[ANN] sell side gateway at Bittrex by masterOfDisaster

Due to the maintenance at NuPool and the outage for liquidity that causes at Bittrex, I decided to create a sell side gateway.
While I have no formal permit to operate there with Nu funds, the FLOT might use their discretion to deposit funds there.

The NBT deposit address is BSn5fBQyhvTQjgGCV18XN92epjaeqqonum.
I won’t post a BTC deposit address as I don’t intend to make it a dial side gateway.

The tricky thing with this approach is, that I’m not intending to create a motion. I will strictly refer to the discretion of FLOT. If FLOT deposits funds from the FLOT multisig address, this contract will be enabled.

If NSR holders don’t want this to happen or want to stop it, they might create a motion to stop it.

At first glance this seems strange, but in fact I intend to create a precedent for it.
There’s already a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of FLOT and I don’t recognize a desire of NSR holders to create a rule set that guides FLOT.
NSR holders seem to rely on the discretion of FLOT.
If that’s true, they might rely on the discretion for enabling this contract as well.
This way the FLOT can be very agile. If a motion had to pass before FLOT can act, the sell side gateway wouldn’t be
ready for days.

Although I’m a FLOT NBT member, I won’t sign a tx to deposit funds there to avoid conflicts of interest - I might create a tx, though. This raises the bar to 3 of 4 FLOT members who need to agree for activating this gateway.

###I’ll post an update as soon as testing is complete. Please don’t deposit any funds before.

A hashed version of this contract will follow.
It will more or less look like this:

(is 8eab141d4e0f1caadb01ac3896891c0ba1545b70 the hash of the draft?)

Any comments are welcome.
The NBT broadcast address was once granted here for sell side activities at Poloniex. It will be reused here, as it’s not Poloniex, but still a sell side activity.


###Testing looks good so far:

12:23:21.381 [Strategy Secondary Task] INFO  - The current balance equivalent 9.99 NBT is not enought to place the full SELL wall defined in the liquidity model (500.0).
Resizing the size of the order [com.nubits.nubot.trading.LiquidityDistribution.LiquidityDistributionModel:153]
12:23:21.402 [Strategy Secondary Task] INFO  - SELL- OrderBook : ----- SELL-side order book :
SELL wall volume : 9.99
SELL tier2 volume = 0.0 NBT
Total SELL volume = 9.99 NBT
Best price :0.00243982 (1.0125009018$)
SELL balance left = 0.0 NBT-----  [com.nubits.nubot.strategy.Secondary.StrategySecondaryPegUtils:228]
12:23:21.409 [Strategy Secondary Task] INFO  - Trying to place 1 orders... [com.nubits.nubot.strategy.Secondary.StrategySecondaryPegUtils:229]
12:23:21.994 [Strategy Secondary Task] INFO  - SELL wall order updated. ID : ff029e89-cf61-4883-8339-79b53e379cfa size: 9.99 [com.nubits.nubot.trading.TradeUtils:232]
12:23:22.015 [Strategy Secondary Task] WARN  - **SELL** orders re-initialized on  **bittrex** :  1/1 placed successfully
total amount placed : 9.99
Tier1 order size : 9.99
Tier2 cumulative order size : 0.0 (0 orders)
12:23:41.400 [checkOrders] WARN  - Liquidity is not being sent : orders are not yet initialized [c.n.n.t.CheckOrdersTask:145]

###Order and liquidity broadcast related NuBot settings:

Very cost effective.
Basically you want to avoid the use of voting for making the creation of gateways quicker by relying solely on FLOT decision making process?

The efforts for the operator of such a sell side only NuBot are quite low.
If you think it’s too cheap, I can increase the fee, but I need to admit that I want to push the operator costs for similar operations, that might follow, down :wink:

I want to inverse the logic of motions to increase the agility in liquidity provision.

Instead of creating a motion for this operation I lean on the motion on which FLOT is based on.

While normally a motion is “opt-in”, I make this an “opt-out”.
NSR holders actively need to stop this in case they find that the discretion of FLOT shouldn’t reach that far.

I fear this approach (contracts without dedicated hash) might collide with the concept of NuLaw, but a sound liquidity provision scheme is important as well and NSR holders can still retroactively pass a motion.


I love that you’re doing this. It’s a nice little nudge for shareholders to think “is this ok?”. I may not like it, but unless i dont like it enough to go through the effort to make a motion there’s not much i can do to stop it. Makes me giggle.

1 Like

Makes me uncomfortable and it feels like I’m the boiling frog ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog ). There is no urgent need for this, there is no crises imo. A motion can be passed by Shareholders as we do with everything else. I think this is a bad precedent and FLOT will look more an more as a centralised foundation where Shareholders lose control over slowly but surely.

