Current Liquidity

[masterOfDisaster]

BTC price declined.
Only approximately 3,000 NBT on the NuBots accounts left to support the peg at Polonex beyond the possible support of NuLagoon and ALP.

Fri Jan 29 05:07:15 UTC 2016
status of (former) sell side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
        "BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
            "buy" : 15713.32,
            "sell" : 1523.955
status of (former) buy side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
        "BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
            "buy" : 12647.41,
            "sell" : 1499.0902

[Accounting] (Former) NBT entry/EXIT gateway (now dual side)

A deposit of some NBT to the former sell side gateway might be appropriate (especially when looking at the low ALP volume at Poloniex sell side).

If any NSR holder agrees, he/she might prepare a transaction using Cointoolkit and paste it in the relevant FLOT thread.No need for pinging, though in my opinion. The time for permanent emergencies seems to be over thanks to the NuBots and the ALP regaining strength.

[dysconnect]

Which one to deposit,
BNCaRW9ZjSLeGkwCfMb48izHy2tXLAVR2i or
BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv

[masterOfDisaster]

All necessary information is in the forum.
But sice you asked nicely

BNCaRW9ZjSLeGkwCfMb48izHy2tXLAVR2i or
BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv

The first address will reach the former entry gateway.
The second address will receive donations to me as it will reach my custodial address of the former entry gateway.

The former exit gateway is dual side as well.
A deposit to BJUQAhZxXfiiTbG6eeG11L3fcZ25bf2Bmw can be used to support the sell side as well.

If you plan to create a transaction to deposit funds there, keep in mind that there are currently a lot of funds (on buy side) and I have a withdrawal limit at Poloniex.
I’d feel uncomfortable to be away in February and have funds there.

I recommend to support zoro and Nagalim ramping up their operation at Poloniex.

Here’s the overview of deposit addresses from the FLOT thread. The deposit addresses can be found in the “gateway” threads as well:

FLOT US-NBT Operations (sell side)

@masterOfDisaster (former) NBT entry gateway address (now dual side): BNCaRW9ZjSLeGkwCfMb48izHy2tXLAVR2i

@masterOfDisaster (former) NBT EXIT gateway address (now dual side): BJUQAhZxXfiiTbG6eeG11L3fcZ25bf2Bmw

[masterOfDisaster]

Status report of the NuBot liquidity at Poloniex:

Fri Jan 29 15:16:34 UTC 2016
status of (former) sell side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
        "BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
            "buy" : 13880.56,
            "sell" : 3829.8048
status of (former) buy side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
        "BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
            "buy" : 14493.48,
            "sell" : 2.3433

[jooize]

Under which circumstances is FLOT to take action in the current state of affairs?

How much is intended to be at your dual-side NuBot?

I still have trouble understanding this by myself, which would be a problem in a situation where I’m available and see a need, but don’t know what to do.

[masterOfDisaster]

I made a draft, which could have been improved over time.

[Draft] FLOT and T4+6 - masterOfDisaster edition

Motto It's early for this motion, but it's never too early to (try to) improve things. tl;dr Using T6 buy side (NSR) to refill T4 buy side (BTC) over time is more efficient than dropping NSR at the market only after BTC funds have been depleted. The same thinking is the reason why NSR buybacks are conducted over some time and not at once. Plus it makes handling easier and actions more clear if T4 and T6 don't interact with T1-3 independently. The current motions that are up for voting (@Jord…

Unfortunately it didn’t find much appreciation.

It iwas based in parts on my interpretation of the liquidity scheme:

Interpretation of the liquidity tiers, a waterfall model, triggers, metrics and actions

Continuing the discussion from Tier 4 Fund Management Discussion: The "Tier 4 Fund Management Discussion" would greatly benefit from an overview of the all liquidity tiers and an understanding how they interact with each other. The "Finalized evolution of liquidity operations" defined the different tiers, but lacks the feedback loops between the different tiers. The category "NuShares" might not be ideal, but I haven't found a better one. TL;DR The current Nu liquidity operation still is ra…

Both would need some rework (just imagine the impact of NuBots with Nu funds on it!), but I don’t know why I should do it.

So the best answer I can give you is: I don’t know.
The less diplomatic version is: try to involve others in discussions about that; I’m tired of it.

[jooize]

Thanks. I’ll revisit those!

[masterOfDisaster]

You are welcome.
I’m happy to assist and join discussions as the need arises. But I’m currently not in the condition for a leading role.
I beg your pardon for that.

[masterOfDisaster]

NuPool ALP at Poloniex with low sell side, buy side declining. Total funds on ALP at Poloniex way below targets:
https://alix.coinerella.com/charts/?select=48_hours_nupool_poloniex#

Screenshot from 2016-01-29, 18:02 UTC:

I don’t know about the status of NuLagoon at Poloniex.
I intend to skip the withdrawal of funds from the NuBot accounts today and check the liquidity situation again in the next days.
A majority of NBT or BTC FLOT members might request a withdrawal to their respective multisig address, of course, which I will follow.
But it made be more wise to rather deposit NBT than request a withdrawal of funds (and if, please BTC…).
This is just a suggestion. I won’t start either process (withdrawal, deposit) on my own.

