That’s another challenge getting tackled by my approach.
I proposed each of the sell side gateway contracts in an almost uniform way with 30 days duration, automatic extension by another 30 days, convenient termination modes (FLOT majority vote, NSR holder motion) and at a dirt cheap fee.
That’s the part I feel I can contribute to a more effective, more efficient, more agile, more flexible, more focussed and cheaper liquidity provision.
I really think Nu has little alternative to push the liquidity provision costs down, but by focussing and pulling back as much as possible from supporting the NBT/BTC pairs dual side while offering sell side only operations at a lot of exchanges (without “NBT price guarantee”, without obligation to keep the peg everywhere).
Focussing on fiat pairs where possible and supporting NBT/BTC dual side only at selected exchanges is the way to go; at least this is my firm belief and I haven’t found a better proposal after I proposed the “paradigm shift” in the liquidity provision scheme.
I think this is just as far outside or within the responsibility of FLOT as engaging in contracts that support the liquidity provision is.
If NSR holders want to see such a role, they might create a motion, define rules, elect members of that group.
If FLOT is asked to support that group in whatever way by NSR holder motion, FLOT will of course follow.
I have more than once done things, which have been in grey areas or even violated contracts.
You might remember early this year when I abused single side gateway funds to create dual side gateways at Poloniex?
If I hadn’t done it that way, I would have broken down completely. I just couldn’t support the peg any longer around the clock.
I was torn apart between doing what I thought necessary and what I was bound to do.
I felt there was no time to do it in another way. Gladly I received a subsequent pardon from NSR holders by having a motion passed to support dual side operations.
I learned a lot from that.
I try to involve NSR holders earlier.
It’s not that I hadn’t explicitly asked them to voice concerns, if they don’t want to have such single side NBT sale gateways.
I think the Bittrex gateway was the first I proposed. That was almost a fortnight ago and no motion to stop that followed.
The gateway at hitBTC was activated 1 week ago:
No motion from NSR holders to stop that.
The Bter gateway might come next.
The NSR holders don’t seem to be troubled enough from that to even start a discussion whether this is good or bad or what should be adjusted, let alone drafting a motion.
The only people that are troubled by that are FLOT members like @jooize, whose pricks of conscience made him write this post or you, who rightfully doubt that’s the best way to go.
I’m sorry for @jooize’s trouble, but at least it demonstrates that it was a very fine choice (no pun intended!) to have him elected as FLOT member!
It might be better to have way more rules, metrics etc. that get refined based on experience over time.
If we want to automate the liquidity provision, there’s no way around that.
And there’s no way around automation if Nu wants to grow.
I just don’t have the energy or time to do it better. I’m sorry.
In a few weeks my liquidity broadcast address will become invalid. I could use another one, which lasts longer, but won’t. The liquidity broadcast address I currently use was granted for reporting sell side gateway liquidity, albeit for a Poloniex only sell side gateway.
I’ll request a new grant for 1 NBT to continue the sell side gateway contracts.
After all, NSR holders will have an easy way to stop this without lifting a finger - they just need to not vote for it…
