I was being very pragmatic about it and heading to a 50/50 balancing of @zoro’s gateway account, because the bid side was lower than the ask side network wide.
I initiated a deposit of 29 BTC; 13.2 BTC from FLOT, 15.8 BTC from JordanLee:
@zoro already withdrew 13,500 NBT
I didn’t consider @Cybnate’s gateway. Shame on me.
Balancing is more straight-forward than increasing or lowering the amount, right.
That will require a bit of diligence to find out.
Basically you have to sum up all deposits/withdrawals and their respective USD value and compare it with the current account balance.
As @zoro’s and my gateway operate at a big offset, you can safely assume that they rather make Nu money when funds get traded there - unless the NuBot is stuck and the orders can’t be moved. In that case the gain will be reduced and worst case Nu makes s slight loss.
The only vector for ongoing loss in gateway operation/trading is the volatility risk combined with the hedging - as long as Poloniex doesn’t default or the funds get lost in another way.
As the gateways are an important line of defence that kicks in after ALP and NuLagoon failed, I recommend to keep at least $20k on each side. I can’t give you an algorithm how to calculate that number. It’s what my gut feeling tells me.
Do you remember what a pain the permanent balancing was when NuPool failed (LP pulled funds), NuLagoon didn’t have sufficient funds there and all that kept the peg was a pair of NuBots trading at a too small spread?
I speak of early this year.
The NuBots I operated had way more than $20k each side and it was still hard to prevent sides from running dry during the BTC swings.
I guess with an offset of above 1.5% and a funding of $20k each side, a bot operation on Poloniex is well suited to provide a viable line of defence.
Looks reasonable.
