Current Liquidity

Polo sell = 0 right now.
My Polo’s NBT address = BGB4EtNQ5tvP1CEeR86Br2jiBs5uc8DfPm
Jordan or FLOT please sent me a BTC address to sent 15 BTC ASAP
and then you may sent me the NBTs.

10,000 sent by FLOT have been credited by the Poloniex gateway account:

I will restart NuBot to initiate the order placement (otherwise we would have to wait until the price moves enough to trigger action).


08:49:14.541 [Strategy Secondary Task] WARN  - **SELL** orders re-initialized on  **poloniex** :  1/1 placed successfully
total amount placed : 2000.0
Tier1 order size : 2000.0
Tier2 cumulative order size : 0.0 (0 orders)

It seems my understanding of the NuBot configuration parameters is not perfectly accurate. I’d have expected to find 3 orders sized 2,000.
But at least there are 2,000 on order that will be replenished as long as funds are available.


I just realized there’s a practical difference in using the entry/exit gateways and trading with tier 3; basically, if we want to balance a 20k difference, we should trade 10k with tier 3, but for the gateways we should inject 20k instead.

It depends.
If you expect at least half of the funds being traded soon, you are right, 20k would be needed.
If you just want to provide some liquidity with no expectation of the trading volume, 10k might be fine.
I’m hesitant with using the gateways as I still consider them a measure of last resort.

Regarding the gateway:
no NBT (of the last deposit of 10,000) have been sold so far.
But we (the FLOT) can for sure initiate another deposit of 10k volume just to balance the T1-3 liquidity (it wouldn’t lead to unbalanced Poloniex walls) for the moment and see where we get from there.

edit: in case the FLOT wants to send another 10,000 NBT to the gateway, this transaction can be used.


There’s no need to hurry (10,000 NBT are in the account ready to be sold; 2,000 are on the order book) and I’d feel slightly more comfortable not having 20,000 USD value on the gateway account.

There’s no sign for it, but if things go pear-shaped at Poloniex, Nu loses funds. The funds on the gateway are Nu property.


Are you still up for this?

I’ve adjusted the settings of the NBT sell side gateway.
Now up to 3,000 NBT are on the order book (depending on funds in the account).

As I needed to restart NuBot to activate the settings, there are at the moment 3,000 NBT on T1 from the gateway.
ALiX looks a little bit better now :wink:

Btw. - 650 NBT have already been traded for BTC since the gateway was funded.

nud proved to be very RAM consuming (over 700 MB):

 4013 pi        20   0  875m 694m  34m S  39.4 71.3   4069:47 nud
 23177 pi        20   0  324m 117m 3056 S   3.6 12.1  52:18.16 java

I run nud on the same RaPi2 on which I run the 2 NuBot instances for the Poloniex gateway function (buy side, sell side).
In total nud and 2 NuBot instances required so much RAM that the RaPi2 swapped heavily degrading performance and reducing reliability.
I stopped the NuBot of the buy side gateway as only the sell side gateway is funded at the moment. I can start the buy side gateway in very short time if need be.

As running both buy side and sell side gateway at the same time is not required/intended/recommended and the funding of the buy side with FLOT funds would likely grab my attention, I intend to keep the buy side bot shut down.
I will terminate the sell side NuBot as soon the funds (exchanged funds as well as not exchanged ones) have been withdrawn from the Poloniex account.

Current sell side gateway status is:

nud getliquiditydetails B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv
        "1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.3.2a_1451915895814_fb1798" : {
            "buy" : 0.0,
            "sell" : 2100.6322
        "2:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.3.2a_1451915895814_fb1798" : {
            "buy" : 2387.5,
            "sell" : 5527.3833

2,387 NBT have been exchanged to BTC.
5,527 NBT remain to be exchanged.
2,100 NBT of the 5,527 NBT are currently on order.
T1 buy and sell side are overall almost balanced, while Poloniex and BTER have complementary high/low buy and sell sides.

Outlook: the gateways will very soon not be “always on”, but can be activated with short lead-time.

This will reduce the utility of the gateways as they can’t be used without manual activation (from me) after being funded by e.g. @JordanLee or @FSRT.
As only the FLOT did fund them the last times, Nu might be able to live with that.
If not, additional gateways need to be created.

both Poloniex gateways are on standby (and no longer always on) after round five of the NBT entry gateway has been completed exchange wise (withdrawal will take another 24 hours).


It is true that the register process is new and a little complecated to many NuLagoon Tube users. We will manually register address pairs for some of users in the community.

Just to clarify, what I meant was registering FLOT sell side and buybside addresses, because registering requires a lot of signatures.

@assistant liquidity

nud getliquidityinfo B | head -n 19
    "total" : {
        "buy" : 64168.2399,
        "sell" : 91219.6551
    "tier" : {
        "1" : {
            "buy" : 34149.0323,
            "sell" : 49642.2231
        "2" : {
            "buy" : 4056.92,
            "sell" : 13127.432
        "3" : {
            "buy" : 25960.7876,
            "sell" : 28450.0
1 Like

Looks like it’s best that we trade with NuLagoon. We’ll probably need to buy 7500 NBT from NuLagoon and send 5000 NBT to a gateway. @henry FLOT members @Dhume @woodstockmerkle @masterOfDisaster @jooize @ttutdxh @cryptog @mhps please comment on trading using NuLagoon Tube; if that’s the case I wish that the transaction fee and the spread can be waived. Given the prices on Poloniex I suggest trading at the price 430.2.

