I expect to break down soon.
Given the current turbulence I think it’s good enough to set a high spread (up to 5%?) and call it a day. I can’t help but feel sorry to see you put in so much hard work.
Another thing I’ve just managed to notice is that USDT is treated completely differently on Poloniex; our price display is reversed (i.e. NBT in terms of BTC). Furthermore BTC/USDT also has a 2% spread yet we’re the only one to have a “non-exact peg” shown on CMC. We need to petition Poloniex to change this status.
One reason you had to work so hard is that NuLagoon has to divert funds to their own exchange. It is not to be condemned but it is important that we align our strategies with this change. The effort is better made to let people make their way to NuLagoon Tube (which is a qualitative difference from “traditional” exchanges), otherwise NuLagoon’s management fee has no meaning.
Given NuLagoon Tube and the icebreaking of asymmetric ALP rewards, I want all of us to consider reducing BTC operations but keep the NBT walls on Poloniex. If people want to buy a large amount of BTC they should try to find their own way to NuLagoon. We need to aggressively let people know about this so the peg is not considered endangered on Poloniex.
I just can’t as long as I have some power left.
It might be that I’ve found a sweet spot with ~1% offset. That slows trade enough to not let the funds run dry soon, while keeping the peg close to $1.
We still have $18,000 in total on buy side left. That means we sold some BTC, but not very many.
BTC/NBT would be great and shame on CMC for reporting USDT wrong!
Other reasons are
- the T3 custodianship of Nagalim has just started and needs some time to work flawless
- the compensation for ALP is static and would need to be higher in such times (0 BTC on nupool for a long time)
- I have faith in Nu and want it to succeed
Btw. - NuLagoon Tube shows a total of below 20 BTC available - there should be some BTC left in NuLagoon:
That needs to be prepared and aligned by a marketing initiative, but leads into the right direction. Supporting liquidity in NBT/BTC pairs is a great marketing instrument, but very costly and risky.
###Liquidity status on Poloniex / dual side NuBots
Done manually, because the broadcast information is not 100% reliable with that much fluctuation.
The log is full of this:
17:29:34.997 [sendLiquidity] WARN - Liquidity is not being sent, a wall shift is happening. Will send on next execution. [c.n.n.t.SubmitLiquidityinfoTask:152]
Former sell side gateway:
33.8 BTC ($13,790)
9,735 NBT ($9,735)
$23,525 estimated value
Former buy side gateway:
1.9 BTC ($775)
20,868 NBT ($20,868)
$21,643 estimated value
35.7 BTC ($14,565)
30,603 NBT ($30,603)
$45,168 estimated value
The 24h trading volume on Poloniex alone is close to $70,000 - most of it in the recent hours. Operating the NuBots at an offset at 1% or slightly above allowed to keep the peg without getting the funds drained completely on one side during the swings.
Overall the peg was kept quite closely.
You think an offset close to 1.5% will be more appropriate in such swings?
edit: MoD, you really don’t ever sleep? Are you an A.I. or something?
I think you should quit your job and be hired by NU! (not kidding here)
1.5% is too much, maybe 1.2% or 1.3% - ideally market aware offsets that increase due to trading volume and BTC volatility
I sleep from time to time
Don’t I already work enough for Nu?
An offset of 1% for the first line of defense was almost suffcient.
It could not prevent to keep the BTC on one NuBot drained down to 1.9 BTC (but not emptied!), but in the walls of the NuBot with the even bigger offset was rarely sold.
An offset of 1.5% would be perceived as quite off. We need market aware offsets to enable that.
What I’m going to talk here now is a paradigm shift that can technically be achieved by market aware offset adjustments (which is on the road map of NuBot development).
With less volatility, the offset can be lower. With huge voaltility, it needs to be increased.
It would be neat to have a feedback loop between the offset and the volume that is traded by the bots.
If you still sell at an offset of 2%, you should do it and increase the offset. If you don’t increase the offset further, you will get the side drained, before anybody can refill it and the peg is lost anyway.
You have sold the product cheaper than you could have. And increasig the offset buys time, slows down the trades if the traders are aware of the offset. If they don’t, their bad.
That doesn’t perfectly match the vision of Nu with high quality products, which keep the peg.
