The timer starts when he tells me how much to sent him (agreement).
You cannot actually compare 1 person’s reaction vs 5 
Yes, but tell me - do we have a T1 problem or a T1-3 problem?
Despite the fact that I see no T1-3 problem, the FLOT is caring for it.
Technically it’s mostly me caring for it, not really appropriately. I hope @henry could step in soon to move money from tier 3 to tier 1.
We could agree to put say 50 BTC in a 2 out of 8 multisig address, exactly for reasons stated above. If only 2 out of 8 would be needed I think FLOT reaction time will be much quicker. Although technically it would better to fix tier 1-2-3-4 flow so that FLOT is not required to balance tier 1.
4 Likes
Fixing the flow is the solution.
Having 2 or 3 of 8 addresses with some funds on them should be a viable workaround.
I imagine FLOT will usually be a lot quicker than 24–48 hours, but the delay concerns stated should be addressed anyway.
I have to say I’m uncomfortable with only 2-of-8 if that approach would go forward. Can you motivate it? 3-of-8 seems much safer with only one more, which I hope wouldn’t affect response time very negatively. Not that I think anyone is about to run away with funds, but I’d plan around the possibility whenever feasible.
I didn’t catch how those times would be applied. What should happen if FLOT takes 30 minutes, and when it takes 30 hours?
Procedure
- Establish terms between FLOT and @zoro (does your role have a title?).
- FLOT receives NBT corresponding to the amount of BTC agreed to trade.
- FLOT sends BTC to @zoro (plus compensation for volatility during signing delay?).
- @zoro applies liquidity.
Anything more?
At how many confirmations should we consider a transaction secured?
Proposals
There was an alternative suggestion at 10 BTC, but it’s better they explain it themselves.
1 Like
The procedure is ok.
(1) and (2) could be very fast, matter of minutes.
(3) needs the most time since it needs 5 FLOT members to sign the transaction
but by the time the transaction is signed, BTC could have been changed and thus one side
would gain and the other would loose, probably. More time, bigger the risk.
(4) is lighting fast, since the addresses i use is polo’s and thus the bot take care of liquidity.
Polo needs one confirmation for BTC and 10 for NBT. We can keep the same scheme 
This procedure could be applicable with every ALP and MLP custodian.
no buy fund inject to polo?
Share that nervousness, a little less risk given the fund sizes would be better. 3-8 at least, maybe we need to add more FLOT members in order to end up with more ‘quick’ signers?
1 Like
While the overall liquidity (T1-3) accross all exchanges still is ok:
nud getliquidityinfo B
{
"total" : {
"buy" : 69398.9089,
"sell" : 60111.108
},
"tier" : {
"1" : {
"buy" : 16292.832,
"sell" : 15043.2682
},
"2" : {
"buy" : 8974.59,
"sell" : 5759.4757
},
"3" : {
"buy" : 41807.8606,
"sell" : 31556.0
}
},The situation at Poloniex isn’t looking very well:
However the spiking BTC price emptied the buy side (T1) on Poloniex to a level that calls for action. Is anybody willing to trade funds with FLOT or @JordanLee to put them in a liquidity operation on Poloniex’ buy side? @zoro maybe?
@henry any chance to balance walls at Poloniex? The buy side really needs some funds.
update:
There’s almost no volume on buy side within the spread left on Poloniex. There might be in total 34 BTC on buy side, but at rates way beyond what Nu considers pegged to USD.
2 Likes
I am currently serving as a backup to FLOT’s tier 4 buy side support, and I plan to activate in that role when buy side drops below 35%, as it is currently. I see FLOT is in the process of trying to negotiate a trade, and that ought to continue. I will start with buying 4,000 NBT where the BTC proceeds will show up on the Bter buy wall. I will leave all other balancing efforts up to FLOT.
2 Likes
NuLagoon will be promoting 20 BTC to Poloniex soon.
We also suggest the community have some try on other exchanges, such as HitBTC, so we can avoid letting the most NBT trading depending on one exchange.
2 Likes
Glad to see some action 
BTER has rebalanced itself, somehow
Once again Polo’s buy side has problem. i have sent a pm to Jordan to do something about it ASAP
We need to introduce a pay scheme in Poloniex to pay ALPs depending on the liquidity.
I guess a “special” fixed cost scheme?
So other than paying more to the weaker side (already covered under fixed cost) what other modifications would you make?
I was thinking for an unbalanced payout depending on the sell/buy liquidity amounts.
Fixed cost has fix payouts for either side, correct?
The amount is fixed while the rate is not. Basically, if you provide on the buy side when it’s at 10% and the sell side is at 90%, you’re getting 9x higher rate than those on the sell side.
If you’re looking to compensate the heavy side more (so the above situation is only 4.5x instead of 9x) we would be moving back toward fixed reward. If you’re looking to compensate the weak side more (so the above situation becomes 18x instead of 9x) that would indeed need a specialized and exaggerated implementation of fixed cost.
I think for now we should just try the normal fixed cost and see what happens. Currently, polo is operating under fixed reward still.
1 Like
1 Like