CCEDK closing trading - alternatives?

masterOfDisaster 2016-05-23 18:42:05 UTC #1

How are the odds to get a share of a decentralized trading platform - BKS - listed to a centralized exchange?
Do centralized exchanges realize that BCE might take away some volume from them, but is in the end rather a complementary solution?
Does anybody think it’s worth exploring that path?
Shapeshift would be great

Dhume 2016-05-23 18:53:06 UTC #2

We should strive for Poloniex, just keep bombarding them with requests to add it.

JordanLee 2016-05-23 20:03:24 UTC #3

Thanks @masterOfDisaster for bringing attention to this important issue. Starting a topic about it was on my short list of top priorities.

It is important we find an alternative to trading at CCEDK right away. Surely not having a place to trade without manual escrow will have a negative impact on the price of BKS. It isn’t the right place for me to put my time though.

I talked with @tomjoad about this recently and he didn’t seem very optimistic about finding an exchange that will support BKS trading, having already contacted a number of exchanges without success. Perhaps he can give us his perspective on what hasn’t worked so far so we can move on to different approaches.

Some have pointed out that B&C is a competitor of every exchange, so it is not surprising we have difficulty enticing exchanges to support BKS trading. While this is true, it is also true that exchanges can easily benefit from listing BKS. Just like any other crypto asset, they win if they get volume from it. The volume B&C operations take from exchanges will be pulled from all exchanges, not just the one that lists BKS, so it is likely that B&C will bring much more volume to an exchange than it will take away once successful.

masterOfDisaster 2016-05-23 21:18:15 UTC #4

Due to the nature of BCE it’s attracting only parts of the trading.
High frequency traders won’t be happy with BCE.
Those who want to safely trade big volumes, but aren’t interested in high frequency trading, should like BCE.
As it’s more effort to include and maintain a lot of trading pairs than it is at centralized exchanges, even a successful BCE won’t be the end of centralized exchanges.
BCE needs to focus on those with high trading volume.

Centralized exchanges would do well to recoup losses caused by BCE - , although that sounds strange at first glance - from trading BKS!
The thing is: sooner or later exchanges will list BKS. They can attract trading volume and hence fees. Those who are late in the game will have it harder.

I named shapeshift in the OP for a reason. I know that shapeshift focusses on proxying trades to exchanges. But I also know that shapeshift holds funds in hot wallets to increase the speed of transactions. Otherwise the recent shapeshift hack wouldn’t have been possible.
While shapeshift is not in the ideal position to trade BKS, because BKS are soon listed on no exchange, shapeshift is different from other exchanges.
Shapeshift might have less resentments against trading BKS, although that’d require focussing on using shapeshift funds.

Another thought that crossed my mind would be a cooperation between Nu and BCE and have BCE pay NuLagoon for creating a BKS trading pair.
Creating a proper contract would be a hard part - the services NuLagoon delivers for Nu needs to be separated from the services delivered for BCE.
Payment would be an even harder part, because BKS aren’t really liquid and for BKC there’s not yet any use not to mention trading pairs…
…the BCE development fund could be an option as it holds NBT.

What do others think - is it worth fiddling with a motion?
@henry, would NuLagoon be capable of creating a BKS trading pair (maybe BKS/USNBT?) and be willing to do so?
How much do you think would that cost?

edit:
one more thing about that NuLagoon option for providing a BKS/NBT pair. Operating the NBT side with funds from Nu and operating the BKS side with funds from BCE (from a grant) should be evaluated.
I know that this means putting those funds at risk.
But NuLagoon could have run with the funds they manage ever since they’ve started the operation, but didn’t.

All I’m trying to say is: there will be a break-even quite soon, if the trading starts with funds from Nu and BCE instead of a compensated decentralized liquidity provision.
Nu would start with a NAV only represented by NBT.
BCE would start with a NAV only represented by BKS.
As funds get traded, the composition will change. Nu will face some BKS volatility risk in that case.
NuLagoon will receive a compensation for creating the trading pair and fees from the trading should be shared between Nu, BCE and NuLagoon.

Sabreiib 2016-05-23 23:39:00 UTC #5

I don’t like centralized exchange trading BKS because they may use BKS to disturb the B&C decision making, but BKC need a FIAT gateway.

Bring B&C operation ASAP.

Cybnate 2016-05-24 07:58:21 UTC #6

I think we could get Shapeshift to list it, however we would still need the pair on at least one exchange. They might demand two but maybe that can be NuLagoon. Shapeshift also will likely demand liquidity for at least 1000NBT on both sides continuously, but that is doable I believe.

So still need to find at least one exchange or release B&C

zoro 2016-05-24 08:30:49 UTC #7

@henry, can you add BKS/BKC in the tube before your plans about ETH?

Nagalim 2016-05-24 12:34:02 UTC #8

How would bks be added to the tube without a price feed?

zoro 2016-05-24 12:50:58 UTC #9

This is a question for the genius guys! i really don’t know

masterOfDisaster 2016-05-24 13:44:32 UTC #10

Well, that looks like a road block.
Haven’t thought about such basic requirements. Damn!
It looks like we need BCE to get BKS trading started…at BCE and possibly NuLagoon then with BCE as price feed.
Can BCE be used as price feed?
A kind of API must be part of the BCE design - how else would NuBot work there?

Nagalim 2016-05-24 13:52:11 UTC #11

I’m basically against pegging a BKS market, which is what you’re trying to do.

masterOfDisaster 2016-05-24 14:40:22 UTC #12

The pegging would be a(n unwelcome) side effect.
The main goal would be having (deep) BKS liquidity.

Dhume 2016-05-24 14:52:31 UTC #13

I agree, I see no reason for us to provide liquidity on a BKS pair.

masterOfDisaster 2016-05-24 14:57:48 UTC #14

One potential reason is an extension (more funds) of NuSafe and a market to get a lot of BKS traded in a short period of time.
At the moment BKS are the collateral for a reserve that is noted in USD and made available in BTC if needed.
If for whatever reason NuSafe fails and the BKS need to be sold, more liquidity means a faster sale and less loss.

Another potential reason:
with sufficient BKS liquidity, BKS could be directly included in the reserve - diversification is rarely a bad idea.

Nagalim 2016-05-24 15:02:28 UTC #16

The bks collateral is more than enough to deal with loss (the biweekly report clearly shows this). I think we should work on nsr liquidity before bks.

masterOfDisaster 2016-05-24 15:04:29 UTC #17

Working on the liquidity of the main asset is of course more important than working on reserve assets.

Dhume 2016-05-24 15:05:02 UTC #18

By providing liquidity we’re essentially either selling or buying back shares, when we’re selling we’re saturating the market and diminishing demand by buying we’re essentially doing share buybacks. Neither of these are desirable, an illiquid market is more likely to lead to higher prices and thus decreasing the likelihood that incase of Nusafe failure the collateral wouldn’t be able to cover the funds lost.

masterOfDisaster 2016-05-24 15:06:01 UTC #19

It depends on how fast you need to sell in that illiquid market.

Dhume 2016-05-24 15:41:33 UTC #20

If the prices are higher in that illiquid market it will be easier to sell them for a satisfactory price.

masterOfDisaster 2016-05-24 15:46:52 UTC #21

Small amounts: yes
Large amounts: no.