Advertising
- Nu Fund Management Meeting #1
- Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 11:28:56pm UTC
- wasn't there supposed to be a chat?
- Lamz0rNewb 12:50
- later today?
- in like 3 hours?
- no, wait, 2 hours
- desrever-nu 14:57
- yep 3 minutes
- Lamz0rNewb 15:00
- tadaaaaa!
- XCJT 15:00
- nmei is here..
- aka xcjt here
- Lamz0rNewb 15:01
- hi!
- desrever-nu 15:01
- Hi guys , let's wait an extra 5 - 7 minutes
- XCJT 15:01
- NP
- Lamz0rNewb 15:04
- why do you appear offline, @desrever-nu ?
- desrever-nu 15:04
- Do i?
- XCJT 15:04
- Super secret ability
- woodstockmerkle 15:04
- Well hello everyone
- Lamz0rNewb 15:04
- on the right pane, where "people" are listed...
- desrever-nu 15:04
- I see a green light
- on top of my avatar
- gitter is quite buggy on MacOS tho
- dc-tcs 15:05
- Hi
- desrever-nu 15:05
- hi there :)
- XCJT 15:05
- Hello
- Lamz0rNewb 15:05
- i see an amber light
- desrever-nu 15:05
- What's you forum's nickname @dc-tcs ?
- dc-tcs 15:05
- dysconnect
- inuitwallet 15:05
- I missed the invite. what's the chat about?
- XCJT 15:05
- fund management
- Lamz0rNewb 15:06
- tier 4 and tier 6 multi signature fund management
- inuitwallet 15:06
- ah! I should have guessed from the Room name.
- desrever-nu 15:06
- @inuitwallet I invited you to fill the room earlier ... its for shareholder who signed up to help out managing funds off JL
- its open to anybody but I guess that is bedtime soon , so no need to attend :)
- inuitwallet 15:07
- I see. Well if noone minds I'll lurk a while
- :)
- desrever-nu 15:07
- D
- @desrever @dysconnect @masterOfDisaster @nmei @mhps @Dhume @woodstockmerkle
- everybody's here?
- XCJT 15:08
- <- nmei
- Lamz0rNewb 15:08
- <- mOD
- dc-tcs 15:09
- 2 more
- woodstockmerkle 15:09
- Just as a note 10PM London time is not 10PM GMT ... in case people are missing, they may show up in an hour
- XCJT 15:09
- True
- Lamz0rNewb 15:09
- next time we should use utc...
- XCJT 15:09
- I was going off of the doodle times...
- So, now what?
- desrever-nu 15:11
- @woodstockmerkle I screwed up, sorry
- So @Dhume is missing , right?
- XCJT 15:12
- Looks like it
- And @mhps?
- desrever-nu 15:12
- Right!
- From which timezone are you guys writing from? to get a sense of it
- dc-tcs 15:13
- mountain time
- desrever-nu 15:13
- I am on CET
- XCJT 15:13
- central
- desrever-nu 15:14
- btw google tells me that
- There is no time difference between Greenwich Mean Time and Coordinated Universal Time
- inuitwallet 15:14
- That's right. We invented time.
- XCJT 15:14
- LOL
- Lamz0rNewb 15:14
- that was the joke. i need to make better ones...
- desrever-nu 15:15
- lol
- inuitwallet 15:15
- :)
- desrever-nu 15:15
- I thought I lived in CET but turns out now CET is 10:14
- what happened to spacetime?
- XCJT 15:15
- I just wrote it off as daylight savings here in the states
- Can never figure it out...
- Lamz0rNewb 15:16
- summer time?
- desrever-nu 15:16
- Europe, Antarctica: CET is currently not observed because locations are on summer time / daylight saving time and are observing CEST.
- Lamz0rNewb 15:16
- @desrever-nu i guess you live in cest at the moment
- ...and i am too slow
- desrever-nu 15:17
- Sorry guys I feel a bit like an idiot, well now we learned the lession, next time I'll use a proper meeting planner http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html
- dc-tcs 15:18
- my timezone changes pretty often so don't count on it
- desrever-nu 15:18
- should we wait or start, maybe just smalltalk to entertain ourselves?
- dc-tcs 15:18
- 5 people is a majority
- Lamz0rNewb 15:19
- might be enought to send funds^^
- desrever-nu 15:19
- right
- Lamz0rNewb 15:19
- soon<sup>TM</sup>
- gitter noob at work
- do we have a kind of agenda?
