I took the liberty of creating a separate thread out of @Dhume’s post because I had similar concerns I would like to discuss. I put this in the Motions category because I expect the discussion will result in a motion that phases in FLOT operations, rather than the sudden start currently planned.
A sudden start is ill advised simply because it is likely everyone in FLOT will be novices at forming multisig transactions, not to mention novices in their role as FLOT members. As such, operating on test net for a first run is advisable, followed by working with a small quantity of production funds for a period of time. The current value of the funds they will manage is over $400,000, so it makes sense to get a little experience first.
One problem with this new idea is that it will place extra burdens on FLOT members. It might be possible to address this to everyone’s satisfaction by offering some additional compensation to FLOT members.
Getting down to specifics, I suggest that FLOT create one multisig spend and one burn on the Nu testnet to start operations. Second, only 10% of the funds previously planned to be under the management of FLOT will be managed by FLOT during the first 30 days of their operation. I would continue managing the 90% of funds for those 30 days without the normal compensation, although that will only apply to BTC balances, because NBT and NSR will be given to FLOT directly by shareholders.
What does everyone think?
Edit: Because different software will be used to sign BTC multisig transactions, it should also tested before beginning production operations. This could be done using the BTC testnet, or it might be easier to use dust amounts of production BTC.
I completely agree, although I would suggest a 1 or 2 week test period with very little funds (something like a few hundred dollars total) before FLOT is credited with 10% (which is already a sizeable amount).
Edit: I am very much in favor of getting a team up and run as quick as possible but also favor slowly transferring funds from @JordanLee towards FLOT. This to make sure FLOT is adequately able to deal with the funds and responsibility that comes with them. While we go through phases of increasing the amount of funds FLOT holds we can also refine FLOT inner workings and protocols. Over the course of a couple of months this should lead to a well-defined and equipped FLOT team with well thought out protocols to guide its means of action.
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate with a separate motion for that? I support the idea and you, so it wouldn’t make a difference for me, but it might for others if it binds with your FLOT participation.
Sounds good.
Basically, let’s begin with insignificant amounts to make sure we know what we’re doing. What about specifying in the motion that @JordanLee has discretion to decide when or if FLOT is ready to handle larger amounts of funds?
I have left it out of my proposal, maybe we can have a motion to define a 1 / 2 week test period for FLOT with its voted in members, to be followed up by the main motion (whichever gets favored by shareholders) that defines FLOT.
[quote] Basically, let’s begin with insignificant amounts to make sure we know what we’re doing. What about specifying in the motion that @JordanLee has discretion to decide when or if FLOT is ready to handle larger amounts of funds?
[/quote]
I was going to work on developing this motion and hashing it today, but it occurred to me that it would probably work better to let FLOT members decide the pace of transition in real time, rather than trying to determine and mandate the pace of transition now via motion.
This isn’t really an issue in regard to FLOT’s NBT and NSR holdings, which will be granted directly by shareholders. Based on recent discussions, they will likely start by asking for a small grant and then ramp up. It doesn’t need to be regulated by motion.
Then there is the issue of the tier 4 BTC. For this I propose that FLOT members simply decide how to make the transition as they go. If 50% or more of FLOT members ask for funds from tier 4, it will be given immediately. I believe this is consistent with the passed motion to create FLOT, which states:
It doesn’t specify whether funds should be given all at once or incrementally. I’m happy to proceed at whatever pace 50% or more of FLOT decide is appropriate. Specifically, if there are 6 signers, and a signer posts they would like 50 BTC, another requests 30 BTC, another 100 BTC, another 200 BTC, and another 10 BTC, with one not saying anything, then 50 BTC would be transferred, because 50% of the signers requested 50 BTC or more.
I encourage comment on this plan. Does it need to be specified by motion, or can we just proceed that way?
Agreed! FLOT needs to be prepared to start ramping up the operations. So giving FLOT the lead for that makes sense.
Reminder for the FLOT (and so possibly to myself ): grant addresses can only be used once! For each new grant a new NBT or NSR address needs to be used!
