- 1 - Does unibright instantly buy the UBT from

the market at marketprice to pay the validatornode (where the proxy staking takes place)

✅ The rewards for the validator nodes are paid in UBT. How that exactly will work will be explained to the community in the coming period. This is because multiple solutions are now being tested. I can assure you that the council will choose the best solution for this.

- 2 - Can NodeOperator 2 be sure that Unibright is sending the appropriate amount?

✅ This is not a question in my opinion. Like we are running the baseledger mainnet & won’t do it by the rules.

- 3 - what if servers go down?

✅What do you mean with servers? If you mean what happens if the network stops. Then there would be a high need to get it back online. I’m not that technical to explain that….

- 4 - why the need through Unibright?

✅It’s not Unibright, it’s the governance council. This is the structure how the baseledger network is build.

And then you give some advice about what we should change….

We aren’t started yet & we will always look at what is best for all stakeholders in the baseledger ecosystem.

Finally, I would like to add that it is good to wait a bit until we will communicate extensively with the community how everything will work and then there will always be room for questions & suggestions 👍🏻

Hi Jack. Thanks for the reply. I hope you do not misunderstand my intended inquisitive tone. First off, I think I have right to express my interpretation of the whitepaper. How can we have conversations and learn from eachother if we can't express our current understanding? Second of all, I am not "giving advice about what we [you] should change..." I simpy ask why the NodeOperator1 is not the one making the instant UBT buy instead of going through Unibright. I think you and Dan do a great job (you guys are round the clock and quick to respond). I hope you see that I am simply asking questions and not "trying to fud" or anything like that.

I think jack is referring to the filling in the blanks with own theories, not the understanding part

No problem at all and I really appreciate you asking your questions. So let's be clear about that to each other! It's more that I can't answer all the questions right now because it's not yet known exactly how it will go because things related to proxy strike and automated distribution of rewards are being tested.

It's not "filling in with theories" in this case. It is a case of stating a reasonable interpretation of the whitepaper information. I think it is a shame for our comminity discussions if one cannot be allowed to express how one understands what is written in the whitepaper.

I'm just saying we appreciate it, but apparently that doesn't come across well to you

Well, intention is not to upset you or silence you. Let's take for example the idea of the servers going down. Where does it say servers are used? Where does it say what setup is used? So, you have a theory :)

I think it is a reasonable interpretation given the diagram on pg 45. The NodeOperator1 broadcasts the transaction on Baseledger (we see an arrow with Consensus Request that connects to the Baseledger logo). Another arrow (indicating transfer of fiat) is drawn from NodeOperator1 that does not go through the Baseledger logo, instead it goes to a box containing the word Unibright. So, I think it is reasonable to interpret that this transfer would need a server on at Unibright side. And it is unclear if this transfer is on- or off- chain. Now I want to add my reply to the response of Jack about the possibility of the incorrect amount of UBT being sent to staking nodes ("This is not a question in my opinion. Like we are running the baseledger mainnet & won’t do it by the rules." ): I trust that Unibright and the Baseledger Council are a legit group of people and have so far conducted themselves professionally. However, isn't the whole idea of blockchain to build trustless systems? Therefore, I am pleased to have received some brief clarification from Dan ("It is going to be automated"). This is what I think would be the ideal case. Even better if this delivery of reward UBT is sufficiently decentralised (not relying on just one party to buy the UBT from market with fiat and transfer to stakers, otherwise there could be delays in reward delivery). Anyway, I look forward to reading the details of this once it has been ironed out by the Baseledger Council.

Thanks for the thoughtful question! In fact, the diagram you are referring to still includes "unibright" as the receiver and distributor of the tokens. In the meantime, things evolved, and without "spoiling" too much of the information that should be communicated soon officially, we can give you an outlook that a) incoming UBT (to pay for Baseledger transactions) will be paid to a smart contract which is multi-sig owned by the council b) these UBT on Ethereum are oracelized and bridged into their correspondent equivalent/counterpart inside Baseledger (decentralized & automated) c) revenue share towoards node operators will also be fully smart contract based and automated d) proxy staker solutions also should be smart contract based, but this depends on the proxy staking provider (the validators could make competing offers how to implement proxy staking) More (and more official) news about that soon!

Nice