[Passed] The Nu Lagoon Custodian Fee Request of Aug 2015

[henry]

Sorry, I mean it very possibly will. The total asset of the three pools is about 56k now. The custodian fee will be over 5.7k if no fee cap exists, assuming the size of the pools stays stable in next month.

[masterOfDisaster]

The custodian fee will reach the cap of 5000 NBT per month next month, decreasing the rate of expense that shareholders spend on liquidity provider service.

I read that as

If the custodian fee will reach the cap of 5000 NBT per month next month, decreasing the rate of expense that shareholders spend on liquidity provider service will be the result.

@henry needs to confirm that as it is only my interpretation.

I have a general question:
wouldn’t it be more fair for NuLagoon and Nu to provide @henry with custodian grants in advance?

This discussion was once held and I want to start it again.

@henry has shown that NuLagoon runs well and is managed soundly. Still he depends on the will of NSR holders to pay him after the service has been delivered and compensation to pool participants has been paid.

I don’t expect NSR holders to go mad and not vote for the custodial grant.

But I’d recommend a custodian grant in advance of the service. NBT that were granted in excess could be burned or charged against following grants.

The reasoning is simple:
in my opinion the effect of such a grant having trouble to pass (because new NSR holders don’t feel obliged to stick to decisions previous NSR holders did make) would be far worse than if the risk Nu needs to face when granting in advance did come true.

The TLLP grants (as well as other grants) are in advance as well.
I don’t understand why it should be different for NuLagoon.

[Cybnate]

Agree, I would support a grant in advance as proposed.

[seki]

nu lagoon is growing exponentially!

[cryptog]

The custodian fee very possibly will reach the cap of 5000 NBT per month next month, decreasing the rate of expense that shareholders spend on liquidity provider service.

I read it as: if the cap reaches 5000 NBT, @henry would have to reject the participants that would provide the additional liquidity causing the overflow.

[henry]

if the cap reaches 5000 NBT, @henry would have to reject the participants that would provide the additional liquidity causing the overflow

That’s not true. Let me explain.

If the total fund size of the three pools remains stable or continues grow next month, the custodian fee will be capped during each accounting peroid to ensure the accumulated fee won’t be great than 5000 nbt within one month.

Fund deposit won’t be rejected anytime, but it will cause the slight decrease of the expected return of pool A, D.

wouldn’t it be more fair for NuLagoon and Nu to provide @henry with custodian grants in advance?

We really appreciate it. If NuLagoon could get the custodian grants in advance, the Nushareholder defualt risk will be removed. We believe that will cause NuLagoon to attract more fund, resulting in the decrease of custodian fee rate.

[cryptog]

but it will cause the slight decrease of the expected return of pool A, D.

Got it. So you would decrease the reward rates.
Sorry for my misinterpretation.

[zoro]

@henry, sorry if this has been asked before.
for the sake of clearance and to attract more investors, i would like for you to inform us
how many people are managing nu lagoon and what their salary is.
if you are alone, how you ensure the proper pool’s functionality in case you are not able to manage it any more! (worst case scenario)
thanks

[henry]

There are three people, including me, are managing NuLagoon now. I am afraid I can’t tell the exact salaries. But I can tell the salaries are not significant, but we don’t care much because we are Nushareholders and hope our work could add value to NSR.
Henry: Fund movement and fund withdraw management.
Henry’s Manage Partner A: Website and systems building and accounting
Henry’s Manage Partner B: Fund movement and fund withdraw management. (backup of Henry)

[crypto_coiner]

Note: It is Nushareholders’ obligation to pass this grant according to prior shareholder motions : b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761 and ae07a18b22e20e38d6bf7559e320c1728d7a62dc

The motion says:

"Nu shareholders approve the daily custodian fee rate is 0.34%. The maximum of custodian fee is 5,000 NBT per 30 days.

The custodian fee will be accumulated in every month. The manager will submit a custodian fee grant request once a month. Nu shareholders promise to pass the custodian fee grant in 10 days. The custodian fee granted will be added to the pool. The Custodian Fee wait to be granted will be calculated as:"

[crypto_coiner]

But I’d recommend a custodian grant in advance of the service. NBT that were granted in excess could be burned or charged against following grants.

The reasoning is simple:in my opinion the effect of such a grant having trouble to pass (because new NSR holders don’t feel obliged to stick to decisions previous NSR holders did make) would be far worse than if the risk Nu needs to face when granting in advance did come true.

I agree -

[crypto_coiner]

voted

[seki]

voted.
henry, can we support the NBT/USD pair in cryptsy also?

[zoro]

i would support the nbt/usd from my money without a grand, but they are asking for some ridiculous verification actions!
thus it would be great if just a manager from a pool proceed with the verification and the rest of us sending money to the pool

[CoinGame]

This vote has passed. NuShares holders continue to pay their bills. gg

[seki]

pool D will suffer big time with all this fuss about btc XT

[dysconnect]

Does NuLagoon only handle user position and withdrawal/deposits every few days?

If so that’s extremely risky for users, although centralized management has some benefits in, say, spreading out risks of individual users and balancing pool C&D.

[cryptog]

27AUG NAV is 1.19.
This is roughly 0.10 lower than the peak on 06AUG.
This is certainly due to the bitcoin unit price decrease.
But 1.19 is still nice.

[seki]

we will get there eventually some time in the future