Current Liquidity

[zoro]

Well, now the pisture is the opposite. I would expect all the buy walls to be zeroed after BTC rally, but no.
Very strange speculator’s behavior since BTC has an increased trend!

[masterOfDisaster]

I have not yet sent the NBT to the FLOT address.
I would have liked to wait until @JordanLee’s could offer his view on that, because I suggested sending the NBT to him.
So the NBT are still in my account and I could use them for sell side, although that’s really not what this gateway idea was meant for.
But if I transfer the NBT to @JordanLee or FLOT just to make them trade the funds for BTC or send them directly back, that leads to the same situation for the orders on Poloniex.
The difference - if they could be traded for BTC - is, that at the moment the funds are Nu property, but would be LP property, if they were traded for BTC.

Operating this way is a step back in terms of decentralized liquidity providing.
But that’s the general issue Nu needs to deal with: decentralization necessarily means lower speed.
I’ve sketched it here in this post regarding T3 already:

T3 custodians

I wouldn't say they should, but I agree they could… The result would be a small step away from the decentralized liquidity model, but a step towards more reliability of liquidity operations, more agility of balancing walls, more security for the peg: The price is increased risk for the Nu funds. This hits the nail on the head and is valid no matter whether the T3 funds are property of Nu or property of the liquidity provider. FLOT/T4 balancing with T3 is the way to go!

I’d like to have some feedback. What to do with the NBT on my Poloniex account?
According to terms there’s not much room for doing anything else but sending them to FLOT or @JordanLee even if that means they will end up on my NBT entry gateway.
Anything else in my view requires at least a motion.

edit: to make this convoluted post a little bit more clear:
if @JordanLee would request to receive the NBT to trade them for BTC to an LP I’d send them the NBT as soon as possible.
If @JordanLee would request to receive the NBT to send them back to the NBT entry gateway, the shortcut would be to put them there directly.
I’m leaving out the FLOT because of the significantly reduced speed of multisig operations.

[zoro]

Lets hear from JL.
As a shareholder i would vote to use these NBT in sell wall asap.
This is a funny situation you get into.
You have become a T1+T2 LP operating with T4 funds

[masterOfDisaster]

This is a funny situation you get into.

I don’t consider it funny. It’s more like a pain.
At the moment everything is like it was meant to be: BTC got injected in the NBT exit gateway and got traded for NBT.

I know what I need to do, based on terms, but I also know what needs to be done based on the liquidity situation.
I dearly hope we can find an intersection of those to views before the 6,000 NBT on sell side are gone.

This is a situation in which fixed compensation would provide an incentive to bolster the sell side orders up. The compenation per NBT on sell side would be quite big now - if we already had fixed compensation.
Another measure to treat situations like this, could be some discretion or terms for ALP operators to temporarily increase compensation for a low side. This would work with fixed reward and fixed compensation schemes.

The LP busines is not brand new, but I think we still need to learn a lot.

[mhps]

This is a situation in which fixed compensation would provide an incentive to bolster the sell side orders up. The compenation per NBT on sell side would be quite big now - if we already had fixed compensation.Another measure to treat situations like this, could be some discretion or terms for ALP operators to temporarily increase compensation for a low side. This would work with fixed reward and fixed compensation schemes.

Is it possible to run a another nbt/btc pool on polo with fixed cost once @Nagalim works out the kinks?

[JordanLee]

If @JordanLee would request to receive the NBT to send them back to the NBT entry gateway, the shortcut would be to put them there directly.

It isn’t up to me, but I believe the vast majority of shareholders would favour this course of action under the circumstances.

I love the gateway idea masterOfDisaster has pioneered. It could be improved by adding prompt payment from a gateway operator for funds received, according to specific agreements.

I was very happy to see FLOT fund this week’s buyback directly. It is becoming apparent that having them perform every tier 4 liquidity adjustment is suboptimal because the reaction time is too long and the need for adjustments too frequent. Ideally, a number of people acting individually will take on the role of being tier 3 liquidity providers. FLOT could deal occasionally with these liquidity providers to balance them, and they could interact nimbly and in a redundant manner with the market.

