Current Liquidity

It is now balanced: Poloniex BTC/NBT 10295.5849 12932.0437

Was it thanks to nulagoon?

1 Like

@assistant liquidity

Hi @cryptog

The current total liquidity in the Nu network is:

Bid: 85097.1248 NBT (53.11%)
Ask: 75139.4865 NBT (46.89%)

It is broken down in the following manner:

Tier 1:
    Bid: 42865.5549 NBT
    Ask: 30606.7115 NBT

Tier 2:
    Bid: 15865.91 NBT
    Ask: 17671.775 NBT

Tier 3:
    Bid: 26364.1599 NBT
    Ask: 26861.0 NBT

@assistant liquidity

Hi @masterOfDisaster

The current total liquidity in the Nu network is:

Bid: 73183.7404 NBT (46.5%)
Ask: 84206.7823 NBT (53.5%)

It is broken down in the following manner:

Tier 1:
    Bid: 30957.8305 NBT
    Ask: 39674.0073 NBT

Tier 2:
    Bid: 15860.25 NBT
    Ask: 17671.775 NBT

Tier 3:
    Bid: 26364.1599 NBT
    Ask: 26861.0 NBT

Decreasing buy (NBT; bid BTC) side on Poloniex:

4 hours average:

15 min average:

the NBT exit gateway has 4.7 BTC that haven’t been withdrawn so far.
Have a look here to be remembered why the NBT exit gateway has BTC that wait to be withdrawn:

I’m going to start NuBot on that gateway.

NuBot traded the 4.7 BTC in a very short time to NBT.
What now?
I have close to 30 BTC on the sell side gateway.
Another violation of terms just to support the peg?
Why did nobody complain about the last violation?


Who? FLOT or T1-3 custodians?
Personally, i prefer you have some funds and use them back and forth (keeping peg).
Especially when there aren’t much LPs in Polo. Violations and contracts are for lawyers :smiley:

Thank you, but it’s missing the point.
We are currently in a situation for which no sufficient means to keep the peg are in place.
The system needs adjustment and I struggle trying to act according terms and the need to support the peg.
I will come back with some more thoughts later.


Extra duty to volunteers. This is not good. It sets a bad example. @masterOfDisaster didn’t offer a free LP service. As a FLOP member I think @masterOfDisaster should send back the proceeds.


Ok. Then MoD i think you should make a grant with a fee to use FLOT funds in your gateways (both walls).
Not emergency this time. A different service from Nulagoon and Nupool :wink:


That’s the only action fully compliant with the terms.
Yet the actions compliant with the terms aren’t always sufficient to support the peg.

Round after round putting pressure on FLOT for timely depositing funds to the gateways and me withdrawing the proceeds to FLOT addresses is tiring - especially for FLOT.

So this clearly has a price, which is hard to calculate.
Another option would be to introduce a buffer in Poloniex, which has the vast majority of trading volume and the peg there is in my opinion more important than on minor exchanges.

Say you’d operate a dual side NuBot with 10,000 USD equivalent in total with Nu funds.
That would be another step back to the custodian model with that Nu started.
It would use much less funds and put much less funds at risk, though (compared to kTM and jmiller times).

The question is: what’s the price of that (risk * funds + fees) and does Nu want to afford it?
And: can Nu afford not having it until luiquidity issues have been sorted out?

You might realize that we are effectively close to operating that way, but with a lot of effort for FLOT in difference to just keeping funds on exchange as a buffer layer.

The risk is always there. And since there are no human LPs to take it, NU as a DAO should step in.
About the fees, it is up to you. What is your price to operate such a service? Like an ALP operator’s fee?

Ok, will put you on notice :wink: Stop doing it! Sometimes violations are accepted or mildly punished for the greater good. I believe that is the case awaiting better solutions.

1 Like

The bandaid solution would be to turn one of the gateways into dual side mode.

As I don’t charge any fee for the gateways, I wouldn’t charge any fee for that either.
The rest of the gateway terms regarding availability etc. would remain unaffected as well.

This might help to create a (more sound) temporary solution until T3 custodians and fixed cost (hopefully) improved the liquidity situation.

Would that bandaid solution be one meeting thus description:


I think it would be good to raise a motion about the dual-side and test whether that is accepted as a bandaid pending T3 roles being fulfilled. I would support that with some restrictions regarding amounts (10k sounds reasonable)

When further emergencies occur you can at least be supported by Shareholders retrospectively. If it doesn’t pass then we might hope that T3 is already doing their job otherwise I’m at loss.

I think it’s not only good, but necessary to have such a motion.
I’m going to draft one if nobody beats me to it.
I must say that I really don’t like the way this proceeds.

Misplaced incentives seem to be in place.
The gateways have been convenient for Nu and so will the dual side NuBot be.
I think I need to include a fee in that dual side Poloniex motion to provide an incentive to Nu to not rest on its (or rather other’s) laurels.

I’m aware that this might reduce the attractiveness of the motion, which could endanger its acceptance.
For that reason the fee will not kick in immediately, but only after no replacement for the dual side NuBot was found after time x.
That scheme was successful for supporting the creation if FLOT and the continuation of NSR buybacks.

How does that sound?


To me it sounds good.

What’s the difference between holding the money on exchange versus off other than the risk? Why make this a T1 thing instead of a T3 or better yet a T1-3 thing? The only argument I can see to doing this T1 instead of T3 is that we don’t have enough sheer liquidity on T1, which I don’t think is the case. We just need better T3 to balance using off-exchange (much less risky) funds so FLOT doesn’t work so hard.

I’m all for T3 solutions!
That’s why I called it bandaid solution; the solution (at least I hope it will be one) will be a bunch of T3 custodians.
We aren’t there and have had enough drama with walls in danger of running dry (or even temporarily running dry).
If you look at the reasoning of the dual side proposal, you’ll find an assessment that identifies the gateways as a part of the problem of sides running dry (by siphoning funds) as the drawback of supporting the other side.

So why don’t you keep both the nubot running with a small bit of funds, but also keep a T3 reserve so you can fill the MLP (cause it’s not a gateway anymore) yourself? Then FLOT can just refill your T3 reserves. This is an MLP T1-3 solution using shareholder funds, and totally acceptable (though has not been done before). This way, you can keep just a minimum of say 2,500 NBT and $2,500 BTC in the polo pool and will refill from T3 to $5,000 if either side drops below that 2.5k mark for >12 hours. Or something like that. Much better than dropping 10k on-exchange for an indefinite period of time. And this way you can totally justify your fee, as it will be some work for you. And you can call it MoDpuddle T1-3 or something.

1 Like