TL;DR
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? 
/TL;DR
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…
edit:
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!
