B&C Exchange currently has exactly 4 BTC. It is in the interest of B&C Exchange to trade these for NuBits. @masterOfDisaster can we arrange an off exchange trade by PM please?
You mean sending the 4 BTC FLOT and receiving NBT from FLOT in exchange for them?
I could send the BTC to FLOT and transfer the NBT from shareholder funds under my control if you like. Just wasn’t sure if you wanted the funds on your gateway instead. Whatever you choose.
I understood that @jooize can’t do it himself, but I didn’t read concerns regarding the idea.
The proceeds from the NSR sale are currently on exchange at $0.095 and below.
If these orders were filled, Nu did buy close to 70,000 NBT for the BTC equivalent of 2.4 million NSR 
Maybe I have a better use for the BTC:
fire up NuBot on that account and try to foster trading by offering a buyside offset, that is below the current gateway offsets.
1 Like
I would be in favor of putting the proceedings of the NSR sale directly onto the buy side at a greater offset then the gateways currently are. Although we’re probally stretching some motion mandates by doing so.
didn’t you mean “tighter”.
If yes, I had the same idea:
No I mean’t greater, are we already ready to start offering BTC “cheaper” again?
I don’t know. Maybe we should try.
Nu needs to recover confidence.
Potential buyers of NBT need to know, they can trade them back at less offset than 5%.
I intend to use the BTC from the NSR sale to offer a tightened buyside.
@zoro tightened the buyside offset as well:
Maybe a bit too fast, but who knows.
@Cybnate recognized her PyBots had some trades and the offset each side ia 0.7% (spread 1.4%).
3 Likes
Well if your confident we should give it a try then I don’t see a reason not to, uncharted waters kind of thing.
In addition to @zoro, who is operating at 3% offset, I fired up a second NuBot that runs on the account, that was used for the NSR sale.
In addition to the 6.9 BTC that are proceeds from the NSR sale, @JordanLee traded 4 BTC for NBT with Nu and deposited the 4 BTC in the same account.
The test run with a tightened buyside offset continues.
Current settings:
I disabled the liquidity broadcast of my other Poloniex NuBot gateway (which remains running at an increased buysie offset), because this way it’s easier to track the liquidity situation (gathering it from getliquiditydetails is less fun than using getliquidityinfo):
Thu Jun 2 16:56:47 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
"B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
"buy" : 5882.77,
"sell" : 3.024h volume of Poloniex at start:
edit:
I asked for permission to transfer NBT from one NuBot account to the other:
which was granted.
Status of this NuBot liquidity with offsets 0.0035/0.02:
Thu Jun 2 18:30:42 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
"B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
"buy" : 5876.3,
"sell" : 5003.0Status Poloniex:
The Bitfinex price feed seems to be off a bit from Poloniex; will investigate that.
1 Like
Bitfinex as main price feed is ok for Poloniex:
2016-06-02, 20:12 UTC Poloniex orders:
2016-06-02, 20:12 UTC Bittrex price:
e.g. 800 NBT sell @ 0.00187358 BTC:
0.00187358 BTC/NBT * 536.30 USD/BTC = 1.004800954 USD/NBT
400 NBT buy @ 0.00182933:
0.00182933 BTC/NBT * 536.30 USD/BTC = 0.981069679 USD/NBT
And the orders are at a reasonable place in the Poloniex order book.
I will keep the price fee Bitfinex as main feed for NuBot, but will have an eye on it as often as I can spare it.
3 Likes
Didn t u mean 7000 nbt? Still it would be 0.3c per nsr, 2 times the current market. How is it possible?
People are not headless at all, they are smart enough to perceive that Nu’s debts will exceed NSR cap in near future.
Current status of the NuBot with the tightened buyisde offset (2%) and the very tight sellside offset:
Fri Jun 3 05:33:59 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
"B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
"buy" : 0.74,
"sell" : 11033.3128All BTC were sold. I’ll check the trade logs to find out whether it was traded back and forth, before it reached the current status.
@zoro’s runs at 3.5% buyside offset and looks better balancing wise:
Fri Jun 3 05:33:59 UTC 2016
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 16790.77,
"sell" : 19429.8288I can’t see those T1 funds in my client. There appear only to be ~2700 on buy side T1. Zoro’s bot has 16,790.77.
Is there a reason not to broadcast this liquidity or is there an issue?
Wo. So a higher spread is needed.
Huh?
The output is an output from my Nu client
getinfo | grep -v ip
{
"version" : "v2.1.1-RC1-15-gcf6a10f-beta",
"protocolversion" : 2000000,
"walletversion" : 1,
"walletunit" : "S",
"balance" : 0.0,
"newmint" : 0.0,
"stake" : 0.0,
"parked" : 0.0,
"blocks" : 903254,
"moneysupply" : 822749863.91840005,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00021671,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1461163974,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 1.0,
"unlocked_until" : 1562106351,
"errors" : ""
}I can’t say that I’m surprised by this
That’s why I wanted to keep the funds on @zoro’s NuBot at a higher buyside offset.
1 Like
Here is the output from my Nu client:
“version” : “v2.0.1-beta”,
“protocolversion” : 2000000,
“walletversion” : 1,
“walletunit” : “S”,
“balance” : 0,
“newmint” : 0.0,
“stake” : 0,
“parked” : 0.0,
“blocks” : 903260,
“moneysupply” : 822750103.91840005,
“connections” : 12,
“proxy” : “”,
“difficulty” : 0.00021675,
“testnet” : false,
“keypoololdest” : 1409216713,
“keypoolsize” : 501,
“paytxfee” : 1.0,
“unlocked_until” : 0,
“errors” : "
Is is a linux machine or has a bash?
If yes, this command should show the liquidity. It’s broadcast by NuBot.
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
Ah, I understand: you’ll find only $400 included in the T1 report, because only the first order is reported as T1. All other orders, even on the order book are reported as T2.
Right, a bit odd, but that explains it.