- desrever-nu 15:20
- next time
- XCJT 15:21
- Hate to be the one, but I have another commitment in 40
- desrever-nu 15:21
- Since we are only five now I'll try to only partially act as a moderator, we are smart enought to try to keep one topic at a time. If is too caothic I'll try to check in and bring order
- Sure, so ... let's start , in turn, one line : Why did you signed up to do this?
- Lamz0rNewb 15:22
- for the greater good! no, seriously: because it's one of the next important steps towards more decentralization
- desrever-nu 15:22
- me, because I feel compelled somehow in giving back to the community by helping out administering some funds and help decentralisation which still puts a single point of failure .
- XCJT 15:23
- I believe in Nu and I'd like to help us succeed.
- woodstockmerkle 15:23
- As an owner of NuShares -- to protect my assets, and because I haven't contributed in any other way to the project, I felt it was something I could do
- dc-tcs 15:24
- It's a chance to grow an other committed group to do work and be recognized as such
- desrever-nu 15:24
- n1
- Lamz0rNewb 15:25
- to learn - about management, organization, multi signature transactions, responsibility
- desrever-nu 15:25
- Next question : do you feel that 10, is a good number of multisig keyholder for the job? too many/too few .... and why?
- Lamz0rNewb 15:25
- it depends - how much are required to move funds?
- 6, 7, 8, 9, 10?
- woodstockmerkle 15:26
- Are there technical limitations? I remember hearing such from the design criteria for B&C
- dc-tcs 15:26
- Ideally we should have at least 7 people per side but there's not enough people
- XCJT 15:26
- Considering group dynamics 10 is a lot to control/make decisions, but if it is that number for availability sake it is good
- desrever-nu 15:27
- if we look at more traditional establishments then is majority (6/10) ... Democracy/Company boards...
- Lamz0rNewb 15:27
- 6/10 makes collusion quite unlikely and has some buffer in case some signer disappear
- desrever-nu 15:27
- @woodstockmerkle , I don't know, we might want to forward the question to @erasmospunk (will likely reply async)
- woodstockmerkle 15:29
- There is a risk of it being too high, in case we lose communication with some number of the signers for whatever reason
- desrever-nu 15:29
- Maybe I should have asked another question before : do we need to be executors , or decision makers?
- Should we, as a group, decide whether to release funds or not, or should we simply execute sharholder's will blindly?
- Is this distiction clear to everybody? I think its quite key...
- XCJT 15:30
- If we're not a shareholder we execute...otherwise the lines are blurred
- Actually, the shareholders should decide with a vote...then we execute
- desrever-nu 15:30
- Because if we only need to execute shareholders' will (expressed via motions), then it means we don't have to "agree" on anything, our function is mere execution and protection of a private key.
- woodstockmerkle 15:31
- I think we set the rules of execution in whatever the initial motion will be. I for one would prefer the abilit to act as opposed to waiting for a better part of a week for a motion to pass, if the peg is in jeopardy
- Lamz0rNewb 15:31
- i think the question is not whether the shareholders or the fund holders decide - both should get to the same verifiable result: conditions need to be defined as well as metrics
- it boils down to what you already wrote: private key management
- desrever-nu 15:32
- @woodstockmerkle , right , so it is still up in the air and its up to as to design and define it. Correct?
- Lamz0rNewb 15:32
- just like the reputed signers at bce
- dc-tcs 15:32
- I prefer more flexibility at this stage
- We'll give ourselves a few months figuring that out, while working on specific tasks to do
- desrever-nu 15:34
- bear with me... What if we make two funds .
- Fund1 : we can't touch it unless a motion passed .
- Fund2 : to use in case of streightforward decision or emergencies, we have control over its funds
- With size(f2) << size f(1)
- XCJT 15:35
- Seems reasonable
- Lamz0rNewb 15:35
- motions take too long to pass. yet motions are the only way shareholders can form consensus to decide what to do with funds. the way to go should be a motion that defines the conditions under which funds are released
- 2 funds with different control: good idea!
- i know that this is not in line with the formal conditions under which motions pass, but:
- why should an emergency situation wait for 5,001 yes votes in a rolling window of 10,000?
