[ANN] sell side gateway at Bittrex by masterOfDisaster

[masterOfDisaster]

Very cost effective.

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

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

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.

[Nagalim]

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.

[Cybnate]

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 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.

[dysconnect]

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.

[masterOfDisaster]

At least we might get the discussion going regarding thresholds and a regulation framework that is long overdue
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!

[masterOfDisaster]

There is no urgent need for this, there is no crises imo.

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:

A motion can be passed by Shareholders as we do with everything else.

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.

[tomjoad]

I’ll … recognize that I can’t improve Nu as much as I’d like to.

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.

[Cybnate]

NuPool is offline. There’s no liquidity provision at Bittrex.

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.

[mhps]

A motion can be passed by Shareholders as we do with everything else.

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?

[Cybnate]

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?

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.

[masterOfDisaster]

You forget to mention that there is a PyBot

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

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?

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.

[Cybnate]

A lot of NSR holders are lazy!

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.

If NSR holders are too lazy to craft a motion, FLOT can take care.

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…

[masterOfDisaster]

taking away voting power from Shareholders.

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.

[zoro]

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.

[mhps]

Could FLOT be this board?

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?

[Nagalim]

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

[masterOfDisaster]

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.

[masterOfDisaster]

I don’t know why NuBot has trouble broadcasting liquidity, but this isn’t working like expected:

20:10:39.185 [checkOrders] WARN  - Liquidity is not being sent : orders are not yet initialized [c.n.n.t.CheckOrdersTask:145]
20:12:49.186 [checkOrders] WARN  - Liquidity is not being sent : orders are not yet initialized [c.n.n.t.CheckOrdersTask:145]
20:14:59.186 [checkOrders] WARN  - Liquidity is not being sent : orders are not yet initialized [c.n.n.t.CheckOrdersTask:145]
20:17:09.186 [checkOrders] WARN  - Liquidity is not being sent : orders are not yet initialized [c.n.n.t.CheckOrdersTask:145]

The order (9.99 NBT) is on the book - I checked on Bittrex.
Checking the health status and the liquidity isn’t possible without the broadcast.

Will keep you updated.

edit:
restarted NuBot, issue fixed:

Wed Mar 16 23:59:01 UTC 2016
status of Bittrex sell side gateway by mOD:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
        "BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
            "buy" : 0.0,
            "sell" : 9.99

Upcoming next:

• proper motion with hash
• NBT deposit address of Bittrex account

[masterOfDisaster]

Update of OP:

https://daology.org/proposals/8eab141d4e0f1caadb01ac3896891c0ba1545b70(is 8eab141d4e0f1caadb01ac3896891c0ba1545b70 the hash of the draft?)

At the moment there are issues at Bittrex.
From NuBot:

10:45:47.486 [checkOrders] WARN  - Liquidity is not being sent : orders are not yet initialized [c.n.n.t.CheckOrdersTask:145]
10:46:01.675 [priceTriggerTask] WARN  - Shift needed on **bittrex** - Reason : BTC price changed more than 0.1 % [c.n.n.s.S.StrategySecondaryPegTask:199]
10:46:01.681 [priceTriggerTask] WARN  - Cannot shift walls, orders are being reinitiated. Price is already adjusted. [c.n.n.s.S.StrategySecondaryPegUtils:297]
10:46:01.687 [priceTriggerTask] ERROR - Wall shift failed [c.n.n.s.S.StrategySecondaryPegTask:208]
10:46:01.698 [priceTriggerTask] INFO  - New price computed [Thu Mar 17 10:46:01 UTC 2016,bitcoinaverage,BTC,422.1,USD,0.00244681,0.00229211,] [com.nubits.nubot.tasks.PriceMonitorTriggerTask:483]
10:46:01.715 [priceTriggerTask] ERROR - The Fetched Exchange rate data has remained outside of the required price band for 61seconds.
The bot will notify and restart in 183.0seconds. [c.n.n.t.PriceMonitorTriggerTask:249]
10:46:01.722 [priceTriggerTask] ERROR - Notifying HipChat [c.n.n.t.PriceMonitorTriggerTask:250]

[crypto_coiner]

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.

Imho, that just needs an amendment to FLOT def (to pass upon motion) to provision such FLOT powers