[masterOfDisaster]

NuPool ALP at Poloniex, 2016-01-30, 13:15 UTC:

Poloniex liquidity situation:

• ALP funds: low on sell side; buy side with a few thousand USD value
• masterOfDisaster NuBot funds: low on sell side, but hopefully sufficient; buy side ok
• NuLagoon NuBot funds: unknown; @henry can you confirm that NuLagoon broadcasts liquidity using BTRnV9uLSPVJw4jn1JMV2Ki2cfFqPYip9o? It looks like there’s no funds at Poloniex. Is that right?

masterOfDisaster NuBots detailed:

Sat Jan 30 13:18:16 UTC 2016
status of (former) sell side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
        "BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
            "buy" : 13394.83,
            "sell" : 4190.8853
status of (former) buy side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
        "BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
            "buy" : 12697.54,
            "sell" : 1679.2886

Is it still not clear how much the NuBots smooth the liquidity operation at Poloniex?
How long since the last emergency deposit of FLOT?

But do you think you can afford to sustain such an operation at each exchange? I doubt it.
Do you think Nu is scalable, can accomplish the release of new products with the current liquidity provision scheme?
Don’t you think it’s time to rework the liquidity provision scheme to make it more reliable and even cheaper?
You are aware that the NuBots are no regular part of the liquidity provision scheme, right?
They are meant for emergencies, but do a great job and are more reliable than ALP.
Would you feel comfortable having almost no ALP support and apparently no NuLagoon support at Poloniex if you couldn’t rely on the NuBots?

Start spending time on this, think about it, discuss it:

[Discussion] Liquidity operations - a paradigm shift

TL;DR Better face some risk than spend $13k each month for an unreliable liqudity provision scheme /TL;DR Intro In the past days I've spent an enormous amount of time and effort dealing with liquidity operations. Now that the situation has a bit calmed down I thought about improvements. I tried to identify what went good, what not so good and what even bad. Findings Arbitrage doesn't work. The inter exchange arbitrage doesn't work. As long as a pool is below the target, there's just no in…

[jooize]

Sorry if you’ve already explained this a gazillion times …

BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv and BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv were initially custodial addresses used for deposits, but are now only used for broadcasting liquidity?

        "BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
            "buy" : 13394.83,
            "sell" : 4190.8853

• buy is buy side (bid) liquidity in US NuBits at Poloniex?
• sell is sell side (ask) liquidity in Bitcoin but displayed as US NuBits at Poloniex?

If it’s now dual-side, why is there two entries (sell and buy side gateway) with similar buy and sell numbers?

Did I get anything right?

[masterOfDisaster]

BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv and BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv were initially custodial addresses

BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv and BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP are the custodial addresses I use for broadcasting liquidity information.

buy is buy side (bid) liquidity in US NuBits at Poloniex?

The BTC on buy side get broadcast by NuBot in USD value. It’s the buy orders on Poloniex or the ask side, whatever you prefer.

sell is sell side (ask) liquidity in Bitcoin but displayed as US NuBits at Poloniex?

This is about the NBT on sell side, or the bids, if you like.

If it’s now dual-side, why is there two entries (sell and buy side gateway)

I converted each of the gateways to a dual side NuBot. That provides (RaPi) redundancy, allows me to adjust configuration (which requires restart and takes some time until the orders are up again) without cancelling all orders at once and provides a more granular parametric order book. Have a look here in the config part.

with similar buy and sell numbers?

Because I try to keep the NuBot accounts as balanced as possible by withdrawing from the account which has BTC or NBT in excess - whatever that is…
I don’t balance between the NuBot accounts, though. It’s just the trades and the withdrawals (and potentially the deposits, which weren’t required for some time), which balance the accounts.

Did I get anything right?

Yeah, one of the custodial addresses that broadcasts liquidity information

[jooize]

Oh god.

Terms for glossary / dictionary on NuBits.com

Sell (Ask) side On an exchange order book, the sell side is comprised of all orders that offer to sell the item being exchanged. Conversely, the buy (bid) side is comprised of all orders offering to buy the exchanged item.

Do you agree with this? I’m confused again.

I converted each of the gateways to a dual side NuBot. That provides (RaPi) redundancy

Ahh! So they’re doing the same thing, and I can just combine both buy and both sell numbers for the total?

[masterOfDisaster]

Do you agree with this? I’m confused again.

You are confused because of the trading pair NBT/BTC (you sell or buy NBT…). Were it BTC/NBT, your explanation would have been right.

Ahh! So they’re doing the same thing, and I can just combine both buy and both sell numbers for the total?

Correct.

[jooize]

You are confused because of the trading pair NBT/BTC (you sell or buy NBT…). Were it BTC/NBT, your explanation would have been right.

Aha! I’ll have to think more about this to really see it, but thanks!

[Nagalim]

In Nu, specifically in NuBot and PyBot, ‘ask’ always refers to nbt regardless of the pairing.

[jooize]

I continued and created a transaction in the FLOT NBT operations thread.

If you haven’t already, please look at @zoro’s motion and decide whether to vote for it. I hope it passes soon and we can use their dual-side NuBot instead or as complement to masterOfDisaster’s (he will be less available in February).

[henry]

@henry can you confirm that NuLagoon broadcasts liquidity using BTRnV9uLSPVJw4jn1JMV2Ki2cfFqPYip9o?

We just fixed a problem on running NuBot. The liquidity should be correctly broadcasted now. Thank you for the reminder.

[dysconnect]

I tried ALP + NuLagoon Tube balancing for some time. Balancing via NuLagoon usually eats away 2-3 days of ALP income on the amount balanced, and is still not convenient enough.

The ALP software a bit flaky and I added some try: except: shutdown(True) to make it somewhat stable. The errors are mostly due to mismatch between Poloniex API and how the scripts handle errors; there’s an apparent bug that the script hangs after a “need to update BTC price” error.

Overall I think the next pool to get a custodian grant and renew pool terms should consider increasing the tolerance on BTC/NBT pairs and experiment a mild reduction of rewards.

[Nagalim]

So make a T3 custodial grant and balance off yourself (ultimately T4) for 0.1% loss + network fees.