And what would those be?
Not yet fixed and up for discussion, but T1.1 with at least 1.6% (zoro’s gateway) and 2% (my gateway).
T1.2 (“parametric order book” orders with bigger offset on second and third “layer”) can’t be tracked easily (can be way above 2%, but is not reported as T2).
Cybnate’s PyBot is already within the 1.5% that ALix counts.
Thu Mar 10 08:31:43 UTC 2016
status of the gateways in total:
bid total 32510 USD, bid side ratio 67%
ask total 15850 USD, ask side ratio 32%
status of the ALP last 15 minutes:
bid total 22869 USD, bid side ratio 25%
ask total 65678 USD, ask side ratio 74%
status of the ALP last 4 hours:
bid total 28866 USD, bid side ratio 30%
ask total 66080 USD, ask side ratio 69%
status of the total liquidity; gateways and ALP (last 15 minutes):
bid total 55379 USD, bid side ratio 40%
ask total 81528 USD, ask side ratio 59%
status of the total liquidity; gateways and ALP (last 4 hours):
bid total 61376 USD, bid side ratio 42%
ask total 81930 USD, ask side ratio 57%
1 Like
Bot operators acting on behalf of Nu (@Cybnate, @zoro, me 
) currently operating at Poloniex:
##Keep an eye on your bots!
###ALP at Poloniex is very low (both sides, especially the buy/bid side):
####At the moment the gateways have reported funds of in total
Broken down this way:
Thu Mar 10 08:45:31 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
"BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
"buy" : 14297.62,
"sell" : 5809.8706
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 17478.59,
"sell" : 8108.875
status of Cybnate dual side PyBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquiditydetails B | grep B954pkUEdkeT1G5Lq14Cisij5no3RVxHYe -A 20 | grep poloniex -A 2
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:LiquidBits" : {
"buy" : 724.4094,
"sell" : 1933.3333Update
##The gateway still have (what I consider) sufficient funds on buy side:
Thu Mar 10 10:03:34 UTC 2016
###
status of the gateways in total:
bid total 32680 USD, bid side ratio 68%
ask total 15250 USD, ask side ratio 31%Thu Mar 10 10:05:56 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
"BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
"buy" : 14472.83,
"sell" : 5809.8706
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 17705.65,
"sell" : 8108.875
status of Cybnate dual side PyBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquiditydetails B | grep B954pkUEdkeT1G5Lq14Cisij5no3RVxHYe -A 20 | grep poloniex -A 2
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:LiquidBits" : {
"buy" : 400.4944,
"sell" : 1066.6667If anybody disagrees, he/she might craft a BTC deposit to one or some of the gateways.
The necessary information for that is here:
1 Like
###ALP situation at Poloniex still dire (compared to last report), especially the buy side:
###NuBot/PyBot situation still sound (compared to last report) according to broadcast liquidity:
Thu Mar 10 19:46:50 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
"BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
"buy" : 14466.22,
"sell" : 5809.8706
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 17708.62,
"sell" : 8108.875
status of Cybnate dual side PyBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquiditydetails B | grep B954pkUEdkeT1G5Lq14Cisij5no3RVxHYe -A 20 | grep poloniex -A 2
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:LiquidBits" : {
"buy" : 183.0105,
"sell" : 600.0Liquidity situation on the whole including NuBots and PyBot:
2 Likes
Because buy side was less than 35% according to Coinerella, I exchanged 29 BTC for 12,014 NBT on NuLagoon Tube. The total shareholder BTC I currently hold is 84.8.
Thank you, but Coinerella is in the face of gateways no longer appropriately reflecting the liquidity situation.
The effective liquidity situation is - taking the gateway funds into regard - much better than the value shown by Coinerella.
Overview of the gateways, which currently hold funds
Fri Mar 11 19:41:11 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
"BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
"buy" : 14652.2,
"sell" : 5809.8706
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 15264.95,
"sell" : 10756.4855
status of Cybnate dual side PyBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquiditydetails B | grep B954pkUEdkeT1G5Lq14Cisij5no3RVxHYe -A 20 | grep poloniex -A 2
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:LiquidBits" : {
"buy" : 0.0,
"sell" : 1733.3333…but thanks to the gateways the peg is kept at Poloniex. ALP failed once again - I’ve lost count. The buy side peg is only ensured by bots at the moment:
###@Cybnate, @zoro: keep an eye at your bots to ensure they run. I’ll keep an eye at my (emergency-only-free-of-cost-NuBot).
###@shareholders: keep an eye on the liquidity situation and craft a BTC deposit to the gateways if necessary.
Page FLOT BTC members, if the situation is dire and needs faster treatment than 36 hours.
Necessary information for doing that is here: FLOT BTC Operations (buy side)
1 Like
@henry, is this still true:
?
I don’t find any liquidity from NuLagoon at Poloniex and the current situation - once again - is dire, because ALP (buy side) failed once again:
How do you compute the total liquidity here?
