Current Liquidity

With the passing of the T3 custodian role some relieve should be in sight. I’m also considering running gateways, either as a backup or to support T3 custodians. Will need to do more testing and understanding what is required to operate this properly.

I’m also considering joining the T3 crowd, but it’s really because I am still dissatisfied with the deals offered by NuLagoon Tube. The best way to justify my ideals is to set up competing services.

But I also prefer to take a different approach than either NuLagoon tube and masterOfDisaster and make it sustainable yet as low-cost as possible. Cooperation is possible with multi-sig, so if somebody is comfortable running nud and some scripts 24/7 for a very little bit of pocket money please let me know. The primary justification of this though, is to rehearse for possible forms of liquidity operations with the birth of BCE.

I also hope FLOT members could voluntarily do more load balancing, where the NSR group could help the NBT group - monitoring walls and creating transactions etc.

1 Like

I’m all ears and happy to run another instance of nud and some scripts on one of my servers or even setup a separate instance eventually. Getting it sustainable and as low-cost as possible should be priority one for Shareholders.

An update might be appropriate:
Liquidity seems to be under control for the moment.

The BTC deposit at the NBT exit gateway arrived.
Once more the FLOT was able to execute a transaction (one that required 5 signatures!) at record speed: approximately 7 hours from identifying the need until broadcasting the transaction.

The situation was more dire than I experienced before. I (ab)used dozens of BTC on the sell side gateway (that were waiting for withdrawal) to support the peg (violating the terms of gateway operation) to buy the FLOT some time.
Some details about that can be found in the editing timeline of Current Liquidity


I second that.

1 Like

The buy side gateway accumulated 11,900 NBT as proceeds from sold BTC.
24 BTC are left on the exchange account to be traded (currently valued at $9,100).

I’m switching the buy side gateway to a dual side NuBot. <- This is a link - just in case you might not notice.

This way the 11,900 NBT are available if demand for NBT increases, while the 24 BTC can be traded if demand for NBT declines.
This creates a buffer in addition to ALP of roughly $10,000 each side.

I adjusted the offset to 0.009 to create a line of defense beyond the orders of the ALP.
Including the exchange fee and the allowed price move before a wall-shift gets triggered (0.1%), this should keep orders in the corridor of BTCUSD +/- 1%.

Funds on the dual side NuBot will only get traded in case no offers with smaller spread are available (funds, drained, ALP/NuBot shifting walls, etc.).

@woolly_sammoth, @willy can you please confirm that I’m outside the offsets for which NuPool compensates LPs?

translates to offset values of 0.005 in NuBot (if run with "wallchangeThreshold": 0.1,), right?

Btw. what price feed do you use? There could be deviations between feeds as well; I’m using the one from

It would be good to know the parameters of NuLagoon’s NuBot to not interfer with that (=to have a higher spread) - they have one at Poloniex, don’t they?
This is what made me think there’s a NuLagoon NuBot.
@henry, can you please enlighten me?

The sell side gateway is currently well-funded with NBT, but has only few BTC.
I operate it with an offset of 0.009 and a "wallchangeThreshold": 0.15, (price tolerance before walls get shifted 0.15%) to have orders on the sell side that are in between ALP and the dual side gateway and stay longer than the dual side gateway, because of the increased price tolerance.
I hope to be able to grab some BTC this way until NBT and BTC are balanced in the exchange account.

Then I will run the (then former) sell side gateway in dual side mode (because it has more funds than the (former buy side gateway) and provides more buffer.
I’ll stop the buy side gateway (which is currently in dual side mode)
I’ll start withdrawing the funds from the buy side gateway to FLOT addresses thereafter.

Current status of the former buy side gateway, now dual side NuBot:

status of former buy side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
        "BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
            "buy" : 9353.44,
            "sell" : 11919.2544

Pybot uses a failover method. Bitfinex -> Coinbase -> Bitstamp


1 Like

I’ve tuned most of the offsets to be maximums in the recent update:
^the offset there is 0.0075 (which is indeed 1.1% SAF)

1 Like

NuBot has backup feeds as well. I’ll adjust them to the same primary and backup settings

So I need to increase the NuBot offsets to be above 0.0075, if I want to offer “more expensive orders” than the orders for which ALP participants get compensated, right?

yuuup. If you’re really a peg break scenario, you should charge like 1.2% offset (2% SAF)


that’s what I’m trying to prevent! :wink:

This really reverts back to KTM and jmiller times when Nu money is put on exchanges – both in operational nature and in magnitude of fund amount. I would also be very worried to upgrade/tinker with the bot software because a bug or an operator’s error could cause a lot of damage.