- desrever-nu 15:37
- Because we don't have a CEO (and we don't want one)
- Lamz0rNewb 15:37
- what if nsr holders decide that funds can be released as soon as 101 in 200 votes are for releasing funds?
- or take other numbers
- motions do nothing on protocol. they express consensus - for a decision or against it
- reducing the rolling window size makes decision making much more agile
- XCJT 15:39
- it does, but we want to give time to participate...and not every decision is an "emergency"
- Lamz0rNewb 15:40
- if there's no emergency, there's time. if it's an emergency, it requires action. let the nsr holder vote!
- XCJT 15:41
- true
- I think that's why the split in funds is a good idea
- desrever-nu 15:41
- I think it makes sense and this would be inline with 2.0 changes that shortened the time windows considerably :
- https://discuss.nubits.com/t/nu-2-0-release-now-on-test-net/2296
- fees and protocol voting passes with majority in 2000 blocks ... We could open a thread in the forum for discussion... having faster motions, starting maybe with a halving to 5000...
- Does anybody feel like opening a new thread (later) ? we have a first //TODO
- dc-tcs 15:41
- well Jordan tried to push for faster motions earlier and it didn't work
- Lamz0rNewb 15:42
- i think having a basic rule set how to treat the funds is good.
- having a part of funds that can be used by discretion of the fund keepers is good as well
- Dhumee 15:42
- Shit i mistook the hour
- desrever-nu 15:42
- Hi @Dhumee , no you did not
- we did!
- Lamz0rNewb 15:42
- i'm not talking about a general shortening of the rolling window size
- Dhumee 15:42
- Am i then early 20 min?
- desrever-nu 15:42
- We came earlier because of GMT confusion :) Welcome , we are just getting started !
- warming up :)
- Lamz0rNewb 15:42
- hi!
- dc-tcs 15:42
- for NBT and NSR it's easy that we have custodian grants, for BTC it's very difficult either way
- Dhumee 15:42
- Good i thought it was to be in 20 min but then i saw the private message :P
- desrever-nu 15:43
- small catch up for @Dhumee : first each of us got to say why we are here and why we want to participate to this multisig group . What's yours? :)
- Dhumee 15:46
- Well I’m here because I volunteered i guess ;) euhm as for reasons. This seemed like a good way to contribute to Nu without it requiring tons of technical knowledge or heaps of time. Quite recently came into Nu and i've been liking the enterprise alot and also became a shareholder. Hence I would like to contribute something to the cause if i can :)
- desrever-nu 15:47
- good !
- Dhumee 15:47
- I'l read up on some of the earlier messages in this chat ;)
- desrever-nu 15:47
- then we started talking what could be a decent number of signers : 6/10 , 7/10 ? ...
- Now we are discussing how to design the intial motion such that will allow us to take rapid decisions when needed , and how to let shareholders (larger group) be in control of the shared funds (via motions) ..
- So we are brainstorming a possible division of the funds in two:
- Fund1 : we can't touch it unless a motion passed .
- Fund2 : to use in case of streightforward decision or emergencies, we >have control over its funds
- With size(f2) << size f(1)
- Lamz0rNewb 15:47
- i'm thinking of a motion like this:
- 1) x% of the funds can be used by discretion of the fund keepers if conditions arise that are not reflected in the rule set when to release funds to defend the peg
- 2) 100-x% of the funds are tied to the rule set defined in the motion
- 2a) if an emergency occurs that can't be mitigated with the funds form 1) under the discretion of the fund keepers, nsr holders might allow them to release funds with a motion that does need to have m+1 votes in a rolling window of 2*m blocks
- XCJT 15:49
- good
- Dhumee 15:49
- Basicly all the funds that we would manage are a reserve right?
- desrever-nu 15:50
- Yes, and they must serve the interest of Nu network which is, maintain the peg of its product
- that's the only mission (as I see it)
- Lamz0rNewb 15:51
- re 2) don't focus on "m+1" maybe an even higher rate of votes in favour of releasing funds is better. the thing is: embedding such a condition for "special fund related motions" to pass doesn't mess with the rest of the motion system and can use insanely small rolling windows. still it's verifiable on the blokchain that nsr holder consensus for releasing funds was formed.