Total gateway liquidity + Total ALP liquidity does not add up to the total liquidity.
If Polo ALP and NuLagoon Tube are not able to maintain a decent level of buy side liquidity despite the fees paid and if liquidity gateways pioneered by MoS are way cheaper , what is the meaning of still maintaining a relatively high level of liquidity on ALPs and NaLagoon?
Maybe it is for maintaining a relatively high level of trade volume?
But we have been doing it for more than 1year at the cost of shareholders.
That did not create a huge demand for NuBits.
I mean that marketing strategy that fosters trade volume because basically the hedging service is very cheap did not create a huge demand.
But at least it has proven now I believe that NuBit has a solid peg.
We should consider now relying on gateways solely for the most part, whether it is buy side or sell side, even if it means low volume because basically most traders do not want to tap into costly high spreads (the higher ends of the parametric order book) and I think that is ok.
We should consider other ways of marketing and other services different from pure hedging services, especially when it is a very cheap hedging service.
What do shareholders think?
This is the be all and end all of liquidity in our network in my opinion.
https://alix.coinerella.com/panel/?data=alix&alix_walls=4h&liq_history=4h
As you can see, we totally didnt need to rebalance the tube, but w/e. We’re within 6k of perfect network balancing now, ~3%. I plan on posting some theory about T2>T1 friction when i get the time.
It would be awesome if we find a way for gateways to be rebalanced from the tube (like T3).
Then FLOT and JL can keep only the tube in balance 
Meh, Id much rather it go the other way around. We lose money every time we use the tube because of the spread against us. We gain money when people trade with our gateways because of the large spread for us. The real question is how funds go from gateways to the ALPs, which is what I mean by T2>T1 friction. I really want to develop a sound theoretical basis for it though, so I’m not gonna go into a lot of depth here.
29915 + 33901 = 63816 and
16831 + 55206 = 72037
The same for the 4 hours value. At the end there’s another example with current values.
If you have a linux device or anything with a bash (you will need e.g. curl installed), you can try out this script yourself: https://gist.github.com/Lamz0rNewb/a76776a50fa8476667ea
I beg to differ
Yah, try to imagine the situation Nu’d be in without them… 
I think this can be read from the relatively low trading volume - traders use bots and the gateway orders are out of the parameters at which the traders’s bots buy or sell NBT.
Let’s make it like Tether then and focus on important exchanges like Poloniex and the Tube supporting dual side trades there, with an ALP at Polo, to have always some orders at a relatively tight spread, while selling NBT at other exchanges and offering the volume at Poloniex is only offered at a quite big offset.
Current liquidity; gateways at Poloniex + ALP:
1 Like
##Epic fail for ALP (buy side) at Poloniex:
##Epic win for the gateway operations at Poloniex:
Sat Mar 12 02:06:14 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
"BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
"buy" : 14583.03,
"sell" : 5809.8706
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 14940.03,
"sell" : 11094.3206
status of Cybnate dual side PyBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquiditydetails B | grep B954pkUEdkeT1G5Lq14Cisij5no3RVxHYe -A 20 | grep poloniex -A 2
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:LiquidBits" : {
"buy" : 0.0,
"sell" : 1933.3333##Nu liquidity situation based on T1 walls gathered from ALix amended by the gateway liquidity information:
##Result according to NuBits price today, USNBT to USD live, marketcap and chart | CoinMarketCap
Above $10k USD trading volume was made at Poloniex within the last 24 hours.
I’ll check the trade log of the bot account at Poloniex and recommend that @zoro and @Cybnate do the same. Maybe the gateway even make Nu some money from the offset?
2 Likes
NuPool
Exchanges poloniex
Monthly interest rates 7.199999999999999%
Max ask rate 0.24 % per day
Max bid rate 0.24 % per day
Current ask rate 0.24 % per day
Current bid rate 0.24 % per day
Ask order target 7382.28 NBT filled of maximum 20000 NBT ( 36.91% )
Bid order target 1 NBT filled of maximum 20000 NBT ( 0.01% )
Is that BTC go to lending account to 0.25% daily ?
As I mentioned on the NuPool8 thread, NuPool on poloniex at this stage is unusable compared to few weeks ago.
I am not sure what has changed server side or with poloniex API and this is the result after 30 mins of running pybot there:
INFO: poloniex - balance: 0.00000000 rate: 0.00% ppm: 0.00000000 efficiency: 0.00% rejects: 0 missings: 0 - xxxxx
no way to recover apart from restarting the client every 30 mins.
Maybe it’s not (only) due to technical reasons.
I have a hard time believing that all ALP clients fail for such a long period of time.
Yet, if the payment scheme were based on CRFC, the ALP participants had a stronger incentive to check their clients - just in case it’s really due to technical reasons and not economical ones
I confirm that the only client I have problems with is on poloniex especially recently; all the other pools always run fine.
But I agree CRFC is the best way to go to keep liquidity in during big swings.
can you set the restime to 15 min and have a test?