As a nushareholder from day 1, I am interested in being a multisig NSR grant holder for emergency purpose.
Since some of the tasks here require quick reaction from the trusted parties I think it could be useful to have some advanced means of communication established between the shareholders. For example, instead of relying on the forums we could have texting on the nushares/nubits block chain with SMS alerts to the subscribed parties. That way one is not obliged to constantly poll the forums but can instead be away from the computer for a longer period of time and get an SMS when their shareholder actions are needed (signing, voting, upgrading the client and so on).
a number of community / dev team members hangs around here:
Not having my questions above anser I guess I can be a signer. I usually read the forum often but can be unavailable for a couple of days with short notice.
I have no great idea of the fee I would request for a task such as Holding NSR for emergency Peg maintenance.
@JordanLee May I ask you what your fee was? (and for the other 2 tasks too)
I just posted this draft motion, which is quite relevant to this topic. It makes action more urgent and will allow people wanting to fill these roles to feel confident in asking for compensation, as whatever they ask for will be less than what I require.
We need to talk about who is going to be involved in which role and what compensation will be per person.
If I’m selected to any of the groups above my requested compensation will be zero. These roles will require some initial discussion around governance but won’t require regular daily or even weekly duties. As a NuShareholder it is in my interests to have these roles filled (and for little cost), so I hope to set a precedent by declining compensation.
I would also be willing to sign up for 1), with up to $10000 in BTC for Tier 4. And my fee would also be zero.
You guys are undoing what Jordan tries to do.
I am willing to join the group and take some fee as it will probably make me feel more responsible, although my main concern is, as I have asked in this thread earlier, what is the requirement/qualification to be a member of the group?
what is the requirement/qualification to be a member of the group?
I guess this boils down to a shareholder vote. We can lay down the specifics as we go on, so the bottom line is that first candidates need 1) enough trust and 2) be conscious with designing rules for the role. As for (1), it is going to operate under multisig, so I don’t think you need the trust level of @JordanLee. For (2), it is better to choose people who like to consider expenditure and regulatory practices, and perhaps with some ability to code and automate parts of the responsibility.
I also volunteer for whatever is needed free of charge. As long as it doesn’t require huge amount of time per week or a high level of technical ability (Setting up a TLLP was technically a lot more complex then I felt comfortable with) .
I’ve not seen a formal answer to this question, but to me it makes sense to make this split.
These are questions which need to be part of the discussion as they should be in a final motion as well:
I’d like to add another question: do these roles necessarily need to be filled solely by shareholders?
It’s obvious that they have an incentive to fill the role.
But does that mean being shareholder is a requirement?
I can also be part of the signing parties. Take me into account in forming groups
So for a quick oversight of volunteers so far:
We have 3 people that volunteer and are willing to do it free of charge:
We have 1 person that volunteers and asks for a small fee:
And 3 people who volunteered but have not yet specified if they would like a fee or not:
Maybe it’s time we start forming an consensus of how many groups (3 as Jordan Lee suggested or 2 like Tomjoad suggested) of people we need and how many persons need to be in these groups.
I’ll throw my hat in the ring.
I’d prefer my services in exchange for a (small) fee – to set precedent with there being some value in servicing these roles, and establish a concept of consideration.
Regular small payments / grants (even 1 NBT or equivalent NSR) could also be used to determine / assert / record in the blockchain who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’
My preference is for 2 groups – so the same team is coordinating intervention on each side. i.e.: what confusion could be created if both tier 4 and tier 6 are mobilized, and also the movement of funds between tiers (where possible)
This is a great idea. Our forum could disappear tomorrow but we would always have a blockchain record of who has been entrusted with the funds.
There are two aspects to moving this forward. One is selection of the multisig participants. I suggest people who want to be signers propose a motion designating them as such. There will need to be one motion per person. We also need to bring clarity to exactly what signers are being asked to do. An effort to compose a motion governing the regular activities of the signing group is needed. These suggestions are made with the presumption that signers will fill all three roles.
I’ll withdraw from consideration if I’m acting as a NSR buyback facilitator. The multisig group would ideally decide each week how much excess Tier 4 liquidity existed, at which point it would send the funds to me for the purchase of NSR. Inclusion in both roles would be a slight conflict of interest on my part.
I don’t see a conflict of interest. The decisions about buyback size are based on simple formulas. I don’t see how you gain from a larger or smaller NSR buyback.
I agree with Jordan, someone from the tier 4 liquidity multisig group has to do the buyback I don’t see anyone more suited for this then you Tom. You seem to have a sensible well thought out plan how to do it and all the required credibility, I would vote for this.