[masterOfDisaster]

It isn’t up to me, but I believe the vast majority of shareholders would favour this course of action under the circumstances.

It isn’t up to me as well. If the both of us agree that the (Nu owned) funds would end in the sell wall, I’m fine with doing that and using the shortcut.

The sell side situation on Poloniex has improved (T1 went up from 6,000 NBT to approx. 7,500 NBT).
Will keep an eye on it as good as I can.
If the sell side situation gets dire, I’ll put the funds on sell side. 10,200 NBT are available for that.

I will only refrain from doing so, if either @JordanLee or the FLOT ask for receiving the NBT.

[desrever]

as long as the price doesn’t move enough to make NuBot cancel the orders and place them anew, NuBot doesn’t use funds that arrive at the account.

Now I understand the feature request from @Nagalim .

My apologies for not seeing this issue coming, I created a new ticket and will design and implement a solution soon, I see if I can squeeze it in 0.4.1 . So far NuBot has been tested and designed to work under the “no manual interaction with exchange” circumstances .

Report any other concern improvement now that the situation has changed.

[masterOfDisaster]

So far NuBot has been tested and designed to work under the “no manual interaction with exchange” circumstances

And it works great. This issue did only become transparent with buy and sell side under close inspection.
The issue is not only related to the gateway function I created with NuBot, but also with orders that are completely filled.

It would really be great to make NuBot place orders anew if they are completely filled (even if the price doesn’t change) or filled to a threshold (which will make the change more complex).
Thank you for including it in the road map!

[zoro]

@masterOfDisaster,
what would you say if you act like a T3 custodian and sell me some NBT to put in polo?
All my NBT are sold!

[Nagalim]

MoD should be able to sell at $1.003+withdrawal fees.

[masterOfDisaster]

what would you say if you act like a T3 custodian and sell me some NBT to put in polo?

My understanding is that this is even more far away from the terms and the intention of the NuBot gateways.
But as @JordanLee didn’t request the NBT nor FLOT, they are still on my account and I can use them in the sell side gateway if the liquidity situation gets dire. At the moment there’s close to 30 BTC on sell side and over 30 BTC equivalent on buy side within the allowed spread:

MoD should be able to sell at $1.003+withdrawal fees.

That would mean the NBT end up at sell side while I receive BTC? What about this:

It isn’t up to me, but I believe the vast majority of shareholders would favour this course of action under the circumstances.

I read this as implicit agreement to short the buy side and the sell side gateway; or more clearly: to use the NBT traded by the buy side gateway and make them available for the sell side gateway without sending them to @JordanLee just to get them sent back to the NBT deposit address of my Poloniex account.

I really think that Nu needs to consider a combination of providing liquidity with funds owned by Nu and funds by liquidity providers who get compensated for that.
The disadvantage is exposure to exchange default etc. (we all know why we wanted to get rid of that).
But not having liquidity operations with funds owned by Nu leaves Nu with no direct way of steering liquidity volume.
The advantage of doing it is to have direct control over T1.
The compensation to incentivize providing liquidity needs some improvement, before it can be considered reliable.
Blocks & Chains Exchange will change the game completely, because it’s possible to provide liquidity with funds in Nu property with no bigger risk than holding them in multi sig addresses (which FLOT already does).

Meanwhile (before BCE is live and before the incentives to provide liquidity have been adjusted) it might not be the worst idea to provide a kind of “volume floor” on supported exchanges with Nu funded operations (not the compensation, but the funds). The floor just needs to be enough to keep the peg.
Or in one sentence: if there’s nobody providing liquidity at an officially supported exchange (for whatever reason), Nu should at least put [insert number here] USD value on each side.

[Nagalim]

As long as the price is $1.003+fees, you should be free to sell. Anyone holding NBT for Nu should be able to sell at that price at any time.

[masterOfDisaster]

As long as the price is $1.003+fees, you should be free to sell.