Very true, the amounts are signifcantly lower though, the risks are the same. I don’t like it either, but our only T3 custodian only starts next week and no other options are even on the horizon and the peg still needs to be maintained. Any ideas reducing the occurrences of the use of the gateways are welcome and I would definitely vote for them. Bring them on!

The T3 custodian operation of @nagalim would involve Nu funds with no collateral.
What would be the difference with dual side bot operation or with @masterOfDisaster 's gateway operations ?

1 Like

Exchange default vrs me losing my computer and all my backups. Guess which is more likely.

1 Like

T3 fund, when not used, is not on exchanges. There could be multiple T3 custdians to spread centralization risk of T3. Actually we have had 4-5 exchange mishappenings, but 0 custodian related, so putting Nu money in elected custdians’ hand is much safer.

Good point, one might hope that T3 custodian can manage funds better, meaning with less risk exposure than the gateways. If they can’t then the only value is a buffer between FLOT and T1/T2.

When T3 can’t decrease risk management with Nu funds then you might wonder if it is worth transferring the risks with collateral anyway. The only value would be in having multiple T3s on multiple exchanges to spread the risks of the network. One could also run multiple gateways on different exchanges. Problem is that current trading is highly centralised.

1 Like

I don’t agree. I think the biggest value is that T3 can do the daily fire fighting which FLOT is unsuitable to do. The peg was broken on Polo on Jan 12 because there was one signer less for several hours.

1 Like

I think we are on the same page.

You are so right.
And I don’t you whether you can believe that or not: I’m amongst those who hates that the most.
I have explained in greater length why I see no viable alternative at the moment in the motion to create a dual side NuBot on Poloniex.

I partially don’t agree with this.
The operational nature might be similar, although I hope for a transition to an unfunded (and only one side funded if need be) dual side bot soon, which would make even the operational nature different.

What already is completely different, is the amount of money.
1,250,000 NBT were under control by jmiller and ktm.
Only a fraction of those were on exchanges; not only one exchange - exchanges!
I’m only pleading for

  • supporting one exchange
  • with several thousand USD buffer until T3 custodians and fixed cost can prove their effectiveness
  • to keep the peg at the most important exchange at present
  • and as soon as possible, withdraw funds from the dual side bot to make it a standby emergency solution

The first time I saw the walls went thin, I hesitated, when it came to my mind that I could use gateway proceeds to support the peg. I had to convince myself, that I’m doing the right thing, although it violates the terms of the gateway, before I finally put the gateway proceeds on order.
The next time the walls were drained, I had to do the same thing.
It feels awful being torn between the attempt to do the right thing and following orders.
But as long as there are no other gateways - and I have no idea how else to support the peg efficiently on Poloniex - I don’t see alternatives except for

  • don’t care
  • hope that only professional traders using bots and price feeds trade on NBT/BTC and just don’t buy outside a certain spread from the price

We could see some days ago that we can’t rely on the latter one.
And I’m just not able to not care.

I only already converted a gateway to dual side mode, because of my assessment that can be found in the motion and because I just can’t keep the pace any longer and I’m not sure about other FLOT members.

If we could look at the data ALix collected over the past few days, you could see how thin the walls have been on Poloniex for an extended time.
The NuBots I operate don’t create order sizes bigger than $3,000. If you find $3,500 on order in total, you know how dire the situation was.
If somebody wants drama, the edit history of Current Liquidity has some,

I’m not taking it easy, I just lack the alternatives. T3 custodians are great. We need more than just one.

Once a dual side bot (I hope that by then I won’t be the only one operating one) is in active standby (running, but unfunded), T3 custodians can fund it if need be. They have singlesig addresses, in difference to FLOT. And conceptually, it would be exactly within the “waterfall scheme”:
T4 -> T3 -> T2 -> T1
FLOT funds T3 custodians, they send money on exchange, NuBot puts in on order.
That’s just a shortcut if there’s no time to lose.