1 Like

A protocol is needed for considering objections. As it is a continuous process, perhaps in the long term we need a general guideline like FLOT withholding funding for at least X days when an opt-out motion gathers 10% of votes, a few more days when it gathers 40% etc. but can’t withhold for longer until the motion is passed. For the meantime it’s going to be based on how FLOT perceives potential risks to shareholders as well as conflicts among the community.

At least we might get the discussion going regarding thresholds and a regulation framework that is long overdue :wink:
The FLOT is left alone in many areas by shareholders who find it convenient to pass the responsibility to FLOT.
May the NSR holders change that!

How many deposit requests to NuLagoon Tube or one of the gateways can you find in the forum that are created by a non-FLOT member?
If NSR holders want to be responsible, they might start to act accordingly!


NuPool is offline. There’s no liquidity provision at Bittrex.
I think low volume exchanges don’t need focus; frankly said, I think a sell side only gateway is sufficient.

The current NBT situation at Bittrex is this:

With the same slowness as always in the face of no ALP at Bittrex.

I’m a kind of boiling frog as well - I’m already too heavily involved in the liquidity provision again and see so much room for improvement, yet NSR holders rarely take the initiative!
I’ll get tired of this or recognize that I can’t improve Nu as much as I’d like to.

1 Like

It’s a common frustration, but not one that should be viewed as prohibitively negative. None of us will ever have 100% of our ideas accepted by shareholders; I think as long as we’re each above 0%, we’re making a positive contribution to the network. I’d love to have sleek capital controls in Tier 6 liquidity and a 0 NSR block reward, but I recognize that current shareholders don’t favor those ideas. As long as we’re improving the network each month, we’re winning.

1 Like

You forget to mention that there is a PyBot with Shareholders approval as a backup, which is now activated by FLOT and holding the peg on Bittrex. Of course I welcome a backup, so I would support your or anyone else’s motion for sure when up for voting.

I have started to lose it in keeping track of all motions. I’d like to see motions only used to deal with big and maybe controversy things.

How about passing a motion to have the power of approving yet another gateway/pool delegated to the FLOT, so this OP only needs to get through the FLOT?

1 Like

Would support that if such motion would also clarify the performance criteria for such bots and where they sit in the liquidity model. There is also the aspect of competing directly with ALPs and MLPs which may already have been voted for by the Shareholders? Would be a bit odd situation. Don’t think that is a place where we should go as they tend to end badly. Will also need a better voting system and some performance system for FLOT members I believe, this can be included in such motion which greatly empowers FLOT.

1 Like

When I wrote that, there was no liquidity provision by Nu.

That’s what I wanted to achieve with this thread/announcement without the need of going through a motion.

A lot of NSR holders are lazy!
May they create a motion to steer FLOT away from being responsible, or acting based on discretion, repectively.

FLOT needs to do a lot from monitoring the liquidity situation over crafting and signing tx to fill gateways and balance liquidity to trying to improve the situation.

If NSR holders are too lazy to craft a motion, FLOT can take care.
It’s not about taking power aways from NSR holders.
It’s about involving them beyond configuring votes!

Maybe I just lean back for a while and look what happens.

Shareholders are shareholders and mostly passive even though they are supposed to be active to some extent.
Besides that some won’t have the knowledge or experience or time to obtain it to craft a meaningful motion.

I’m more than happy to have FLOT craft motions, I’m concerned about taking away voting power from Shareholders.

Maybe we need to revisit the governance model again. Look at the Swiss, referenda are mostly crafted by professionals paid for doing so and voted in once in I believe 4 years (can’t find a source quickly), but even individuals can still submit proposals when at a certain threshold. Either way both types of proposals are voted for by all citizens.
In my opinion this is a truly democratic model and Nu should take it as an example. Maybe this needs a separate thread…

Nobody can take away voting power from NSR holders and I say FLOT will always follow passed motions.
This was never my intention and I didn’t propose it that way.

It’s silly that FLOT needs to craft motions to improve things, while NSR holders can stay passive.
NSR holders are in charge, they are responsible!

If we compare Nu to a standard share corporation, we might say that FLOT has been elected to act - in parts - on behalf of NSR holders.
Unfortunately these parts are not strictly defined to leave room for discretion, to keep FLOT able to react in case of unforeseen circumstances.
Is it really up to the FLOT to define what they are responsible for?

Anyway, I’ll stop here.
Don’t expect motions regarding this topic in near future from me.
May the NSR holders do the work.
It’s about their property.

It is time for NU to have an elected board of directors making decisions that need immediate action.
Could FLOT be this board?
Don’t expect NSR holders to govern every “little” aspect of NU.

1 Like

Well I suppose if 3 of 5 NBT FLOT members decide to send NBT to the gateway described in OP it’s not a technical violation of FLOT’s terms, is it?

Considering FSRT sold nbt for $0.97? Not at all.

1 Like

Just in case it’ll be used, I’ll finish the gateway.
At the moment it’s not online, although testing is complete.
I will change the status of the gateway soon and update this thread.