I don’t see a violation of the motion to create FLOT by moving the funds incrementally to FLOT.
Currently there are 119 BTC left on that address.
24 BTC might be used for NSR buybacks. A tx to deposit 24 BTC at @Nagalim’s exchange accounts has been created.
The current BTC rollercoaster is requiring buy side support. A tx to deposit 50 BTC has been created.
Both haven’t been signed yet. But we need to expect that to happen.
That leaves, as soon as those tx have been executed, 119 - 24 - 50 = 45 BTC on the multisig address.
A BTC withdrawal in unknown height (depends on the rate at which the gateway NBT get traded) might happen in the near future.
Until that happens (if NBT demand does increase and they get traded!), not much BTC are left under FLOT control to support the buy side.
I leave it up to your discretion to decide how many of the 417.7 BTC you hold to transfer to the FLOT address.
The terms according to the motion
state that all BTC (now currently 417.7) shall be transferred to the FLOT.
I think the FLOT has shown that the members are capable of handling the funds.
Still I’d appreciate if we wouldn’t consider ramping up the operation complete. It’s good to have at least some BTC on a singlesig address of a reliable person; 5-of-8 multisig, which we have at the FLOT BTC multisig, is rather slow.
I’d feel better with at least 100 BTC remaining under your control.
I could not voice my opinion when JL asked FLOT members, but as a member of BTC FLOT, I would be fine with 50% of T4 BTC funds going to BTC FLOT multi-sig right now.
If I were a smart ass, I’d correct that to “below 10 BTC”, because 29 BTC from the last tx (3 hours ago) are still unconfirmed!
Allow me to correct my vote to 75% according to
cryptog: 50%
Dhume: 33%
dysconnect: (no known percentage)
jooize: 20%
masterOfDisaster: 75%
mhps: 60%
ttutdxh: 20%
woodstockmerkle: 49%
@JordanLee, it looks like half of FLOT is ready to receive up to 49% of the remainder (417.7 BTC), which would be to manage 204 BTC (417.7 BTC * 0.49).
Multisig address: 3QDWJ2yqJ5iTUg6cSpAwxx95ba3NG97hzG
Highly appreciated!
At the Poloniex NuBot gateway operations are currently in total approximately 44 BTC available, which haven’t been withdrawn, yet.
Please stand by in case a BTCUSD price surge drains the buy side funds as
FLOT requires 5 signatures to move BTC funds from the FLOT multisig address
has until your depositarrived only below 40 BTC left to support the peg in emergencies
our first T3 custodian is just now ramping up his operation (after having received 6.5 BTC some hours ago) and isn’t yet as efficient as he will hopefully soon be
I would say don’t be too afraid of Poloniex’s buy wall. If NuLagoon Tube is properly advertised we should try to help sending volume there. Avoiding exchange default is also important.
The Bitcoin network currently has over 13,000 unconfirmed transactions. It is not functioning properly. In order to send funds to FLOT, multiple transactions must be used to protect the privacy of shareholders who paid in Bitcoin. Those transactions are not being confirmed in anything close to a timely manner, which is delaying the transfer of the 204 BTC. It will arrive in chunks as the Bitcoin network permits.
The overall buy side is low (<40%) as well as the buy side on Poloniex in particular.
The NuBot funds provide a buffer for approximately $18,000:
Wed Jan 20 06:16:15 UTC 2016
status of sell side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
"BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
"buy" : 8589.67,
"sell" : 14295.3766
status of buy side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
"BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
"buy" : 9342.79,
"sell" : 11919.2544
I’m going to adjust the offset of the sell side NuBot trying to drain some BTC from the market.
Except for the 39 BTC on FLOT multisig, there’s nothing left under direct control of Nu.
And even if it would be - the Bitcoin network still is crowded.
Just to confirm. Is that liquidity reported somewhere in the client (liquidity window)?
I understand that the buy walls are far away enough from the peg to not be eligible as T1.
So it could be T2 but I understand also that those buy walls are put in order so that it should not be T2 either.
So?
): 