The question is: do you really need to offer a product, that is worth exactly the same at any time? Or might it be appropriate to have an uplift for panic buyings?
As long as you can ensure to buy back 1 US-NBT for 1 USD in normal times, the perception of that product should be good.
This is conceptually heading in the direction of the motion to create a new Tier 6 (Restricted Network Access) liquidity, but from a slightly different angle.
If traders know that during very turbulent times the peg isn’t necessarily as close as during normal times, they can’t complain about an increased offset.
An offset between 1% and 1.5% would have been ideal. Seems like I’m still learning.
A current status of the Poloniex accounts can be found here:
I sleep as soon as the liquidity situation is better. We haven’t worked for so long and so hard to lose the peg due to Bitcoin rollercoaster!
Wait a second - that “A” stands for artificial, right? Then I’m rather something!
I’m very glad if I can leave this time in which I think, I’m keeping the peg at Poloniex (I might be totally off with that assessment; maybe the trade is mostly done by bots and they would just stop beyond a certain offset…) by keeping a close eye on liquidity, adjusting the offsets of the NuBots to balance the funds, increasing the spread if a rollercoaster begins, etc. behind me.
It’s tiring. It’s exhausting and like I explained above (in the brackets), I’m not even sure, it’s necessary.
As long as I believe, it’s worth it (and have some power left), I try to endure, hoping for T3 custodians and fixed cost scheme for ALP to ease the situation.
I believe as interim solution, a band-aid solution until T3 could be ramped up (we only have one custodian at the moment), dual side NuBots operated with Nu funds are a simple and efficient way, albeit a risky one. It’s the only one that is agile enough at the moment, in my opinion.
My motion to permit dual side NuBots on Poloniex is not exactly on its way to passing
although I haven’t found very controversial comments in the thread.
Why should NSR holders vote for it?
They currently have it for free (and not only the first 45 days) and if things go pear-shaped, they can blame me for not having followed the terms…
I should point out that I’m doing something completely different at the moment than just offering a dual side NuBot with a static offset.
It might be coincidence, but since I started managing the NuBots very actively (turning on one gateway, then the other, turning them into dual side with asymmetric spread to balance sides, adjusting the offset to find a balance between keeping the peg and preserving funds, etc.), we didn’t need any deposit from FLOT.
Had I run them as gateway, we would have put funds in the one, then in the other, etc., while I wouldn’t have been able to withdraw all funds in between.
We’d have ended up in basically the same risky situation with funds on exchange, but without the benefit of having them available for liquidity operations.
The motion about dual side NuBots is dealing with quite passively operating them.
That’s something different.
Anyway, would that I could have experienced the last days before I put the motion up for voting.I’d have adjusted the offset from 0.007 to 0.009 or 0.01.
It has proved to be quite nice to have two NuBots. Terminating and restarting them takes a while and during that time, the other one keeps its orders up.
I’m looking forward to the time, when e.g. the offset can be adjusted without stopping NuBot!
Water level report
No buy side on nupool ALP:
But all-clear so far; in total $10,000 funds from Nu are keeping the peg on buy side (as well as on sell side) with a big offset.
More details can be found here:
The 24h trading volume at Poloniex NBT/BTC pair is close to $100,000:
The price of NBT is recorded as almost exactly $1:
So overall, alone, you created 100k of trade volume with a perfect peg.
Furthermore, you increased the spread significantly compared to last time when btc underwent a huge fluctuation and yet the peg was kept.
So that means you could protect Nu fund while keeping the peg.
Another thing: it means also that almost no traders decided to buy btcs a high spreads.
I was not the only one trading there, or rather having traded there. I might find a precise answer in the trade logs, but I’m confident that the trading volume was not alone by the NuBots (and their trading partners).
Without an increase offset, the funds would have been drained to fast, causing an emergency deposit by FLOT or JordanLee. It seems safe to say that I could prevent that for some time.
If they hadn’t bought into orders with big offsets, the funds would still be untouched, yet they aren’t.
And I have no other explanation for this:
Sounds like mOD is single-handedly dealing with transient Nu crisis on Polo. Kudos to him.
