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.
With the current session ID you’ll find the details - I hope you are on bash
nud getliquiditydetails B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 1000 | grep 0.4.1_1464903918569_e146d4 -A 2
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1464903918569_e146d4" : {
"buy" : 0.0,
"sell" : 800.0
--
"2:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1464903918569_e146d4" : {
"buy" : 0.73,
"sell" : 10233.3128I’ve decided that not being able to track the liquidity of each of my NuBots is bad.
Unfortunately I have only one NBT custodial address to broadcast the liquidty.
If you use getliquidityinfo to track the liquidity, you see the combined liquidity of my three NuBot gateway (2 at Poloniex, 1 at hitBTC).
If you are on a system with a bash (or another shell that’s alike), you can filter it conveniently this way:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
The result of that output is:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
"B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
"buy" : 21433.12,
"sell" : 25111.0935If you want to have a more precise overview, you need to investigate the output of getliquiditydetails.
This is just a quickly hacked together script that does that on bash:
An output of that would look like this:
status of mOD NuBot session at hitbtc:
"1:NBTBTC:hitbtc:0.4.1_1464952860644_29cdbc" : {
"buy" : 0.0,
"sell" : 500.0
--
"2:NBTBTC:hitbtc:0.4.1_1464952860644_29cdbc" : {
"buy" : 1365.38,
"sell" : 418.265
status of mOD NuBot session at poloniex:
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1464943832235_3ba051" : {
"buy" : 500.0,
"sell" : 2000.0
--
"2:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1464943832235_3ba051" : {
"buy" : 19622.05,
"sell" : 11160.2103
status of mOD NuBot session at poloniex:
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1464903918569_e146d4" : {
"buy" : 400.0,
"sell" : 800.0
--
"2:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1464903918569_e146d4" : {
"buy" : 22.2,
"sell" : 9815.3268
status of zoro NuBot session at poloniex:
"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.3.2a_1464953175077_595d35" : {
"buy" : 750.0,
"sell" : 1500.0
--
"2:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.3.2a_1464953175077_595d35" : {
"buy" : 16556.52,
"sell" : 17929.8288Unfortunately I don’t know how to tell my two NuBots at Poloniex apart.
The one that was started after the other always has the latest broadcast session.
I fear, they can only be told apart by the order sizes.
The one with
the closer spread has the buy order size 400, sell order size 800, the one with
the bigger spread has the buy order size 500, sell order size 2,000
The one with the tight spread is currently out of buyside funds. There’s no BTC on the order book.
T2 is partially on the order book, but only the first orders (the ones with the tightest offset) are reported as T1 by NuBot.
1 Like
I guess you cannot use my latest grand address which i don’t use to report liquidity.
do you want to send you the private key?
1 Like
No, I don’t want that.
You’ve been trusted with it. You need to keep it confidential.
But thank you for your confidence.