- dc-tcs 15:51
- Fund1 is probably necessary, although there will be practical issues handling the consensus and trust
- desrever-nu 15:51
- @Lamz0rNewb : I don't think 2a is needed, if I understand that correctly. Can you expand a bit? Maybe I didn't get it right ...
- If we want to spend some funds from (1) because (2) is empty, we should simply ask with a motion to allow us to transfer funds from (1) to (2).
- The simpler the rule, the easier it is to enforce it, apply it, verify it. And the harder to game.
- Lamz0rNewb 15:52
- 1) is the part that can be used by fund keepers by their discretion. that part should be small. i wouldn't want to take responsibility for making important decisions
- Dhumee 15:53
- Right now the reserve is rarely used right?
- dc-tcs 15:53
- I recall that Jordan used it once or twice and complained to us about it, when we were short of liquidity
- can't find the forum post
- desrever-nu 15:53
- Uhm... I honestly don't know... In the pass it has been used to replenish some buy side
- Dhumee 15:53
- Once or twice in over a year?
- Lamz0rNewb 15:53
- 2) in my imagination is like 90 % of the total funds
- dc-tcs 15:55
- As with Fund2, we probably need another line for per-project budgets and "urgent matters"
- desrever-nu 15:55
- yep
- Ok, I believe the warm up is good and we already went to the core of the problem with enthusiasm. Now we are digging down into details that we can't possibly close today...
- Would you agree if we stop here with the implementation details and step back a bit?
- dc-tcs 15:56
- so motions will either grant us the duty of funding various tasks and projects or replenish the emergency budget
- Dhumee 15:56
- Or well at the very least you could state the use is incidental right? Seems to me a motion that would specify we hold the funds and 90% is untouched, and 10% we use when needed (confirm with conditions for its use set in the motion) without needing a new vote to pass and the other 90% is untouched unless a new motion is approved that would allow for its use.
- Lamz0rNewb 15:57
- i think the details need to be discussed in the forum anyway. it was good to have this brainstorming to get the draft started
- Dhumee 15:58
- Agreed
- desrever-nu 15:58
- Can we say that we need to find a way that allows shareholders to take decisions on where/how to spend funds (we as executors) while we want to be able to quickly react to situations that requires action without waiting for a motion to pass . We can define the implementation later.
- Would you agree with the statement above?
- Dhumee 15:58
- But what we stated here was also how I envisioned it.
- dc-tcs 15:59
- let that go into the forums
- Dhumee 15:59
- yes thats the question we need to address
- Lamz0rNewb 15:59
- @desrever-nu : agreed!
- another topic the forum discussion not necessarily needs to deal with:
- technical details of multi signature transactions - how do they work () and can scripts be prepared?
- Dhumee 15:59
- And how many signers
- Lamz0rNewb 16:00
- the brackets should contain: is time shifted signing possible? or do all signers need to do something at a certain point of time?
- dc-tcs 16:00
- you don't need a timestamp to sign multisig transactions I think
- Lamz0rNewb 16:00
- @dhumee, right! m of n multi signature needs to have a defined "m" and "n"
- desrever-nu 16:01
- I don't know if there is a timeout..., that's another for @erasmospunk .
- Dhumee 16:02
- Will be problematic if we need say 60% of the signers singing within a very short timespan.
- desrever-nu 16:02
- So, let's step back and regroup ideas ---
- There are currently 80 messages on the original thread @ https://discuss.nubits.com/t/three-roles-that-need-to-be-filled-by-shareholders/2571
- dc-tcs 16:02
- the cryptography can't distinguish whether you sign now or 10 years later
- Dhumee 16:03
- Maybe a recap and new topic?
- mh001 16:03
- hi
- desrever-nu 16:03
- Which do you think are the most important passages we should all have cristal clear in mind?
- Dhumee 16:03
- Hey
- desrever-nu 16:03
- yo @mh001 , you are perfectly on time. we screwd up a bit with time zones
- and decided to go ahead and use the time, since we were 5/7
- :) Welcome
- mhps?
- mh001 16:04
- Yes.
- desrever-nu 16:04
- TL;DR
- mh001 16:05
- Catching up ..
- desrever-nu 16:05
- we all said the reason why we are here and want to do our part in this multisig group... what's yours? (very brief)
- i-ll make a tl dr don't worry
- mh001 16:06
- I'd like to help, too.
