I would also like to state that there absolutely should be no doubt in voting for this grant. We agreed on the contract and that’s it.
However, the overall concern is correct in my view, and I also don’t like the design of this contract, also from @henry’s 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, don’t 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 ‘never coerce’ principle to perfection with zero compromise. She didn’t vote for the motion, so why should she have to pay for it? She didn’t 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 peoples’ perspective:
Please allow me to clarify my perspective. Perhaps I didn’t 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. I’m 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 didn’t like or vote for the motion, it doesn’t 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 Cybnate’s 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.
“must” above is well explained by @JordanLee below.
It means, overall, prioritizing the Nu global interest over feeling free from some logical coercion.
Given the responses I feel that I need to respond to this:
The reputation of the brand is indeed at stake with this motion and has always been after it passed. This grant does nothing to change that. The reputation is at stake either way so I’m not damaging the brand more than is already happening with Shareholders accepting this kind of things to happen. When the next grant can’t be paid by the network at some stage due to the open cheque book the reputation damage will be significant and will lead to diaster. Can we afford that? No, I don’t think so. Are we taking that hit now or later? Human psychology will always try to postpone a risk even if it significantly increases over time. However it is not the rational and right thing to do. So I’m taking this risk now to reduce further more significant damages in the future.
Should I work with the Shareholders to set us up for disaster? I feel the contract is setup to create this controversy in the first place. By continuing to endorse this behaviour others might feel compelled to display similar risky behaviour and further increase the risk of damaging the brand and the network. I’m very disappointed that the apparent majority doesn’t seem to see that this is setting a very dangerous precedent and that we are on the wrong track.
I’m doing and will continue to do more than my fair bit to make this network a success and will continue to comply to my existing and future Shareholders obligations, but in my opinion there shouldn’t be limitless consequences in any proposal or motion as with this proposal.
I might have to pay the ultimate consequence for this and sell my shares or withdraw them from minting. I need to think about this and whether I should take the lead in raising a motion, however the wording will have to be immensely balanced as it would otherwise damage the brand whether it is voted for or not. I think we have put ourselves in a very difficult position.
I think only Henry can take us out of this by proposing amendments and bringing his otherwise excellent operations into normal contractual control.
So we do have indeed a serious problem and yes I’m feeling the pressure…
And just reiterating, Shareholders who voted for the initial motion are obliged to vote for this grant without any hesitation. Anyone not doing so is indeed putting the network reputation and credibility at stake. No second thoughts and prepare for the consequences if you don’t! I’m expecting of you that this passes very quickly and convincing in at least a similar way as the motion.
I think we are misunderstanding the concept. This is not a vote, this is a payment.
Lets put this into perspective with an example:
Joe and Mark are two of the voting shareholders in the company “Fruit Delivery for the Crypto World Ltd”.
Mark is a driver.
Joe works as accountant and he is responsible of paying suppliers, bills, etc.
The company ask their shareholders in a vote to decide either to buy
A) One big van.
B) Two small pickup trucks.
Mark vote A.
Joe vote B.
The vote pass with A.
Joe is obligated (yes, completely and absolutely) to buy one big van, even if he did not vote for that. If he fails to do so for whatever personal reason, then he is breaking the whole system. What happens if the result of the vote were B, Joe bought the two pickup trucks and mark Refuses to drive the pickups because is not what he voted? In this case, every shareholder is Joe.
If you can vote, you own NSR.
If you own NSR, then they have a value for you (you can think of it as X USD).
If you vote no to this, you are damaging Nu image.
If you damage Nu image, NSR price will fall.
If NSR price fall, you are loosing money.
So, if you vote no, you are effectively destroying your own money.
With that said, I share @Cybnate concerns, and If NuLagoon is running as expected and the custodian fee is getting higher now it is the perfect time to raise another motion to modify the original terms of b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761.
Also a datafeed act as a means of expressing opinions in the decision making procedure, not interfere in the operation of Nu, therefore all payments like this that have been already passed should be included in everyone datafeed, even if the original motion was not in the datafeed.
I voted for this grant because what’s done is done.
The NuLagoon should be providing liquidity for NBT/USD for a greatly reduced rate (more like park rates). How would a transition like this occur with the current open ended form of the NuLagoon motion?
@Cybnate I think your point is well taken that safeguards should be put in place to prevent limitless obligations on the part of shareholders. The first 30 days of the Nu Lagoon pool created an obligation on the part of shareholders of a little over 1000 NBT, which I think is quite reasonable.
What should the next steps be to limit the future payouts to a reasonable amount? I see nearly unanimous consensus that the bill must be paid since it was agreed to, but also nearly-unanimous consensus that safeguards should be put in place in case the pool increases in size in the future. I think that contradicts your statement here:
Obviously no one wants you to sell shares or stop minting; let’s work on fixing the problem as we see it.
I think I was referring to the motion in the first place. I’ve seen the responses which are encouraging, but not necessarily from the same people who voted for the motion in the first place.
I’m working with others on finding a solution for this complex problem we are finding ourselves in.
Nu converts ideas into enforced action by the power of decentralized voting - I’d suggest you propose immediately a protocol change via motion so that you won’t find yourself again in such a “difficult” position.
I have no problem with voting and being part of the network and adhering to choices being made for the good and the bad. Those are basic democratic principles. I do have a problem when the Nu network is put at unlimited and undefined risk for an unlimited time without any valid reason to do so. It is also a democratic right to raise my voice and raise awareness and show the consequences of decisions made by the Shareholders even though they are democratic. Continuing to be silent would basically make me as guilty of any potential future failures or exposures to risk as the people who voted for the motion. If I’m failing to do so and the situation continues to exist for a longer time, I will take the ultimate consequence.
As I’ve said the ultimate consequence is to sell my shares and leave the network. I’m still exploring other possibilities, but I don’t think a protocol change as you suggested is the right answer. That is like throwing the child away with the bathwater.
If you propose a motion that amends the original motion of henry by saying that Nu would reward the NuLagooners up to a certain limit, say 20k NBT (the max monthly pool fee) for example, then i will support your amendment. I m indeed uncomfortable with a limitless reward clause.
This passed in just 6688 blocks! While I’m not certain, this may be a record for fast passage of a custodial grant. Around 80% of blocks were voting for this just prior to passage.
