Tier 4 Fund Management Discussion

[tomjoad]

I updated my motion:

I’ll be voting for this once it’s hashed.

[JordanLee]

I have hashed my final version of the motion to create FLOT.

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003

I added changes to the amount of NBT FLOT and FSRT are to keep (150,000 each instead of 100,000 each).

[Nagalim]

Why even ask me to post an official draft for real discussion when you’re just going to hash your old version right after I post the draft anyway?

[ttutdxh]

Because @JordanLee is confident about his proposal. He does not try to write a motion expressing forum users preference or shareholder’s one for that matter, he is just putting forward his personal idea.

Also I do not think that there is an “official” draft. All motions will be the same. The more the better.
Since a lot of comments in the forum asking for a change does not mean shareholder’s support, having multiple motions would allow to have a better understanding of shareholder’s preference.

[JordanLee]

Why even ask me to post an official draft for real discussion when you’re just going to hash your old version right after I post the draft anyway?

My answer:

It would be a sign of healthy discussion and debate if when a motion needed to pass, there were multiple versions of it advanced by different people.

There are several important differences between our motions. The first one hashed (Nagalim’s) has lower thresholds for tier 4 balancing (35% versus 40% in the motion starting with f99d). The issue of thresholds has been discussed. There is agreement that there is little data upon which to make an empirically supported choice. However, my experience is that 40% on one side is low enough to negatively impact users’ ability to move in and out of NuBits.

The first motion hashed also would have a larger amount of NSR waiting to be sold. I don’t think we can sell that much NSR in under two weeks due to low liquidity.

Nagalim’s motion is very reasonable. There are some advantages to the amounts and ratios he has chosen. I just believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Others disagree with me. Shareholders will decide what is best, and I trust them.

[Cybnate]

I’m in favor of any structure that leads to clearer delineations between tiers. Complexity will lead to redundant efforts between groups at times, and more frustration for the multisig groups that are required to act. So, I prefer a greater difference between T4 and T6 thresholds. 40% (T4) and 25% (T6) feel about right to me in the absence of empirical data. Once B&C Exchange is operational it is unlikely we would ever experience a >25% drop in buy-side liquidity over a 24 hour period if the majority of our liquidity contracts are of set length and irrevocable during times of panic.

After getting through this I support TomJoad’s statement above. This relates to Jordan’s motion. I’m also supporting share buybacks over dividends. Dividends will cause value to leak out of Nu. I believe that the Nu DAO needs the funds they have to invest in development, operations and marketing. When there is a sustainable source of income a percentage can be paid as dividends. I this stage I don’t see adequate evidence for that.

I will add motion f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003 to my datafeed to provide the base for governance of FLOT. Hope we are able to vote for 7 community members for FLOT soon.

[cryptog]

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003

I think i will vote for this motion rather than nagalim’s proposal because it s easier to understand to me and its seems that some parts have already been used for peg maintenance over the past few days.

[masterOfDisaster]

I’m a little bit confused how @tomjoad’s post is a reason to prefer this motion over cad85024e62334e3a52e65b70a746d2c94d510c8

Both motions only sell NSR (T6) if the buy side liquidity drops below 25% and @Nagalim’s version at least includes an amount of time the buy side liquidity needs to be low before NSR get sold.
As BTC (T4) are being used to buy NBT as soon as the buy side is below 40% or 35%, respectively, one might assume that NSR are only being sold as soon as the BTC funds are already dry, because otherwise the BTC are used to keep the buy side above 25%.

Dividends play no role in @Nagalim’s version - or did I really miss that part?

So why is this motion here preferred?

I think i will vote for this motion rather than nagalim’s proposal because it s easier to understand to me

What part confuses you? Both motions are very similar and @Nagalim even outlined the major differences.

No offence intended, but I sense a smack of preference for this motion because it’s created by @JordanLee.

[Nagalim]

If it makes a difference, I don’t really care. I probably wouldn’t have even drafted my motion if JL had made an official thread with a [draft] tag. That was really all I wanted, and it ended up with a motion fork, so w/e.

[masterOfDisaster]

And although one motion is buried in the middle of a thread, that motion is preferred over a similar one that is governing the use of funds even more precisely.
It’s a little bit frustrating to see a lot of discussion going on, but relevant people like feed providers not participating and still making a decision based a reasoning I do no know and can’t follow.

