[Passed] Motion to join FLOT - mhps

[mhps]

[Draft] Motion to join FLOT - mhps

I would like to join the FLOT. I have been a Nu community member since the beginning and a long time Peercoin community member. I have a developer background and am comfortable with numbers. I am making this offer using @masterofDisaster’s proposal as a template, with changes from several versions that have been posted due to several factors I explain below. I am probably more risk conscious than normal community members. I don’t want to promise more than I can deliver with margin.

I often have reasonablly good access to the internet but there could be days of interrupts due to travel and holidays, when the internet is totally unavailable or only web access (port 80) from very insecure computers are available. So I put in the motion that I am available in 24 hours for 280 days a year and best effort basis for the rest of the days.

From recent discussions I gather that Tier 4 fund is possibly often used, triggered by liquidity ratios crossing certain rather high percentage threshold. It also appears that the FLOT is not expected to be a low-overhead “rubber-stamp” signers’ group that only serve as a decentralization mechanism (such as B&C signers). Instead, extensive discussions may be needed to make a decision when a proposal received by the FLOT. Frequent, continued, close attention is potentially required. (I also observed that only a few potential FLOT members participate in discussions, suggesting realistic availablity.) To set clear expectations I put it up front to limit my service to max one signing (with its required investigation, discussion and deliberation) a week, and no more than three a month. Note that the n by m signing scheme doesn’t require all members to be available all the time. FLOT will be informed of exceptions (actually not always possible in advance as it has happened before that only after you arrive at a travel destination do you find out the net service isn’t working).

I thought about asking for NSR for compensation but after discussion I think we can vist that possibility later.

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: c94cef2865a53da5dc3b92532b4dcd03775be467

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

@mhps shall be one of the members of the First Liquidity Operations Team (FLOT). @mhps will coordinate with other members of FLOT, and members of FSRT if necessary, to defend the peg. @mhps promises to be a part of FLOT for at least one year and to abide by all shareholder motions governing the use of funds. @mhps

will be able to respond to any proposal for signing within 24 hours for 280 days a year, and be available on a best effort basis for the rest of the days. @mhps is able to carry out a maximum one signing a week, with its required investigation, discussion and deliberation, and no more than three a month. FLOT must be informed of exceptions. Being able to sign a request within 24 hours requires tools whithout which the response time cannot be held in case access to the internet is limited.

Compensation for @mhps will occur in 90-day cycles, for a total of 4 cycles. By the end of each cycle, a total of amount of 435 NBT shall be paid to @mhps, conditional on satisfactory performance, which shall be measured in terms of his presence, effort and contribution. @mhps reserves the right to withdraw from his service if he does not receive the full amount of compensation by the end of any cycle or by personal discretion.

The service of @mhps and the compensation cycles will commence from the passage of this motion.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the <motionhash></motionhash> tags.

[Nagalim]

Powerful concerns, I am glad you found a way to post a draft anyway. The 3 signs/month is a very strong restriction. Restrictions of that nature tend to spawn centralized operators that doll out funds over a period of time to avoid having to ask signers too many times. But perhaps that’s not a bad thing; perhaps that is Tier 3, along with ALP operators (who hold NBT off exchange for distribution to LPs) and the direct T3 MLP funds.

Anyway, thumbs up.

[masterOfDisaster]

It is very clear that you thought a lot about what you can deliver and what not and I appreciate that very much. It’s good to have realistic terms.
I partly disagree with

extensive discussions may be needed to make a decision when a proposal received by the FLOT

In the early days it might be the case more oft than not, but in the end there needs to be a set of strict parameters and thresholds that activate/enable the FLOT. This set of parameters needs to be developed based on the experience of the FLOT.
If the responsibility to decide when and how to react were required for each action of the FLOT, I would rather withdraw my proposal.
The shareholders need to be responsible for decisions. Only under rare circumstances which are not (yet) reflected in the set of thresholds I consider an independent decision of the FLOT legitimate.

I won’t join the FLOT to receive a general delegation of responsibility.

In the ends I very much expect the FLOT to act like B&C signers - the key management should be what members are required for and making decisions only under circumstances which couldn’t be foreseen.

[dysconnect]

Perhaps that’s truer for future generations of signers, but at the current state FLOT needs a larger amount of discretion and a mindset of building rules. I don’t think the rules set in a motion could ever be comprehensive, and as a matter of fact both nagalim’s and JL’s motion have “… may exercise discretion”.

[masterOfDisaster]

I don’t see that related to the generation of signers, but rather the number of months after the FLOT has started its operation.
And that is for the start of the FLOT the reason for the monthly compensation - there’s a lot to develop (tools, framework, metrics).
So in effect I expect this (lot of discretion) to change rather sooner than later.
FLOT has an incentive to create motions that delineate the types of actions based on what situation.

If there’s no tools and no set of tools and no ruleset (I was trying to get a discussion started here) after the first months of FLOT operation I can already suppose that I’m not going to be eligible for additionalperiods.

[mhps]

In the ends I very much expect the FLOT to act like B&C signers

I hope so, too. But I am not sure how soon it can happen, if it could in the one-year term.

[dysconnect]

It took several months for people to decide to act upon Jordan’s request for offloading tier 4. It also took some time for people to post motions to join FLOT. It was either reacting to Jordan asking for an escalating fee, or to the recent surge in NBT demand as well as the slow reaction of FSRT. To be honest a few months has been barely enough to pave common ground, and it takes even longer to establish full consensus.

There would also be a demand of new rules upon the occurrence of unusual events that are undefined in the rule set. Furthermore, as we add rules the rules may be increasingly complex to follow, and it could become somewhat ambiguous whether an action proposed would be completely legal. If the law were easy to read then there wouldn’t be lawyers.

While we might not need a lot of discretion all the time, I won’t rule out the possibility that a debate still happens 1 year from now. It’s important to accommodate some uncertainty. As a rule of thumb, I’d look towards rules that have a better chance to avoid black swans.

[mhps]

Not hearing any more comments for 3 days I have hashed the motion for voting.

[cryptog]

c94cef2865a53da5dc3b92532b4dcd03775be467 verified and voted.

[Cybnate]

Thanks for your proposal. Supporting this, not too concerned about the restriction on three signs a month, although 4 would have been more favourable in order to allow weekly signs when it is required.

Adding to my datafeed.

[crypto_coiner]

voted –

[Cybnate]

Passed

[mhps]

Thank shareholders for their trust.