- desrever-nu 16:06
- Then, while discussing about how many signers we would need and other details , we decided that
- we need to find a way that allows shareholders to take decisions on >where/how to spend funds (we as executors) while we want to be able to >quickly react to situations that requires action without waiting for a >motion to pass .
- that's pretty much it, I proposed having two different funds with different rules.
- And now we are moving forward trying to recap the most important passages from the discussion on the forum https://discuss.nubits.com/t/three-roles-that-need-to-be-filled-by-shareholders/2571
- How can we do this? everybody select what they consider "the most important paragraph" and paste it here ?
- Dhumee 16:09
- Sure
- dc-tcs 16:09
- I don't see anything that can relate to a timestamp or blockheight in the signrawtransaction code
- Lamz0rNewb 16:10
- so it's no matter in what order or what time frame the transaction gets signed. that's good!
- Dhumee 16:10
- Yes, would be very problematic if we had say 20 hours max for a majority to sign
- desrever-nu 16:15
- So JL in the OP, asked for three groups with three separates responsibilities :
- NSR holders
- NBT holders
- BTC holders
- We are here only to discuss BTC holding , as in tier 4... (?)
- Lamz0rNewb 16:17
- i understand we are here for tier 4/6 buy side: btc and nsr
- Dhumee 16:17
- Yes that was my understanding to
- desrever-nu 16:18
- infobot , to refresh :
- T4 This liquidity can be provided by custodians not dedicated to liquidity operations. A present example are the proceeds of NuShare sales. They are intended for operational and development expenses, but can be used to support the critical function of liquidity provision as needed. When these funds are used for liquidity, they are exchanged from one type of asset to another, but are still available for their original purpose, such as development. These funds can be promoted to tier 3 in hours and the cost is exchange rate risk.
- T6 This liquidity takes the form of custodial grants for sell side and currency burning for buy side (presuming a currency burning motion is passed and implemented). It takes a week or more to bring to market but has zero maintenance costs.
- Lamz0rNewb 16:18
- https://discuss.nubits.com/t/three-roles-that-need-to-be-filled-by-shareholders/2571/3
- "One question is whether it would be better to split the groups into two rather than three:
- 1) Buy-Side Custodian Group
- $80,000 worth of BTC (Tier 4 Liquidity)
- 20-40M NuShares for emergency sales (Tier 6 Liquidity)"
- dc-tcs 16:19
- that's not my understanding, as I never expressed interest in dealing with the BTC part, and it's not really in the message calling for this meeting
- Lamz0rNewb 16:19
- group 2 is already formed: the FSRT
- dc-tcs 16:20
- ok
- Lamz0rNewb 16:20
- @dc-tcs you got a point...
- dc-tcs 16:21
- I skimmed through the FSRT and I don't get an impression that it's for Tier 4
- mh001 16:21
- done catching up
- dc-tcs 16:22
- ok my bad
- in that case I'll be in the NSR group
- Dhumee 16:24
- So a NSR group, BTC group and a NBT group (who's role could or is taken over by the FSRT?)
- desrever-nu 16:24
- To better understand what's the purpus of each fund (please add stuff, I am poorly informed here) :
- quote from OP :
- [BTC] : for long term liquidity provision. Right now tier 4 liquidity consists of the only liquid cryptoasset that isn't our liability: Bitcoin. I would like to see this maintained at around $80,000 of value at the present time.
- --
- [NSR] : for use in maintaining the peg in extreme circumstances ... NSR sales combined with NBT burns should only occur when there is prolonged use of interest rates
- so for BTC, basically the mission is try to keep the value of the fund at 80k while using it to provide buy side liquidity under certain circumnstances?
- dc-tcs 16:26
- what does he mean by maintenance?
- desrever-nu 16:26
- while NSR are to be sold, and burn the NBT that proceeds from the sale, in case of emergency.
- Is my understanding correct?
- Dhumee 16:26
- So If BTC value doubles we'd need to sell half for nubits?
- dc-tcs 16:26
- if it's ever used it won't be 80k anymore, so we need to buy more using NBT at good times?
- mh001 16:26
- What kind of time frame is the t4 group expected to react? say within 2 days but no quicker than 12 hours after a trigger condition happens?
- desrever-nu 16:27
- So If BTC value doubles we'd need to sell half for nubits?
