My datafeed won’t be voting for this proposal. I’ve been very clear that I don’t 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.I’m 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. I’m also not feeling obliged either ethicaly, morally or contractually to support this motion and I don’t see why this would be the case as I have made it very clear why I’m voting against it in the first place. So it is not possible that the network’s or my credibility is at stake when this motion doesn’t pass. When the shareholders think it is important enough Henry should address my (and potentially others’) 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 network’s future ability to receive credit.
On a slightly different note I will therefore support Creon’s request which is a similar credit request without hesitation and add this proposal to my datafeed later today.
Finally I like to wish Henry’s 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 Henry’s 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 doesn’t really matter that you didn’t 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 Henry’s pool can certainly be improved, he’s 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.
Let’s 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 Cybnate’s 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 don’t 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 won’t 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:
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.
I’m a NuLagooner and this will not go down well if it doesn’t get voted on and paid.
“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.
of course there is the risk this or a later custodian vote to not be passed. This is the risk of NU lagoon pool
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.