Tue May 31 17:47:51 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
"B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
"buy" : 11992.13,
"sell" : 20161.9209
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 9376.08,
"sell" : 21278.2562
When is the peg considered lost? At no liquidity or at a certain spread?
Do we currently have any liquidity at tight spread?
@JordanLee said high spread is a suicidal tendency. What other measures can be taken? How much liquidity can we provide at a tight spread right now, soon, and later?
Only if you look at a tight spread, which is not appropriate for the current emergency situation.
If you include buyside orders at an increased offset:
Wed Jun 1 08:44:24 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
"B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
"buy" : 11966.36,
"sell" : 20161.9209
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 11042.62,
"sell" : 19665.5832
you’ll find $23,000 buyside liquidity.
If you add that to the buyside and relate that to the 123,000 NBT on sellside:
Understood.
ALix is at the moment the situation not reflecting properly (this “moment” lasts for some days already).
The situation is as much under control as possible at this moment.
What offset do you imagine?
How many BTC?
Why not letting ALP fill the gap with an increased spread?
…Ikr, because of the motion…
I have a second NuBot account at Poloniex that could be operated at a buyside offset between the current gateways and current ALP.
If we want to do that, we (FLOT) should talk about the parameters.
Trying the liquidity provision by trying to revive the buyside is crucial for the confidence in Nu.
Offering a buyside offset, that is too low, will not accomplish that and only make Nu lose reserve funds instead.
What we need is the revival of a dual side trading.
What about
and test it with 2 to 4 BTC and 2,000 NBT?
Although the NBT deposit is not important - there are enough NBT on the market
A single order has a size of 500 (I don’t know why,
but succeeding order sizes tend to increase…).
The first order has an offset of 0.0035 or 0.35% making it an “offset after fees” of 0.6% for the buyer, if the order is on the order book and gets bought (Nu on maker side, customer on taker side).
It’s an “offset after fees” of 0.5% for the customer, if NuBot places the order into an existing buyside order (not that likely at the moment).
Each succeeding order has an offset increment of 0.001 or 0.1% on top of the preceding order.
No, if we (NuBot) buy into an order of the customer, the customer is the maker and pays only 0.15% fee at Poloniex, while the taker (NuBot in that case) has a fee of 0.25%.
I suggest we continue the discussion on this matter:
As soon as the NSR are traded, there are funds, which can be used to try reviving the liquidity provision. The BTC are already at one of my Poloniex NuBot gateway accounts. I can’t use NuBot on that account until the sale is complete, because NuBot deletes the NSR orders when shifting walls.
The alternative is to withdraw it to FLOT reserve.
I’m in favour of trying to get the liquidity provision going.
What do you say?
Before I forget, I suggest we reserve 10 btc and authorize a custodian to place them at e.g. $0.1 in case of a bank run or an attack described here (step 3). If someone wants to sell cheap nubits, we want them to fall in our hands. Proceeds Nubits are outstanding nubits and will be burned.
There are about 3.5btc on the buyside above $0.1 but below 5% spread. Placing a sizeable order at $0.1 encourages smaller bargain hunters to front run this order therefore putting more buys above it.
