Current Liquidity

[cryptog]

Dire situations but dire situations makes us stronger and validates the whitepaper. Let s get through it!

[masterOfDisaster]

You need to survive to be able to get stronger

FLOT BTC Operations (buy side)

8 BTC (~$4,000) to mOD’s Poloniex gateway AND 2 BTC (~$1,000) to @zoro’s Poloniex gateway Signed 1 of 5/8 0100000002f8f86d00337e16cc4ce0dcf1e3a8a83143aee32de24f2eeeb3bf0d6f89cb655a02000000fd5f010047304402207499028ffe90854677dac3090339afad5f50d3122796129a524cffc1172aa8660220262d6ca30a3c308ba588f7cb6186dacefdf00b7d13b288b4c2922aac7b147335014d130155210234139729dd413c84a71a0bfd6f236790be861b37311cef3240277c940e4b0c072102435b894b94b4b27dd24436b3f9ad0b9409d855ab4be6e91141d445804e84750b2102e2fcdfe…

Once the tx, which already got 4 signatures in record speed is through, broadcast and credited at my Poloniex account, we will have bought some more time.

Here’s the current situation:

status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
        "B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
            "buy" : 0.08,
            "sell" : 7.4037

I already made preparations to be in the position for selling NSR at Poloniex.
If I’m the one to sell NSR at Poloniex, the BTC proceeds will automatically be available for the NuBot gateway, because I’ll use the same account.
Accounting wise that’s not ideal, but it speeds up the process of getting the NSR sale proceeds on the order book by orders of magnitude.

If someone has a better idea, he/she might tell.

The NSR from FLOT reserve are at the moment not available for me to craft a tx, because blockexplorer.nu failed and cointoolkit relies on it, wheras I rely on cointoolkit for creating a tx.
If somebody knows how to make a an NSR tx with FLOT funds and without cointoolkit, please do it!

[masterOfDisaster]

Poloniex NBT/BTC orders are off (above) by 2 to 3 percent from the rest of the market:

Poloniex:

https://www.bfxdata.com/orderbooks/btcusd:

No wonder that buy side orders get eaten if they are at a close spread.

[mhps]

Poloniex NBT/BTC orders are off (above) by 2 to 3 percent from the rest of the market:

Why is that? Isn’t the price feed from the heavy weights of the market? OK I see only Huobi has 536 and bitstamp 489, btc-e 484, bitfinex 498. So NBT/BTC on polp is now 510 (tether is 491). I think nbt price feed should follow the easiest inter-exchange arbitrage channel or we will be on the losing side of the arbitrage army.

[huafei]

510

this price maybe not the price of pricefeed

[mhps]

this price maybe not the price of pricefeed

On Polo nbt/btc, the sell side is 510 at 1btc sum, and 530 on the buy side! Polo has no usd deposit, the btc price is through tether. I have no proof but I think it would be easier to arbitrage between polo and bitfinex than between polo and huobi.

Maybe all we should do is reconfiguring the feed for polo?

[jooize]

How much do you want the NuShare transaction for to which address?

[masterOfDisaster]

Following the meaning of “Core and Standard” we need to sell close to 5 million NSR, based on the current NSR rate of $0.002.
I realized that @backpacker not only kicked his blockexplorer, but provided us with a fork of cointoolkit.

I’m about to create a tx.
But you can beat me to it, if you like.
Do we have an alternative plan to using my Poloniex NuBot gateway account?

ninjaedit:
whuat?

edit:
nevermind. Copied an “is” to the end of the NSR address. Stupid me.

[Nagalim]

we need to sell close to 5 million NSR

Where are you getting this from? It should be 2.4 million. 4700*.002=2.35 mil

[masterOfDisaster]

I should use a calculator more often. Or sleep. Or stay away from the computer. Or read all posts that I missed.
Thanks for bringing that up!

[masterOfDisaster]

The 8 BTC FLOT deposit arrived at my Poloniex gateway.
I restarted NuBot to have the funds on oder immediately:

15:03:40.151 [Strategy Secondary Task] WARN  - **BUY** orders re-initialized on  **poloniex** :  3/3 placed successfully
total amount placed : 4000.0806199999997
Tier1 order size : 1000.0
Tier2 cumulative order size : 3000.0806199999997 (2 orders)
 [c.n.n.s.S.StrategySecondaryPegUtils:247]

15:04:11.708 [checkOrders] WARN  - Liquidity info submitted:
        tier=1 buy=1000.0 sell=7.40374263 identifier=1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1464447807138_873d24 response=true
        tier=2 buy=3000.08 sell=0.0 identifier=2:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1464447807138_873d24 response=true [c.n.n.t.CheckOrdersTask:142]

You can watch the liquidity at this NuBot via broadcast address B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt:

status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
        "B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
            "buy" : 4000.08,
            "sell" : 7.4037

I’ll take a break now, but will keep an eye on the FLOT NSR discussion in short intervals.
I’m ready to put NSR on order if they are sent to my Poloniex address and I get assistance to answer the question:
How to sell 2.4 mio NSR in the current market?
Where to start, how to proceed?