- I don't think so, I think the value should be kept ideally >= 80k ... I used the wrong term. But might be wrong
- Dhumee 16:28
- I'd think the same, we essentially just hold it and if something comes up that justifies either using it or adding more to it a motion for doing so would come up. No further interaction i'd think
- dc-tcs 16:28
- that's a question we will have to ask Jordan; how we are supposed to replenish tier 4 after it's used
- desrever-nu 16:28
- And also, there are MANY ways that BTC in that amounts can be used to generate some revenue to make up for losses : landing, liquidity provision (on other markets) , investments , timelocks... etc
- use future as an insurance for positions.
- @dc-tcs : from his OP :
- We probably won't need this forever
- So I think that a devaluating scenario is somehow expected... even tho a good group of holders can try to keep it growing/steady ...
- Dhumee 16:31
- Incase we are to use in a sort of investment fund style that's a very different type of task
- desrever-nu 16:31
- Totally right.
- So second important note of the day : Ask JL clarification of what he meant on "maintain the value at 80k" ... Agreed?
- let me bold it out
- Dhumee 16:32
- Yes
- Lamz0rNewb 16:32
- tier 4 can be replenished with funds from tier 6:
- if there's no demand for nbt with selling nsr for btc
- if there's demand for nbt with selling nbt for btc
- dc-tcs 16:33
- we'll add that to any forum post that asks for clarification
- Lamz0rNewb 16:33
- an answer from JL is welcome, but i think the intention is clear: to have funds on tier 4 buy side that can be brought to market much faster than by making an nsr grant
- desrever-nu 16:34
- There is also another question : oftentimes buyside operations are on-exchange... So that implies that, no matter how multisig we go, someone (one person) must create an account and place the buy order... Am I wrong?
- Lamz0rNewb 16:35
- with 4625112.2568 NBT in the wild the $80,000 are able to buffer roughly 1/6 of it with tier 4 buy side
- Dhumee 16:35
- Not that is correct someone from the group or external to the group would have to be a custodian and do the acctual buying/selling on an exchange
- no*
- desrever-nu 16:35
- I have been that person a couple of times in the past , back in the old days , and I can tell you that felt very centralized ... I had then to send NBT back to JL ...
- Dhumee 16:36
- I agree, but i'm not sure how we could use an centralized exchange in a different matter
- Lamz0rNewb 16:36
- that won't even change with blocks&chains exchange...
- i mean the single person responsibility for funds
- to sell them on the market
- desrever-nu 16:37
- So that is also something to keep in mind when designing the grant for tier4 funds: someone at the end of the day must be trusted to use the funds to place a buy order, and withdraw NBT to the right place ... Unless we can think of a better solution, of course.
- Dhumee 16:37
- However its ofcourse only the last step in the chain holding the smallest ammount of funds, since the majority will be probally always be in the multisig addresses (unless some major emergency hits or something)
- desrever-nu 16:38
- actually there is a better solution
- Lamz0rNewb 16:38
- i hope that @dhumee is right, because what @desrever-nu explained is quite frightening - and i see no better solution...
- tell us!
- Dhumee 16:39
- There is no such thing as a multisig account for exchanges as far as i know
- Lamz0rNewb 16:40
- and even if it were an account on bce there would be a single person to control the private key that controls the multi signature funds "on bce"...
- mh001 16:40
- I thought t4 fund will be released to t3 instead of t1
- desrever-nu 16:40
- with N custodians as we are:
- split funds in N parts
- ask each custodian to put up a collateral in NBT for the amount they are going to receive
- verify they put up the collateral somewhere (where? I guess a multisig NBT controlled by us again)
- send the BTC to N address corresponding to N accounts on the exchange
- have the custodians place N buy orders
- have each custodian withdraw to the shared NBT address
- return the collateral
- Sorry for bad english, take it as a stream of consciousness :)
- that would definetly mitigate the hit and run scenario that a single of us can perform easily with the centralized approach
- Dhumee 16:43
- To make it easier, couldn’t the custodial who gets the funds (1 person) just deposit a collateral instead?
- desrever-nu 16:43
- sure
- I don't have 80k of collateral to put up in any asset:D
- Lamz0rNewb 16:43
- the idea is great - but it sounds quite complicated and requires that each of the N custodians has sufficient funds
- desrever-nu 16:43
- I should probably sell out organs :D
- Dhumee 16:44
- No i mean we have 80k but we only need like 10% at max (I guess) to go to a custodial for actual selling and buying right? Hence the colleteral wouldnt need to be 80k
- woodstockmerkle 16:44
- So have we ruled out the ability to have a multisig address?
