Very annoying
If you click on markets you see that the price is mostly created by ccedk and excoin right now. I checked excoin and the margin looks fine, however, it seems that the bot is very active and resets orders frequently, so if CMC checks the excoin price at the wrong time it might not see the walls.
Regarding CCEDK, I have serious connection problems with this site (every second request ends up in 502 bad gateway). I can imagine that if the NuBot faces similar problems then it is not able to operate correctly.
EDIT: After being able to see the CCEDK order book it seems that the buy side was cleared recently. As Jordan mentioned in another post the Tier 2 liquidity should rebalance this.
1 Like
That is very annoying. For, from a marketing perspective, users that dismiss things too quickly might be thinking that the peg is not kept.
But let us see the liquidity given by Nu.
@assistant liquidity.
Hi @cryptog
The current Liquidity in the Nu network is:
152926 NBT on the sell side and 104428 NBT on the buy side.
There are more than 100k in buy side. So everything is fine.
Right now we have: Buy Total: 124.16301517
Price (BTC) Volume (NBT) Total (BTC)
0.00438913 13 601.5028787 59.69876433
0.00438913 13 600.60107812 59.69480621
on ccedk.
1 Like
Yes but look at the candlestick graph: https://www.ccedk.com/nbt-btc
Something happened the last hours which brought the NuBot in trouble - either connection issues, large market movements or whatever. This lead to large variations in the price ticker of ccedk which probably explains the low price shown on CMC.
Yes i noticed that. So perhaps the peg was not maintained (a flash crash ?) for a couple of micro-seconds without consequences since it was too fast to exploit?
Not sure, we would need the log files of CMC to tell 
Check history in CCEDK. It seems that both buy and sell walls are oftently empty periodically by large orders!
can this be a bot malfunction?
[rant]
I have to admit that I get very distracted by all these post with alarming titles, and then I realise it boils down to nothing. Can I ask you a favour? Please stop it.
Look at the trade history on ccedk : 2 NBT have been transacted at that price.
02.02.2015 12:42 Buy 2.04656353 NBT 0.0031 BTC 0.00634435 BTC
The peg is not lost, nothing is lost, nubits are always available at 1$ both for sell and buying in large volumes with BTC , PPC and USD. Someone sold 2 NBT at lower price. That’s it, next time please change the title.
There are already 3 posts talking about “liquidity getting thinner” and explanations.
We love CMC and want to see always 1$ regardless they are broken? Well then instead of opening a post, get there, buy 0.01 NBT at 1$ and in less than 1 minute CMC will pick it up. I just did it.
Chose one domain you really like and try to improve nubits adoption. If you notice a problem try to solve it yourself, if not, try to ask the community to address it. But avoid ringing alarms and propose solutions
[/rant]
peace
2 Likes
I agree that the title should be changed, but the fact that CMC, as one of the major sources for coin markets, displays these wrong numbers on a normal and functional operation is a bad thing.
Maybe the NuBot could check after resetting the walls how much the last price deviates from the target value. If it deviates too much the bot will buy/sell to itself using the minimal required amount of coin. (I hope this isn’t illegal though, people may see it as manipulation although it is more a dirty hack to overcome the short time periods where no walls are present and to “update” the API of the exchange).
In this case, it wasn’t a NuBot order that caused the price, it was someone else’s buy order. Liquidity is still low enough on CCEDK’s NBT/BTC market (intentionally, to an extent, to limit exchange default risk) that the entire sell or buy side set of orders can be acquired by a single trader.
You can see for yourself the indicators if you look at the summary data in @KTm’s twice-hourly reports. Take a look at the average order sizes over the last day, week, month, and since Nu launched – 1000s of NBT per transaction. To me this clearly shows that the trade volume is organic, but the participants are a very small number of traders that move larger blocks of NBT and BTC back and forth seeking profits when the NBT/BTC exchange rate is volatile.
