Three roles that need to be filled by shareholders

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

Thanks for reminding me -
I would like to try to honour and provide that service for a non NULL fee - Let’s see that I see it like maintaining securely a vault for 10NBT/month.

Sorry for the delay. At that stage I would be willing to be a multi-sig signer for free.

Without answers to these questions

I can still imagine having a multi signature signer role.
If some answers to the questions turn out to be a show stopper, I’ll take the liberty of withdrawing this offer.

I’d do it for 10,000 NSR per month, because I think payment makes me feel even more reliable for the job.
Otherwise I’d do it for free as I believe the Nu network can revolutionize money business and I’d be proud to play another tiny role in it.

Now that Jordan Lee has specified his required compensation to continue with liquidity operations, we need to vote in a group to replace him. The first step will be to establish group members. After that, we can look at voting for rules that govern the conduct of each group. I think @dysconnect has a good point regarding the required skills/interests of the group:

Would anyone like to volunteer to hash a motion? I get the sense nobody wants to offend anyone else by selecting individuals, so I would like to propose the following shareholders for the two groups based on their history on the forum and willingness to volunteer without compensation:


The group would operate with a 5 of 7 multisig arrangement. Payment would be a token 1 NBT custodial grant for each member to establish the concept of consideration. If I’ve misunderstood anyone’s willingness to be in the group, please let me know.

The current FRST team would continue on with their management of this reserve.


you forgot @crypto_coiner , obviously.

I simply picked seven people who seemed to indicate they were willing to do it for free. Other people I would trust like @mhps and @crypto_coiner suggested they would like payment. Feel free to propose a new slate of people if you like.

1 Like

Is for free such a high priority criteria for a task for which careful consideration and timely response appear to be both important?

Why not clarify the requirement first?

That is correct - I mentioned I would like payment some 12d ago.

I have drafted a motion that selects me for a part of this. It’s easier to post motions separately for each individual, and although I would appreciate some votes, this can serve as an example.

Tks for starting to create potential groups.

Sorry for asking about it only now. Would it be possible to only take care of Tier 6 liquidity ?

1 Like

I think a white paper would serve multiple purposes. It will document lessons learned, where we are now, where we plan to go, and provide a historic position that is accurate for future changes and growth.

Hey @KSylvan,

welcome aboard.

Would you mind introducing yourself here?

1 Like