- desrever-nu 16:45
- @Lamz0rNewb , true . I expect we will never need to use the whole tier4 funds at the same time... so if you take a smaller amount, and then you divide it by 10, assuming we are ten, we end up with decently small amounts that we can pretty much at least partially cover.
- Lamz0rNewb 16:45
- if you give me 80k in btc and require a collateral of 10k in nbt tell me why i shouldn't keep the btc?
- Dhumee 16:45
- Say we take 2 custodials eaching taking 5% then each of the needed to put down 5k collateral
- dc-tcs 16:45
- @mh001 but we don't exactly have t3 at the moment
- Dhumee 16:46
- You dont get 80k the majority is in a multi signature address
- I meant 4k collateral (its late :) )
- dc-tcs 16:46
- @mh001 actually as tier 4 isn't used only for liquidity, so at the moment we decide it's going to liquidity , it might be considered promoted to tier 3
- Lamz0rNewb 16:46
- if you want to sell it for nbt you need to release it from the multi sig address
- desrever-nu 16:47
- @woodstockmerkle , we have the ability of having a multi-sig address... I am not sure I understand the question
- Dhumee 16:47
- Not the full ammount at once i assume?
- desrever-nu 16:47
- @Dhumee is right, the 80k is a bad example.. its more likely that a single "rebalance liquidity" operation will use less than that
- Lamz0rNewb 16:48
- i think the details can once again be part of the forum discussion
- dc-tcs 16:48
- actually in practical terms, the first time we have to use tier 4 to buy NBT might be buying it from NuLagoon, in which case we can arrange for manual exchange in some form
- mh001 16:49
- @dc-tcs that is a different matter. t3 is off-exchange fund that can be promoted to on-exchange t2 adn t1 in an hour or so. t3 fund is supposed to be managed by the t responsible group/custodian. teh t4 group don't need to decide how t3 works.
- desrever-nu 16:49
- sooo, before we get lost in details, the bottom line would be Since entering the orders requires funds to exit the multisig wallet and entering exchange's controlled accounts, we will need to design a way to minimize risks of hit and run
- Would that work?
- Dhumee 16:50
- Yes
- Lamz0rNewb 16:51
- sounds great!
- desrever-nu 16:52
- ok... change topic a bit :
- For [NSR] tier6 fund we have the same risk (hit-n-run), if we sell NSR on open exchanges, right?
- Dhumee 16:53
- Yes
- mh001 16:53
- I prefer a structured way to manage tiers. tier4 fund should be released to tier 3, not necessarily to an exchange account, which sounds tiwe2 and 1 to me
- woodstockmerkle 16:53
- If we have the mainstay multisig address as a 6/10, when it becomes time to fund liquidity, can we transfer to a 3/10 multisig BTC address and a 6/10 NSR address and then tactically do a "tit for tat" exchange of BTC with a willing LP?
- Lamz0rNewb 16:54
- and the collateral idea is not that bad, either. what if we do it the other way round (instead of requiring collateral): a custodian might sell nbt to a multi signature address (tier 4 buy side management) and receives btc in exchange afterwards.
- then he can sell the btc at an exchange, keep them or whatever.
- tier 4 buy side team burns the nbt.
- or even easier: agree on a btc rate and burn nbt. you receive btc in exchange.
- desrever-nu 16:55
- @mh001 , but as you reminded us, T3 is managed by single entities ... Or, are you proposing we create our own multisig T3 wallet?
- even then, then it must go to T2, aka someone's exchange
- dc-tcs 16:56
- I guess it's better to give BTC to LPs who want to burn NBT
- desrever-nu 16:56
- @woodstockmerkle I am googling "tit for tat" :D
- ohh!
- woodstockmerkle 16:57
- Think of it as tranches -- if we need to fund 1000 BTC, then first send 1 BTC to T2 LP, see if they are trustworthy in either burning NBT or reciprocating NBT (I like the burn idea), and then continue to send small amounts
- mh001 16:58
- @desrever-nu the management of t3 fund should be discussed in different forum thread and in a different chat. We shouldn't try to solve all tiers problem at once or we lose focus.
