Ok then, here comes a story about Nu, the decentralized liquidity providing and the ways to do that.
I think it’s necessary for people to understand why Nu sponsors the liquidity providing.
This requires a quick overview of Finalized evolution of liquidity operations as well as a summary of Decentralized liquidity without counterparty risk not yet implemented as introduction.
After all it’s what might people confuse most: why the heck is Nu paying up to 10% compensation per month?
Nu is paying for keeping the peg intact which is of paramount importance for the success of NBT!
Liquidity providing is a rather complex process, requires a passed custodial grant to have an address for broadcasting liquidity information, etc. That inhibits easy access to the role as liquidity provider.
@creon (he might have left Nu, but he is to be credited for it) invented a simple and ingenious way to bypass that obstacle.
He created a client server architecture called “trusless liquidity pool” in which the server part is performed by a custodian and the client part is performed by people providing liquidity using bots.
For people familiar with mining PoW coins it might be compared with mining pools:
the money stays in the control of the bots (at least as long as the exchange doesn’t get hacked or disappears…) just as the hash rate stays in the control of the miner.
The server accumulates the liquidity provided by the bots and reports them as Tier1 liquidity just as the mining pool server accumulates the hash rate of the miners to solve blocks.
There are different TLLP for different tastes:
- different exchanges might be perceived at different trust levels. Holding money (fiat or crypto coins) at an exchange is required to provide liquidity!
- different trading pairs have different risks in terms of volatility and resulting hedging risks that need to be shouldered by the liquidity provider
- NBT/USD no risk, because 1 NBT = 1 USD
- NBT/(EUR | CNY | other fiat coming) little risk, depending on how much EUR/USD and CNY/USD fluctuate
- NBT/BTC quite serious hedging risk
TLLP bots place orders at the order book and report this to the TLLP server.
TLLPs are designed to pay the liquidity providers each minute a small compensation that is derived from the monthly compensation.
TLLPs have an upper limit until which they compensate for providing liquidity. Liquidity in excess of that limit doesn’t get compensated.
There’s no minimum amount of money or minimum duration for providing liquidity this way.
TLLP are typically configured to automatically perform (daily) payouts of the compensation to the liquidity providers.
TLLP may have a minimum of compensation that needs to be reached before a payout happens.
You can try running a TLLP bot with a few NBT or a few mBTC.
Participating in a TLLP requires a constant internet connection and continuously running the TLLP bot (to place the orders and report it to the server). The TLLP bot is programmed in Python. Devices like RaspberryPi are an ideal match for running TLLP bots due to their little power consumption.
NuLagoon is a different animal than TLLPs.
It’s a classic custodial grant operation using NuBot operated by reputed Nu community member @henry.
Some of the benefits for NuLagoon participants in comparison to TLLPs are: no need to run a bot, no need to maintain the bot, no need to have a constant internet connection.
To make this possible NuLagoon receives deposits from people who want to provide liquidity. NuLagoon manages everything, places the orders and pays the rewards.
NuLagoon offers different pools with different risk profiles, e.g. Pool C is immune to BTC volatility. The “price” for that is a much lower compensation.
To participate in one of the pools NBT (minimum 1,000) or BTC (minimum 4) need to be deposited.
There are two accounting days each week at which deposits are credited and withdrawals from NuLagoon are processed.
The information about the pools provided by NuLagoon is comprehensive,
NuLagoon is very convenient for people who want to have it easy, who don’t like to maintain a TLLP bot.
TLLPs are great for people who want to keep the control over their funds.
Both types of pools share the risk of exchange defaults.