This is different from my experience in the past.

Maybe it’s not the situation that has changed but my perception instead.
I might have become too involved thinking and discussing about how to tie the tiers to each other, how to create a set of rules that guides the NSR holders as well as people members of FLOT or other functions.
It seems that my desire for heaving rules that follow SMART criteria doesn’t find common ground.
I already bowed out from heavy participation for some days in the last week and the week before that. I might need to expand that to get a more distanced view back.

[willy]

OT: @masterOfDisaster, have you ever thought about creating a feed yourself?
The more, the merrier

[cryptog]

Sorry for the delay in my answer. To be honest, it would require a lot of time for me to understand the subtile aspects of @Nagalim’s proposal. @Nagalim is extremely analytical and very scientific. I do not have the brain cpu to grasp quickly all the details. t seems that we have used the 40% threshold proposed by @JordanLee to trigger the sell liquidity replenishment a couple of times. That is why I chose his. I wish you could generate your own feeds as suggested by @willy .

EDIT: I have not favored @JordanLee 's motion because it is JL.
There are plenty of motions created by JL that I did not vote for.
Also, there are motions that JL do not agree with that I have voted for. The last one in date is the dividends motion created by @Nagalim .

[Nagalim]

trigger the sell liquidity replenishment a couple of times

Yah, it keep triggering over and over again. It’s triggering right now. Mine introduces a velocity from 35% to 40% to give some bounce to the trigger rather than having it just be a floor that triggers continuously.

@mhps limits his response to triggers to 3/month. I ask you, which setup would be better for him, the one that requires a signature every day or the one that gives a little more slack and a lot more smack?

[mhps]

More people will understand it once they arrive at the decision point.

Every motion can be changed ammended by just another motion. It’s good we start to think far ahead and get prepared, so when time is ready, we have the right solution ready.

I think my fitting-based predictive solution is more adaptive, robust, and easy to adjust, if the calculation can be done on a webpage.

[Cybnate]

Every motion can be changed amended by just another motion

It was my main driver to get started rather sooner than later. I chose for JL’s perspective although I can see certain advantages in Nagalim’s as spelled out by Jordan. I think time will tell which parameters work best and amendments will be made. More than happy to support those when time comes.

Same disclaimer here as Cryptog made; I have voted for and against JL’s motions in the past. Don’t think the situation has changed lately. Taken a more distanced view back is something I had to do a couple of times as the complexity of some of the motions is pretty high sometimes. Won’t be the last one to admit that sometimes I’m having a hard time to get through some of them and that is not necessarily a problem of the author, just the nature of Nu.

[JordanLee]

A post was split to a new topic: Ramp up FLOT operations instead of sudden start?

[jooize]

@assistant motion vote f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003

[assistant]

Hi @jooize

Here are the details for the Motion Vote on f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003:

---

##f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003
Blocks: 5077 (50.770000%)
Share Days: 1344682675 (29.219474%)

---

[Nagalim]

This, meaning JL’s motion, has passed.

[dysconnect]

When all the motions to join FLOT pass there will be 8 signers. @erasmospunk mentioned for NBT or NSR the addresses are most ideally 3-of-5, although it seems possible (if rather tricky) to push to 4-of-6. Bitcoin allows up to 15-of-15 multisig so it can handle all of us.

For now I prefer 3-of-5 for NSR and NBT, and we’ll need to form two overlapping groups. There will be 2 overlapping members, who should be the most available and perhaps the most anonymous. Given forum participation I think @masterofdisaster and @cryptog could be in both groups. In that case I’ll propose @dhume, @mhps and @ttutdxh to deal with NSR, where @woodstockmerkle, @jooize and myself would handle NBT.

First we should try to set up an NBT address to get started (at least for testing) and prepare for a takeover from FSRT. I’ll throw in my pubkey for a testnet address:

{
“isvalid” : true,
“address” : “bDWN25hetBu3efe7jcWBNaDdMFU38ZJ2si”,
“ismine” : true,
“isscript” : false,
“pubkey” : “03be3cc2a51715848833546898c57f3a2d83fd53274eb5c55c04d74615b57bf1bb”,
“iscompressed” : true,
“account” : “”
}