Current Liquidity

As long as those gateways are considered a last defense for the peg (in case all else fails), it’s no good idea to empty one side. Ideally they should be more or less balanced to provide a buffer for both sides.
We can either change how we perceive them or do something different.
Using a sell side only bot would be the straight-forward approach.
Automating that kind of actions is of course welcome.
If we want to do it soon, we might need to do it manually.

I might propose for a sell side only bot at a fixed price of 30 NBT for an operation of up to 30 days.
Once the funds are traded (should be faster than 30 days) they get withdrawn to FLOT and the contract is fulfilled.
This fee would be quite expensive for trading small amounts, but is below 0.5% as soon as you are above 4,500 USD value.
With an offset of 0.8% you can compensate these costs while being between ALP and the dual side bots.

when i want to see how liquidity is doing i check this:
https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_nbt
and only this :wink:
(considering the peg)

Here’s your issue. NuBot adds the exchange fee, so you’re putting your orders at 1.7%, which is outside the 1.5% tolerance of ALix. (a bookSellOffset of 0 actually gives a 0.2% offset {0.4% spread} on the books)

1 Like

OK. We will revise the config and restart NuBot.

Erm, are we talking about NuLagoon funds being put on the books at that offset?

Yup

10.93 BTC was sent to FLOT from Zoro in exchange for 5,000 NBT. The NBT should appear on the Poloniex sell side soon.

Can somebody explain to me why Nu pays more than 150 NBT daily to NuLagoon for liquidity provision and NuLagoon can put funds that are sponsored by Nu at the books at a decent spread and make money from it?
If Nu uses gateways, the gain from the spread is in the pockets of Nu…

I suppose you sent the 5,000 to zoro from the funds you control, right?

The same old question about NuLagoon :smiley:

And the answer is…?

We set the offset to 0.013, but still not find our orders in Alix. @willy can you check why is the reason?

If ALix reports funds within a spread of 1.5%, the offset must be below half of that (minus the exchange fee) to be shown in ALix.
I remember that Poloniex reworked the fee model.
makers have only 0.15% fee (I’m too lazy to verify that, though).
So the offset must not exceed 0.006 (1.5% - 0.15%), if you want to find the order on ALix.
That offset is much more appropriate for funds on order for which you receive a compensation from Nu!

There is a motion as to NuLagoon liquidity operation on voting and that motion is open to discuss for over one month. You are welcome to speak up your idea there, and more than welcome if it is in a honest, fair manner with some respect.

Thank you for providing this info, which differ from what I think before. Can @willy confirm this.

ALix runs with a 3% spread, 1.5% offset. bookselloffset of 0.013 on NuBot should be within this, but I wouldn’t cut it so close. Try a bookselloffset of 0.01, this should give you room for deviation and stuff.

You should be able to do the calculation yourself. NuBot gives you a price feed (I think?). Take the order you have up, divide by the price feed, and subtract 1. If the answer is greater than 0.015 then it won’t get registered.

1 Like

I hope you are not offended by the questions that often circle around one of the biggest of Nu’s current liquidity expenses that might even beat development expenses.
Some questions might be tongue-in-cheek, but I can ensure you that the road to disrespectful posts has a lot more milestones.
I hope we will never have to face disrespectful posts here, as that would show a shift of the mindset in this community (adjustment of current memberd or influence of new members).
That being said, I sense no lack of respect asking others whether they find it strange to

  • pay money for liquidity and
  • find a part of that money in books at a spread that makes the LP money
  • possibly being in conflict with terms of the contract (although I have not searched for the maximum spread for which NuLagoon receives compensation; I fear that part is not regulated just as the compensation for NuLagoon doesn’t seem to be tied directly to a volume of liquidity on the books - did I miss something?)

This is just about business. Any service provider will find itself being measured from time to time or continuously.

3 Likes

thanks @nagalim and @masterOfDisaster for the user support :slight_smile:

Please vote for the motion that makes that time once a month so that @henry can be prepared to defend and provide much more satisfactory answers. You can totally feel free to present your own report or complaints then, with some time to process. I realize this can squelch those that are not active month to month, but then does NuLagoon have to be super accountable to them? I feel FLOT and data feed providers pay attention enough to bring up the major concerns in the monthly NuLagoon report (10-day public forum).

For @henry, if someone not very active or seen on the forum makes complaints about NuLagoon, they should be addressed immediately and referenced in the report if important enough. These people are often customers. If they are shareholders complaining about NuLagoon compensation, well, hopefully others will respond. The monthly report is where you should be held accountable for the compensation, not constantly.

1 Like

We should trade another 50 btc back to the tube. If we time it right we can make money. The person we’re reacting to made a 20knbt bet and lost 2 btc doing it. Let’s split that profit with nulagoon.
@JordanLee

Buy side is 33% of overall liquidity. We need to send 10k nbt worth of btc to the tube i think.

1 Like