"pairURL":"https://www.ccedk.com/nbt-btc",
"trades":{
"day":{
"buy":{
"avgOrderSize":6896.88342914,
"avgPrice":0.0045029,
"commission":0.002,
"highPrice":0.00456876,
"lastTradeTime":1422892400000,
"lowPrice":0.00443201,
"orders":4,
"sumFees":55.17506742,
"sumSales":27587.53371656
},
"filePath":"https://kiaratamm.github.io/data/ccedk_nbtbtc/trades_lastday.json",
"sell":{
"avgOrderSize":6786.55950082,
"avgPrice":0.00448178,
"commission":0.002,
"highPrice":0.00457639,
"lastTradeTime":1422892148000,
"lowPrice":0.00441332,
"orders":8,
"sumFees":108.58494345,
"sumSales":54292.47600659
}
},
"lifetime":{
"buy":{
"avgOrderSize":8689.88435607,
"avgPrice":0.00329482,
"commission":0.002,
"highPrice":0.00568086,
"lastTradeTime":1422892400000,
"lowPrice":0.00211323,
"orders":1268,
"sumFees":22037.54671924,
"sumSales":11018773.36350292
},
"filePath":"https://kiaratamm.github.io/data/ccedk_nbtbtc/trades_alltime.json",
"sell":{
"avgOrderSize":8568.86509289,
"avgPrice":0.00324634,
"commission":0.002,
"highPrice":0.00572255,
"lastTradeTime":1422892148000,
"lowPrice":0.00214303,
"orders":1303,
"sumFees":22330.45971252,
"sumSales":11165231.21603789
}
},
"thirty":{
"buy":{
"avgOrderSize":11611.63848634,
"avgPrice":0.0040652,
"commission":0.002,
"highPrice":0.00568086,
"lastTradeTime":1422892400000,
"lowPrice":0.00327143,
"orders":466,
"sumFees":10822.04706592,
"sumSales":5411023.5346354
},
"filePath":"https://kiaratamm.github.io/data/ccedk_nbtbtc/trades_last30days.json",
"sell":{
"avgOrderSize":12867.11139365,
"avgPrice":0.00401354,
"commission":0.002,
"highPrice":0.00572255,
"lastTradeTime":1422892148000,
"lowPrice":0.00326242,
"orders":424,
"sumFees":10911.30979079,
"sumSales":5455655.23090742
}
},
"week":{
"buy":{
"avgOrderSize":9671.57117563,
"avgPrice":0.00421576,
"commission":0.002,
"highPrice":0.00468567,
"lastTradeTime":1422892400000,
"lowPrice":0.00364854,
"orders":132,
"sumFees":2553.2947893,
"sumSales":1276647.39518323
},
"filePath":"https://kiaratamm.github.io/data/ccedk_nbtbtc/trades_lastweek.json",
"sell":{
"avgOrderSize":12736.10328354,
"avgPrice":0.00426873,
"commission":0.002,
"highPrice":0.0046864,
"lastTradeTime":1422892148000,
"lowPrice":0.00367223,
"orders":102,
"sumFees":2598.16492654,
"sumSales":1299082.53492126
}
}
},
NuBot already does this. The price paid for the 2 NBT that started this discussion weren’t part of the custodian’s wall. The BTC that normally would have been on the buy-side had previously been used to buy back a large number of NBT that the trader moved in one go.
Version 0.1.5 of NuBot allows for max order placement (see Jordan Lee’s post this morning about it). This enhancement will go a long way to cutting down these massive “back-and-forth” trades.
Of course it wasn’t any of the NuBot’s orders that created this price, it happened during the time where rebalancing was in progress and not yet established on the buy side. But even after the walls were placed, the “last price” field of the exchange API remained at the low price until the first order of the NuBot was filled.
That’s why I suggested that the bot should automatically fill one of its orders once the walls are set up, if the last price deviates too much from 1$. This way the exchange API will provide the correct value to CMC and others.
1 Like
Yep, actually I can make a stand alone bot CMCEqualizerBot that can be run separately from nubot … Its on the roadmap … Do you think should be prioritised?
1 Like
Was this due to moving around liquidity, or the cancel/create order process?
If the latter, if NuBot is to manage say 1000 NBT, can it place 2 orders of 500 NBT, and smartly cancel / create the orders so there is no gap? Is something like that in-scope for future NuBot development?
This could have a stabilizing effect, although the NuBot itself knows best if the price is wrong when it sets the walls. An external tool would also require to handle the credentials to the exchange twice.
Not sure if all this is a priority, I think at can be hacked together rather quickly. I am not so much the java guy, but I could write a short python script that would do the job.
Yes it can do what you describe, but in our case here the event occurred that one side was completely wiped out through a very big order, and the rebalancing took enough time to disturb the price tickers.
moving around liquidity. No buy walls
This is how it is designed : two orders for this reason. The “Smart” cancel / create in the past created several problems so we dropped it from 0.1.4 . Now everything will change again