But what’s the benefit of doing that instead of just using them on the sell side NuBot?
The drawbacks are the need to send (BTC) and receive (NBT) funds, changed exchange rates between sending and receiving funds, the need to trust one party (being trusted with Nu funds, I would require the NBT to be sent first - would @zoro trust receiving NBT from me after having sent the BTC?), etc.

I’m already feeling uncomfortable sitting on 10k worth of NBT on my Poloniex account and feeling an increased responsibility for the peg on Poloniex I literally watched Poloniex the last hours in short intervals.
Trading the funds instead of just putting them in orders is just too much for me without having a proper mandate for it. Just putting them there is bending the rules to some degree.

The terms of the buy and sell side gateways to which the NSR holders agreed to don’t deal with trading the funds. In fact the buy side gateway terms explicitly state that

[Passed] NBT EXIT gateway on Poloniex provided by @masterOfDisaster

The BTC get sold and the earned NBT are not put into orders, but get transferred to a Nu address (T4 sell side) on a regular basis.

Shorting that sending process (sending the NBT to FLOT or @JordanLee just to receive them back on the sell side gateway deposit address) by putting the NBT on sell side is as far as I dare to go and only because I read an implicit agreement of @JordanLee to that procedure.

[JordanLee]

@masterOfDisaster has asked where to sent NBT proceeds from the gateway. Please send them to FLOT multisig address BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js.

[masterOfDisaster]

Let me start with: (partly) done!
A detailed explanation follows.
And btw. - I’m very glad to be relieved from the NBT!

Unfortunately blockexplorer.nu is stuck again and I got worried not seeing the transaction although Poloniex reported it as sent. But I started with a withdrawal of 1 NBT to the FLOT multisig address so I didn’t worry too much.

When I realized that blockexplorer.nu is stuck I tried svr1.nubitsexplorer.nu
That explorer is able to show the transaction but is not able to decode the multi sig address script

I remembered another explorer for the NuBits blockchain: https://explorer.coinpayments.net. Huzzah - there’s the transaction and the receiving address!

I sent the rest of what I was able to withdraw in another transaction

Final balance on BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js.

As soon as my withdrawal limit has been reset, I’ll send the rest (3,200.26 NBT) to BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js.

[desrever]

What follow is probably off topic, please contact me in private if you think we go too much deep into details.

also with orders that are completely filled.

Wait, lets go through it.

The expected behaviour that I was able to test multiple times is this :

If the size of T1 wall is detected to be <10% of the full size of the wall (explicitly declared in config) for more than 4 minutes consecutevly, then the orders are reset

Are you saying that sell walls are not replenished ? not even after 5 minutes of being depleted?

[masterOfDisaster]

Are you saying that sell walls are not replenished ?

The NuBot used here was configured for buy side only (by configuring sell side to “bookSellwall”: 0.0,). And that worked just fine.
The buy orders must have been replenished. All 25 BTC were traded for NBT without manual interaction (except for restarting NuBot to have the funds put into orders immediately).
Only I don’t know whether the threshold of 10% triggered that or a moving price.
At first sight the trade history on Poloniex doesn’t tell that either.
If you want, you can have the log of NuBot.

From my view everything went fine with the buy side gateway. But you have a PM regarding NuBot in general

edit: according to the most recent trades on Poloniex it’s a new day:

but my withdrawal limit hasn’t been reset. Maybe it takes 24 hours and not another day to reset it. Will keep an eye on it to send the rest (3,200.26 NBT) to BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js.

edit2: the daily limit on Poloniex indeed has a 24 hour reset and is not based on calendar days.
3,200.26 NBT have been withdrawn to BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js.
With this withdrawal all NBT that were traded from BTC by my buy side gateway have been sent to FLOT.
This turn is complete with this transaction.

[dysconnect]

The fiat pairs are still nearly untouched…

[dysconnect]

@assistant liquidity

{
“total” : {
“buy” : 61800.7513,
“sell” : 58050.2946
}