Adding liquidity pools to docs page

[masterOfDisaster]

Tllp currently is incompatible with multiple pools on one pair. This fundamentally limits how decentralized operator ship can be. I don’t necessarily think this is a terrible thing, as getting custodial grants passed is and should be a burden.

There are still exchanges supporting NBT which don’t have TLLP operation (SouthXchange, AllCoin, Alt.trade).
And some of the exchanges that already have TLLP operation might have pairs left, that could be used for liquidity providing.
There’s still room for more!

[CoinGame]

My hope is that bringing more exposure to the existence of the software could inspire some to improve and remove limitations such as this one. But if nobody knows it exists, or what it is (i.e. - relatively safe, not a scam), then the potential lays closer to zero than not.

[CoinGame]

Thank you for the wealth of info. When I get a chance i’ll review this and work on a draft after I search some other sources.

[willy]

AllCoin didn’t had a publicly accessible API when TLLP was created. I’m not sure if it has now.

As far as I understood @woolly_sammoth, SouthXchange support is planned for NuBot.
The next TLLP milestone is the re-integration with NuBot, so TLLP will support everything that NuBot does.

I don’t know anything about alts.trade, sorry.

[CoinGame]

I’ve started working on this. This is just a quick draft. I’m going to continue working on it through the week. Thanks @masterOfDisaster for the info and links. I’ll try to fill out more soon.

https://github.com/NuNetwork/documentation/blob/liquidity-pools/_kb/liquidity-pools.md

[CoinGame]

I’ve created a PR to add this to the docs page and for discussion. I’ve not received any feedback regarding the content though. I’m hoping someone familiar with the pooling operations could give it a quick review and post some suggestions. Otherwise I think it’s worthwhile to merge in soon.

quick draft of adding liquidity pool info to the docs page

[masterOfDisaster]

I’ll have a look at it - sorry for having overlooked the opportunity to provide you with feedback.

[Nagalim]

Any chance we can use the language “trusted network liquidity pool” and “trusted operator liquidity pool” instead of managed and unmanaged?

[masterOfDisaster]

For reference to @Nagalim’s suggestion - this was a discussion/suggestion in a different thread:

[Passed] LiquidBits term 3 Trusted Network Liquidity Pool

Thinking about it, Trusted Network Liquidity Pool might be even better than Network Trusted Liquidity Pool, but we are getting into semantics here.

[Passed] LiquidBits term 3 Trusted Network Liquidity Pool

We need to define a term for nulagoon too. Network Trusted Liquidity Pool instead of tllp, Operator Trusted Liquidity Pool for NuLagoon?

The expression “unmanaged” (and “managed”) is better than “trustless liquidity pool” (which are not trustless - the trust in the exchange is required).
But I like the expressions coined by @Cybnate and @Nagalim even better.

The rest of the liquidity pool info page looks great - informative, precise, with background, references and easy to get it for people new to it (I hope).
The latter requires a test with someone not already familiar with it.

[CoinGame]

Personally I don’t feel like those names are much of an improvement. I don’t really see how the word “trusted” helps to define the pools. Both try to play off the notion of trusted/trustless crypto systems needlessly. It doesn’t really help with the description at all, and through reading the rest of the document people will realize that you have choice of trusting someone to manage the funds for you, or to trust an exchange to hold the funds. It will be implied and doesn’t really need to be in the name. It just makes it sound more technical than it needs to be.

“trusted network liquidity pool” - does adding network to the name really help to clarify or describe the pool itself? I don’t think it does. Managed seems to concretely describe the type of fund it is, and is similar language used in existing financial nomenclature. “managed liquidity pool” to me is the most descriptive and easy to remember/understand.

for the “trusted operator liquidity pool” I would even change my existing wording to “automated liquidity pool”. The language is much simpler, descriptive. I don’t think operator adds anything to the name. You could very well say that the managed pool has an operator as well.

I think “managed liquidity pool” (MLP) and “automated liquidity pool” (ALP) are the most descriptive and simplified names for the two types of pools. Though I know there has been some existing discussion on this topic, and if you all disagree i’ll happily change them to whatever the general consensus is.

The idea is that this page is meant for total noobs, and it shouldn’t sound scarily technical, and should be easy to remember.

[masterOfDisaster]

The idea is that this page is meant for total noobs

And for noobs the expressions “managed” and “unmanaged” are more helpful than expressions who make sense to those follow the pools and know them quite well.
…sometimes you get trapped in your own world

The info page is great!

[CoinGame]

right, inside the forum we know what a trustless-crypto-NBT-liquidity-pool-tier-widget-thing is because we discuss it on a regular basis, but for exposing new people to these ideas it’s better to simplify the language as much as possible. I think automated liquidity pool in place of the TLLP is much better than un-managed even. Though my names may not be popular either. I’ll leave this up for some further discussion.

[Cybnate]

I think automated liquidity pool in place of the TLLP is much better than un-managed even.

Brilliant, like automated liquidity pool (ALP) over TLLP and TNLP. Does better say what it is in simple language. Will hire you for marketing

[CoinGame]

Thanks everyone for helping with this. I went ahead and merged it in. The docs page is hosted on github so if there’s ways to improve this in the future feel free to submit a PR or an issue. There’s one last thing I would like to update, which is adding a link to the automated pool software. Who has the most recently updated pool code? Is it you @Cybnate?

[Cybnate]

Who has the most recently updated pool code? Is it you @Cybnate?

I’m taking my lead from NuPool for syncs. Nagalim has other specific updates in his code. So there is not really a master actually. But if you have to choose I would take NuPool.

[masterOfDisaster]

@Nagalim did work on the code and his repo supports all available pools.

[willy]

Woolly’s currently testing a new branch with Cryptsy and southexchange testing might start soon as well. So let’s wait for that branch to be merged and you’ll have the most recent repo

[CoinGame]

Okay, I made more of a general “here are some working examples of source code” section which is now live. I can add more if anyone wants their source there. I just wanted people reading that section to know the software is open source and see some examples of it.

[CoinGame]

Alright. I added one final “need help?” section to the bottom. I’m satisfied for now. Hopefully this page will be easy to share and give people an idea of what liquidity pools are and how to get involved. Thanks again everyone.

[tomjoad]

I’ve added the Liquidity Pools page from docs.nubits.com as a first link on https://nubits.com/liquidity-pools. Thanks for putting it together, I agree the docs page is going to be very useful for newcomers.