Looking at ALiX I don’t see need for such a volume:

Single exchanges like e.g. bittrex are unbalanced and have a much lower bid side.
We won’t get that fixed by sending 5,000 NBT to thePoloniex gateway. If we wanted to sort liquidity on Poloniex out, we’d rather deposit 10 BTC in the gateway account, although I don’t think that’s the way to go.

Using FLOT trying to balance T1 of a single exchange while T1-3 is more or less balanced overall is not good.

Plus I would rather use a moving average instead of a snapshot to base decisions on:

Looking at the MA there’s a trend towards a NBT sell side overweight, but nothing I’d worry about at the moment.

I wish we had the fixed cost reward scheme already. Bittrex would look different with it…

edit: a few minutes later:

I would be okay with that, unless we find a private seller willing to sell us alot of Nubit. Maybe @zoro?

Tier 2-3 buy side is about 42% of sell side. Around the time I wrote that post, ALix was like 36% buy side.

Another thing that came to my mind:
we shouldn’t only look at the ratio between buy and sell side, but at the total USD value of funds per side as well.
As long as there’s a minium overall (how much is sufficient?) the peg is not lost.
It would be even better with a minimum at each exchange and the fixed cost compensation scheme will help big time.
With a minimum at each exchange, the peg can’t be lost at even a single exchange.

Scenario: somebody wants to trade 200 BTC for NBT. The sophisticated trader is aware of Nu tools, downloads NuBot, configures it and uses it to place orders to get the 200 BTC exchanged over time.

ALiX will report that as a very big bid on that particular exchange while the liquidity report of the Nu wallet is not aware of that. That BTC seller has no custodial address to broadcast liquidity.

What should we do?


Currently i operate in buy side. (crossing my fingers that polo will not follow cryptsy!)
I have a very small amount of NBT :wink:
I wouldn’t worry much about the peg since BTC is “stable” these days.

Nu should aim to be preemptive. There are at least several hours from proposing a transaction to actually settling it. At least, for tiers 2 and 3, it’s important to do it regularly when either side is low, in case of a sudden drop.

It’s actually much less pain to do semi-regular trades with tiers 2 and 3 than checking liquidity and ALix all the time, but that didn’t gain traction.

“On-demand” trades are hard to do especially because the choices we have for tier 3 are very limited, and I still haven’t been able to negotiate terms with NuLagoon Tube, and nobody else seems interested in adding their voices.

Whenever I see a low sell side and high Tether volume (often several 100k), I feel we have lost a lot of potential NBT sales. Even having 5k on sell side on Poloniex isn’t enough; the spreads and slow response of Nubot don’t trigger any desire to send BTC in to the exchange to buy more NBT. I mean tomjoad mentioned people wanting to buy 10k’s of NBT from him when Poloniex still has some NBT hanging in sell-side.

Most of the liquidity on other exchanges mostly just sit there doing nothing. If I have to count endangerment to the peg, lost sales and overall frustration of NBT users, I only look at Poloniex; looking at overall percentage is already a compromise to that principle.


I fully second that.

That sounds to me like a plea for increasing the liquidity volume on Poloniex making Nu even more dependent on it.
I recognize the important role of Poloniex for Nu’s liquidity situation.
Otherwise I’d have made the gateways for another exchange.

But each NBT Nu sells (T4 -> T1-3) brings BTC to Nu’s accounting and currently there’s no way to have an extensive insurance for BTC volatility.
As long as there’s no viable insurance for the BTC volatility risk (NuSafe is a step into the right direction), I’m not that keen on increasing Nu’s exposure to BTC volatility by increasing the volume on exchanges.

I’d rather focus on improving the liquidity model, (e.g. with T3 custodians), ways to hedge/insure against BTC volatility and fixed cost compensation scheme to make volume on buy and sell side more reliable when trying to be preemptive.

1 Like

I second that. Moreover don’t forget that Tether is 100% centralized and thus a high risk coin. And also we cannot just set a 100k NBT wall in polo, very high risk!
If some private investors want to have a large amount of NBT, then it would make more sense to directly
transact with T4. Then T4 will act as a temporary exchange with very low risk (only risk will be the volatility of BTC), but then again this is not a very good idea.
Anyway, we have to wait for B&C :slight_smile:


I also personally support services like NuLagoon Tube. I accept liquidity on other exchanges for risk mitigation, but the reality is that a very low liquidity on Poloniex is still going to be disproportionately bad for Nu compared on other exchanges. Keeping Poloniex refilled is t2-3’s job but low Polo liquidity should be a consideration of some weight.

Nu also needs growth. Nu should keep establishing itself as the go-to solution when people want to buy a stable coin, but that’s not going to happen if people have trouble buying NBT when they want to. It’s hard to justify the high-cost liquidity operations if we don’t use it fully; especially under a fixed-cost model where it costs money even when one side of the wall of empty.

I’ve also stressed on the importance of balance to volatility exposure for pools. Pool interest rates and the risk perception of participants are often adjusted to worst case volatility losses rather than the average case; balancing frequently allows us to discover and consider lower interest rate thresholds for ALP.

1 Like