- Lamz0rNewb 16:58
- it doesn't even be a custodian, i mean the person who burns the nbt. it can be anybody! nsr holders are welcome, for they might know about the situation. the burn needs to be announced to make sure it's related to releasing the btc. and a rate needs to be agreed on
- but that would make things more safe than equipping a single person with a load of money
- dc-tcs 17:00
- a lot less overhead too, because there are traps in the idea of putting up collateral
- woodstockmerkle 17:00
- We can't solve T3, but we may need things from someone fulfilling T3 ... i.e.: T2 to T3 transfer is done by an exchange API ... what is the "protocol" between T4 and T3? This may necessitate changes to the T3 role
- desrever-nu 17:00
- Take into account that if the peg is at risk (aka, no buy liquidity for prolongued time + people starting selling for < 1$ ) , we should act fast.
- so whatever the solution, it should be ... quick , max 48 hours or we start loosing credibility along with the peg
- Lamz0rNewb 17:00
- the message would be: burn your nbt and get btc in return!
- is it possible to write a btc address in a transaction? is there a kind of data field?
- desrever-nu 17:01
- hehe @Lamz0rNewb this is what exchanges (or escrow services) do
- Dhumee 17:02
- Still so many questions, we need to make some decisions about how many groups, what roles they have, how many people, etcetc before we work out the details
- Lamz0rNewb 17:02
- i bet no one except for nsr holders or fund managers would do that - who would rely on really getting the btc except for those who know the details?
- desrever-nu 17:03
- agree, thank you @Dhumee , let's take a step back, these are all good ideas.
- Lamz0rNewb 17:03
- before i create more confusion i stop here. time to go. thank you very much for the very constructive chat!
- desrever-nu 17:03
- :)
- Any other big concern or blockers you see that we should put out today?
- Dhumee 17:04
- I think a good next step would be a new topic with the main questions would be good. When they'r answered we can start filling out details
- desrever-nu 17:04
- Its been two productive hours and I think its time to wrap up
- Dhumee 17:04
- See you later MoD!
- desrever-nu 17:04
- yep!
- dc-tcs 17:05
- I think that's enough for now
- Lamz0rNewb 17:05
- cya!
- Dhumee 17:05
- Thanks for hosting Desrever
- desrever-nu 17:05
- Can someone (else) go ahead to
- 1) open the new thread with questions for JL and shareholders and post a TL DR of what has been discussed here, or post the full log
- 2) organize the next meeting ?
- mh001 17:05
- A grand architecture of t1 - t6 should be decided along with their responsibilities and interfaces.
- desrever-nu 17:05
- We should rotate the moderation role, :)
- Lamz0rNewb 17:06
- always a pleasure to work in this community!
- Dhumee 17:06
- A link to the full log would be better then fully posted in a topic (to avoid clutter) imo
- desrever-nu 17:06
- pastebin.ca always a friend then
- Dhumee 17:06
- Yes Mphs I agree
- desrever-nu 17:08
- any volunteer ? cmon :) Its just a 10/15 minutes task ... you should expect much more work if we really have to do some multisig collateralized trustless liquidity operation :D
- Dhumee 17:08
- I have to go aswell, this chat room will be accesible by the link even after everyone left right?
- desrever-nu 17:08
- yep
- I gotta go, leave it to you guys. So sorry for the screwout with timezones @mh001 and @Dhumee .
- Talk to you soon!
- dc-tcs 17:08
- I
- I'll post
- Dhumee 17:09
- I wouldnt mind doing it but it would have to be after the weekend, I wouldnt trust myself making the post this weekend xD
- No problem Desrever, its something we will have to get accustomed with i guess
- mh001 17:11
- Thanks @Dhumee . have to go , too. bye
- Dhumee 17:11
- Thanks for volunteering, we're not in a hurry I think
- See you guys soon!
- mh001 17:11
- thanks dc-tcs.
- dc-tcs 17:12
- np see you later
advertising
Update the Post
Either update this post and resubmit it with changes, or make a new post.
You may also comment on this post.
Please note that information posted here will not expire by default. If you do not want it to expire, please set the expiry time above. If it is set to expire, web search engines will not be allowed to index it prior to it expiring. Items that are not marked to expire will be indexable by search engines. Be careful with your passwords. All illegal activities will be reported and any information will be handed over to the authorities, so be good.
