, it will show that Nu is broken in some aspects I feel. I hope this is not the case and shareholders leave Cybnateâs data feed to send a message about this issue. Just as contractors make sure and get paid first, so do custodial operations. End of story.
Can you explain a bit more? This is quite unexpected and I donât yet understand what view of ethics and contracts leads you to oppose passing this grant.
It is of great benefit to the network to pay for services after they are rendered, because of the risk that they wonât be rendered. Take, for instance, the custodial grant to @muchogusto where he asked for 10,000 NBT compensation in a deferred manner in exchange for liquidity provision. Due to technical problems, he never provided the promised services. Perhaps he would have burned the 10,000 NBT if he had received them up front, but there is no way to be sure of that. It minimizes the risk of loss to the network to receive credit rather extend credit to a multitude of actors, many of which are pseudonymous. To convince various actors to extend credit to the network, we have to pay bills consistently and promptly. One party or the other must extend credit when payment cannot be made at the exact time services are rendered, which is a very common scenario. What you are doing is damaging the credit rating of the network. It is a serious problem. You have been an outstanding contributor to the network and I would like to find a way to prevent your marginalization to any degree.
The motion that passed, provisions:
Therefore, at least a majority of shareholders must vote for it to pass this grant.
Otherwise, the very notion of motion is corrupted and @JordanLee and @sigmike could in all impunity keep the source code closed even if the motion to open it is passed.
I second every argument from @JordanLee below:
Voted
voted
I would also like to state that there absolutely should be no doubt in voting for this grant. We agreed on the contract and thatâs it.
However, the overall concern is correct in my view, and I also donât like the design of this contract, also from @henryâs perspective. We must not forget that shareholders can change and the shareholders who voted for the motion in the first place are not necessarily the same who have to pass the grants now. This is dangerous to rely on for the pool operator and can lead to a disaster at any time.
I can see argument on both side. I, too, donât like the open end terns. I think the solution is every voter make his/her decision as how to vote. This may mean by subscribing different feed. That is why we have decentralized feeds. That is why democracy needs diligence on the part of free will.
After further consideration, I think I understand, but @Cybnate can clarify if that is not true.
Many are attracted to this network precisely because it enables sophisticated cooperation between individuals while being completely unable to coerce or force anyone to do anything, by design. Many of us hunger for much less coercion and violence between people than presently exists, sensing that it is unnecessary. There is the understanding violence or coercion in any degree is an act of desperation, the most awkward hack when a more wise and sophisticated solution evade us. @Cybnate is taking this ânever coerceâ principle to perfection with zero compromise. She didnât vote for the motion, so why should she have to pay for it? She didnât agree to that. I can understand that perspective.
This incident cogently demonstrates that the network is indeed incapable of coercing anyone to do anything. @Cybnate is perfectly free to configure her vote and data feed however she likes. Certainly no one is going to stop her. Perhaps this statement is too coercive to qualify as a perfect adherance to the non-aggression principle from some peoplesâ perspective:
Please allow me to clarify my perspective. Perhaps I didnât articulate it quite properly. While all shareholders may do whatever they please, it is clear to me that it is contrary to the interests of every shareholder to fail to vote for this custodial grant, for reasons I have already fully explained. However, every shareholder has permission to damage their own interests and that of other shareholders. Iâm not going to argue with that.
Moving from the philosophical to the practical, I think the percent of shareholders willing to damage their own interests for the perfect freedom to do as they will in the absence of an agreement to do otherwise is vanishingly small. I believe this motion will pass very quickly with a massive majority, without any coercion. The network is designed to define consensus, to disregard the opinion of the minority, and that is exactly what it will do in this case.
I pretty much agree with everyone here. Even if I personally didnât like or vote for the motion, it doesnât matter. The fact remains that the motion was passed by a majority of shareholders and that obligates us all to pay for the bill.
I have a quick question. If I am subscribed to Cybnateâs data feed, all I need to do is deselect custodial grants and then input my own correct? The other items checked in the data feed section will continue to collect data, with the exception of the unchecked box?
I feel that in principle, shareholders should vote for motions that are a corollary of previously passed motions even if they disagree with those motions because it is a logical consequence of consensus.
To illustrate my point, suppose that JL did not vote for the open sourcing motion.
The motion has passed.
Let us assume that he has full control over the code.
In that case, the code does not get to be opened.
I am not sure if you would like it assuming that you voted for the motion in the first place.
Especially, in the Nu Lagoon case, a job has been produced, contributing to the network.
So I see absolutely no reason to oppose this vote, personally.
EDIT: typo
Yes.
Voted
Iâm a NuLagooner and this will not go down well if it doesnât get voted on and paid.
âmustâ above is well explained by @JordanLee below.
It means, overall, prioritizing the Nu global interest over feeling free from some logical coercion.