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.
I made a draft, which could have been improved over time.
Unfortunately it didn’t find much appreciation.
It iwas based in parts on my interpretation of the liquidity scheme:
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.
Thanks. I’ll revisit those!
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.
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.
NuPool ALP at Poloniex, 2016-01-30, 13:15 UTC:
Poloniex liquidity situation:
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" : 1679.2886Is 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:
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? 
BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv and BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP are the custodial addresses I use for broadcasting liquidity information.
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.
This is about the NBT on sell side, or the bids, if you like.
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.
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.
Yeah, one of the custodial addresses that broadcasts liquidity information 
Oh god.
Do you agree with this? I’m confused again.
Ahh! So they’re doing the same thing, and I can just combine both buy and both sell numbers for the total?
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.
Correct.
Aha! 
I’ll have to think more about this to really see it, but thanks!
In Nu, specifically in NuBot and PyBot, ‘ask’ always refers to nbt regardless of the pairing.
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).
We just fixed a problem on running NuBot. The liquidity should be correctly broadcasted now. Thank you for the reminder.
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.
So make a T3 custodial grant and balance off yourself (ultimately T4) for 0.1% loss + network fees.
I have my own concerns in taking your approach, and I have always been more inclined to market-making where high spread ALP can be a starting point, so it’s more rewarding to experiment in that direction. Also time has been very scarce lately that I can’t invest too much in adapting to new logistics.
Id love to hear your concerns when you have time.
Nbt/cny reports $1.03 because of how cmc reprts cny. You can’t always trust cmc. Our walls are fine.
