###Context:
[Passed] T3 Trusted Custodianship: @Nagalim - Second Attempt
###Daology:
https://daology.org/proposals/910691d05a77b2abb61c933c9dbb7994516eff3b
###HASH:
a951e9e8e72bcb313eb7fc6c65c797ccb53b9ef0
###Text:
Referencing motion: aa341d7e915d40b3b2bf1889110a5f59db9ca998
In the section titled ‘Tier 4 Interactions’, the sentence specified here:
“If @Nagalim holds >$4,000 on either side of the pool for longer than 24 hours”
will now read as follows:
“If @Nagalim holds >$5,500 on an individual side of the pool for longer than 7 days”
It will also be recognized that @Nagalim may send funds from custodial addresses to FLOT addresses at discretion.
2 Likes
So basically this motion purpose is to alleviate some of the work that you have been doing but that you think is not useful?
There are a lot of reasons and implications, but the main thing i want people to think about is the number of T3 trades per T4 refilling. If I must ditch funds 24 hours after a trade, and the price swings on a 24-hour time scale (not unreasonable at all) then i will be asking for T4 refillings frequently. If i can, for example, sell one day and buy 3 days later then T4 doesnt even have to refill me. If we assume thise trades would have happened either way then the only difference is the amount of liability i am holding and the frequency of interaction with T4.
Also, reevaluating 24 hours after each trade is exhausting. It requires updating the liquidity broadcast twice or even 3 times in a 24 hour period.
2 Likes
sorry for the delay.
a951e9e8e72bcb313eb7fc6c65c797ccb53b9ef0 voted
Sounds ok, adding to my datafeed
Sorry for the delay – overlooked that one.
Around 34% of the vote currently.
As an extension to your T3 custodianship contract, I add it to my voting data feed.