I tried to hep with my T3 and ALP shift last night…but as mod said - we need more T3.
@Nagalim - I hear you… I don’t know if I have the reaction time, or the time to dedicate to it.
Another T3 question - should/will Nu give grants to those holding personal T3? I know @Nagalim is doing it with FLOT reserves. But what about @zoro and others with personal reserves… We saw last night it is necessary.
So…when are we going to offer NuLagoon NBT via grant to open source their software…
This is an unsolved problem. The issue lies in incentive and would be a very lucrative solution to put pressure on as shareholders because the rates would theoretically be much lower than T1. I would argue that B&C is a half-way solution to this, but only because it’s considered third party. Anyway, it’s another conversation to have, one that I don’t have any answer to personally.
There is no obligation on reaction time. Help out when you can. The more you are useful and so on, probably the bigger credit you’ll be able to ask for. Make your own terms, or do like I did and just leave out any terms at all. Anyway, that’s my philosophy of it.
I was asking for community feedback, and didn’t get any in the previous thread. I’m happy to add it if others can confirm it’s working.
The Poloniex sell side gateway has no NBT left:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
"BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
"buy" : 10200.49,
"sell" : 0.0
}I’m going to ping FLOT to initiate another deposit, because according to ALix the ask (for BTC) side is significantly lower than the bid side.
@assistant liquidity
The current total liquidity in the Nu network is:
Bid: 80569.3718 NBT (51.45%)
Ask: 76029.9138 NBT (48.55%)
It is broken down in the following manner:
Tier 1:
Bid: 41080.6032 NBT
Ask: 31321.9668 NBT
Tier 2:
Bid: 12204.76 NBT
Ask: 17846.947 NBT
Tier 3:
Bid: 27282.5086 NBT
Ask: 26861.0 NBT
Yes, tube is working flawlessly 
Edit: i was thinking that this service could be of great help for T3 custodians (private or not) without the spread and transaction fees. By registering only a FLOT address pair and the custodian managing (manual or automatically)
the T1-T2 pools
It is now balanced: Poloniex BTC/NBT 10295.5849 12932.0437
Was it thanks to nulagoon?
Hi @cryptog
The current total liquidity in the Nu network is:
Bid: 85097.1248 NBT (53.11%)
Ask: 75139.4865 NBT (46.89%)
It is broken down in the following manner:
Tier 1:
Bid: 42865.5549 NBT
Ask: 30606.7115 NBT
Tier 2:
Bid: 15865.91 NBT
Ask: 17671.775 NBT
Tier 3:
Bid: 26364.1599 NBT
Ask: 26861.0 NBT
The current total liquidity in the Nu network is:
Bid: 73183.7404 NBT (46.5%)
Ask: 84206.7823 NBT (53.5%)
It is broken down in the following manner:
Tier 1:
Bid: 30957.8305 NBT
Ask: 39674.0073 NBT
Tier 2:
Bid: 15860.25 NBT
Ask: 17671.775 NBT
Tier 3:
Bid: 26364.1599 NBT
Ask: 26861.0 NBT
Decreasing buy (NBT; bid BTC) side on Poloniex:
4 hours average:
15 min average:
edit:
the NBT exit gateway has 4.7 BTC that haven’t been withdrawn so far.
Have a look here to be remembered why the NBT exit gateway has BTC that wait to be withdrawn:
I’m going to start NuBot on that gateway.
edit:
NuBot traded the 4.7 BTC in a very short time to NBT.
What now?
I have close to 30 BTC on the sell side gateway.
Another violation of terms just to support the peg?
Why did nobody complain about the last violation?
Who? FLOT or T1-3 custodians?
Personally, i prefer you have some funds and use them back and forth (keeping peg).
Especially when there aren’t much LPs in Polo. Violations and contracts are for lawyers 
Thank you, but it’s missing the point.
We are currently in a situation for which no sufficient means to keep the peg are in place.
The system needs adjustment and I struggle trying to act according terms and the need to support the peg.
I will come back with some more thoughts later.
Extra duty to volunteers. This is not good. It sets a bad example. @masterOfDisaster didn’t offer a free LP service. As a FLOP member I think @masterOfDisaster should send back the proceeds.
Ok. Then MoD i think you should make a grant with a fee to use FLOT funds in your gateways (both walls).
Not emergency this time. A different service from Nulagoon and Nupool
That’s the only action fully compliant with the terms.
Yet the actions compliant with the terms aren’t always sufficient to support the peg.
Round after round putting pressure on FLOT for timely depositing funds to the gateways and me withdrawing the proceeds to FLOT addresses is tiring - especially for FLOT.
So this clearly has a price, which is hard to calculate.
Another option would be to introduce a buffer in Poloniex, which has the vast majority of trading volume and the peg there is in my opinion more important than on minor exchanges.
Say you’d operate a dual side NuBot with 10,000 USD equivalent in total with Nu funds.
That would be another step back to the custodian model with that Nu started.
It would use much less funds and put much less funds at risk, though (compared to kTM and jmiller times).
The question is: what’s the price of that (risk * funds + fees) and does Nu want to afford it?
And: can Nu afford not having it until luiquidity issues have been sorted out?
You might realize that we are effectively close to operating that way, but with a lot of effort for FLOT in difference to just keeping funds on exchange as a buffer layer.
The risk is always there. And since there are no human LPs to take it, NU as a DAO should step in.
About the fees, it is up to you. What is your price to operate such a service? Like an ALP operator’s fee?
Ok, will put you on notice Stop doing it! Sometimes violations are accepted or mildly punished for the greater good. I believe that is the case awaiting better solutions.
The bandaid solution would be to turn one of the gateways into dual side mode.
As I don’t charge any fee for the gateways, I wouldn’t charge any fee for that either.
The rest of the gateway terms regarding availability etc. would remain unaffected as well.
This might help to create a (more sound) temporary solution until T3 custodians and fixed cost (hopefully) improved the liquidity situation.
Would that bandaid solution be one meeting thus description:
?