Crisis means opportunities:
- to bring more LPs on Polo
- to recognize the need and vote for dual side nubots
- to bring T3 custodians asap
- to think about alternatives and perhaps trigger a paradigm shift as suggested
- to think about the need of supporting liquidity in NBT/BTC
That’s not true, FLOT was involved in it as well and deposited funds there.
But at least there were no other LPs with that I could discuss the course of action.
That meant the opportunity to learn much about liquidity operation and offset of orders, which lead me to the conclusion a 1% offset might nut be the worst idea.
Had other LP played a significant role, or had I had the opportunity to share load with them, I might not have reqconized this.
As soon as the offset was big enough, it slowed down trading with Nu funds, while still keeping the peg.
I’m sure that nupool ALP was present with funds there from time to time.
Only I don’t know about NuLagoon.
Speaking of ALP you need a better incentive for such Bitcoin rollercoaster times. 7.2% per month just doesn’t compensate 15% loss in 48 hours. Fixed cost will help.
I could try to make that need visible by turning the current ones off. I don’t intend to.
The first one, Nagalim, is here! Only I’m not aware of a single deal he made and I haven’t checked his BTC and NBT addresses to be sure there was none.[quote=“crypto_coiner, post:1211, topic:1239”]
think about alternatives and perhaps trigger a paradigm shift as suggested
I’d be happy to find a (controversial?) discussion about that.
There isn’t even one about me abusing gateway funds to do what I do…
The clever combination of market aware offsets (for that ALP receive compensation) AND market aware compensation might achieve to always have a first line of peg defense by ALP.
Market aware offsets reduce the hedging risks, which supposedly played a significant role in finding nupool’s side (especially the BTC side) empty.
Market are compensation increases the incentive to provide liquidity.
But the NuBot version supporting that is a bit away (in terms of road map)
Absolutely – we cannot expect people to join Nu (pool participants) if there is not the right financial incentive -
“No money to make, no interest”
That’s what kept me busy.
Yes, we can. We will move 10 BTC to poloniex today.
@henry in the next week or two, if you want to balance $2,500 for NuLagoon or NuLagoonTube at a 0.1% offset from our settled price, I’d be happy to oblige. I’m still trying to achieve proof of usefulness, so I’m down to trade with you at the minimum markup.
Make sure that the offeset is at the allowed limit - a too close offset will make those BTC go soon to traders.
Maybe a slight asymmetric offset, to stay within the allowed spread, while making BTC slightly more expensive than NBT helps…
We recommend NuLagoon Tube to be used by both NBT traders and Nu Liquidity operaters, because it works automatically. Now we are very short of manpower and can’ t afford to much manual work. Your understanding is very appreciated.
We will reduce Tube’s transaction fee and spread soon.
My contract disallows me from using T3 funds in NuLagoonTube. If you wish to buy NBT slightly above $1 or sell NBT slightly below $1 (i.e. if you’re looking for an arbitrage) please consider coming to me rather than using another pool and eating the spread. I understand you are short on man power and this is not meant to be an additional obligation for you, I am simply giving you another alternative for balancing NuLagoon at extremely close to $1. My T3 operation does not seek to rebalance itself in the conventional sense, as it puts that responsibility solely on the FLOT.
It’s nice to see BTC bounce back before any buy back has occurred and only a small expenditure of FLOT buyside.
Situation is starting to get dire again, especially on Poloniex:
NuPool buy side is almost empty:
The Poloniex NuBots still have buy side funds left (at the time of writing close to 40 BTC valued $16,000). We’ll find out whether the concept of having at least 1% spread in the NuBot settings pans out or not. I plan to stick to my announcement of operating the NuBots more passively than in the recent days (beginning Friday last week).
Up to $10,000 BTC are on order simultaneously (as long as funds are available), albeit with a paremetric order book, having only $2,500 at 1% offset; the next order has at least 1.2% offset.
Looking only at the balance of the sides, I’d call it an emergency. The NuBots make me almost confident that Nu can handle it.
I encourage everone who differs to ping the FLOT members which are eligible of signing the 10 BTC deposit request, but haven’t done it so far or to create an additional deposit request if the amount is considered insufficient.
All relevant information can be found here: FLOT BTC Operations (buy side)