I’m glad to see that this proposal did pass.
Would you mind telling the BTC address which will be associated with this custodianship (you might want to add it to the OP)?
The FLOT shouldn’t wait until next week to send you $2,500 in BTC.
The recent days showed that there’s much need for more agility in liquidity provision.
As far as I understand, you will handle transactions exclusively using the custodial address BAoDAU3GwBVyaWC99kfUgJftzgi2FwuXDF and the BTC address you are going to provide to make the process transparent.
Although this is likely an edge case, I conceived a potential problem for T3 custodians dealing with business partners.
As T3 custodians will require to receive funds first and send the exchanged funds afterwards, (a few) trading partners might feel uncomfortable with that.
I have absolutely no reason to expect anything going pear-shaped with your T3 custodianship, on the contrary!
The Nu network trusts you with $5,000 funds and for good reason!
Still some might be hesitant and shy away from making a deal.
That would create unnecessary friction again and we need as much agility as possible in liquidity provision.
I’m aware that the knowledge and skill for doing what solution I have in mind, is not widely available.
But if a trading partner sends a deposit to one of your addresses (NBT, BTC), the OP_RETURN could carry the address to which the exchanged funds shall be sent.
This way a business partner can prove to not have received the deposit of the exchanged funds.
In that case it would require to check that OP_RETURN field for each transaction, because otherwise fraudsters could request deposit in communication to address A, put address B into OP_RETURN and claim to have been cheated.
I bet this can be based on Cointoolkit - at least the part sending messages along a tx with OP_RETURN.
I don’t know how to investigate contents of OP_RETURN, though.
This would only be necessary, if we can agree upon this:
The Nu network needs to insure damage that is done by T3 custodians not sending exchanged funds back to business partners (and now some might realize why the original proposal, that contained a collateral, was superior).
T3 custodians act on behalf of Nu. Nu is held liable for their wrongs.
I’m sure that you don’t take this personal.
I’d trust you blindly. But I know you for some time. Maybe others don’t.
This is a potential issue for all T3 custodians, of which hopefully some more come soon.
We need to reduce friction wherever it is possible as long as it’s reasonable and affordable.