[cryptog]

Alix walls tell us that most of the T1 liquidity is on ccedk…
Since ccedk trading is shut down that means that we do not have any T1 liquidity any more.

[masterOfDisaster]

Trading at CCEDK is announced for shutdown at June, 1st.
And we still have some T1.2 at Poloniex
Unfortunately we can’t grant BTC - that would solve the whole problem, lol.

[Sentinelrv]

58 posts were split to a new topic: Experiment of Trading Volume at Different Spreads Using a Gateway

[willy]

Since ccedk trading is shut down that means that we do not have any T1 liquidity any more.

I’ll disable CCEDK on ALix on June 1rst.

[masterOfDisaster]

Another surge in BTC/USD:

The peg is not exactly what we’d consider in perfect order - at least not in normal times:

The trade volume has taken hits from the reduced liquidity:

Wanna know why the peg at Poloniex didn’t fail completely? The NuBots @zoro and I operate are creating a demarcation point at 5% offset (zoro’s) and 6% (mine).
As long as zoro’s NuBot has funds on buy side left, the NBT/USD rate measured via synthetic NBT/BTC peg won’t drop below $0.95 and as long as my NuBot has funds on buy side left, the peg won’t drop below $0.94.

There are still funds on buy side! They get consumed only slowly. The offset is not very attractive - just like it’s meant to be:

Sun May 29 20:13:08 UTC 2016
status of mOD dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt -A 2
        "B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt" : {
            "buy" : 9170.72,
            "sell" : 3409.3515
status of zoro dual side NuBot at Poloniex:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
        "BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
            "buy" : 7931.8,
            "sell" : 22634.1522

Over the course of the last hours some BTC were sold, the sell side of both zoro’s and my NuBot report an increasing sell side volume. But that’s only small amounts.

This is the prime reason, why I drafted this proposal:

[Passed] 1% Maximum Spread for ALP/MLP, Above 1% Allowed for Nu Funded Liquidity Operations (e.g. Gateways)

Motion hash: bd4d153bb5c2d8cd6013b77ad8780eabc7bae79e To provide an alternative for https://discuss.nubits.com/t/draft-1-maximum-spread-in-shareholder-funded-liquidity-operations/3926/ I created this motion. Please continue the discussion in the thread, @JordanLee started to have all arguments in one place. https://daology.org/proposals/107a2e83eb2b5cf7d54e9af4c4b6f5f8d7d4522a Quoted for convenience:

@JordanLee’s proposal

[Passed] 1% Maximum Spread in Shareholder Funded Liquidity Operations

Motion hash: b71a585de0b5e552648036fbc8282e11fea4a1cc This finalized proposal is being managed on Daology here. I will quote it here for convenience: Normally I provide some context and explain the reasons why motions I advance will help the shareholders. In this case, that context was provided in my recent thread about the importance of liquidity and tight spreads. However, I will briefly say that this should dispel the notion that liquidity providers will widen spreads when the peg appe…

is no fit for supporting NBT/BTC. It would be good for NBT/USD.
I’d like to be in a world, where it can be sustained for NBT/BTC as well.
Alas, we aren’t and it can’t in the near future. Nu needs to make a lot of (final!) revenue to sustain such a model.
It’s not possible now.

And @Cybnate’s proposal

[Withdrawn] 0.6% Maximum Spread for ALP/MLP, 1.2% for Nu Funded Liquidity Operations

Given the discussion here and a counter proposal here I believe there is place for another view. Key differences are: - Lower spread (0.6%) for ALPs/MLPs to improve liquidity quality (with exemption when high fees are incurred) and with that likely the volumes - Medium spreads (0.7%-1.4%) for Nu-funded liquidity but limited to maximum of 30% of total liquidity when ALP and MLP fails e.g. in high periods of volatility as a first line of defence. - High spread (1.4%-2.5%) for Nu funded liquidity…

although partially moving in the right direction doesn’t go far enough.

Consider the current situation.
Think what would have happened, if we didn’t act according to my proposal.
Imagine what would have happened to the buy side when limited to max spreads/offsets as stated by @JordanLee or @Cybnate.

@JordanLee, do you still think your proposal is the way to go?
What is your conclusion about the current situation and how we treat it?
Would you have preferred having sustained a perfect peg for another hour and complete helplessness thereafter, or can you agree that it’s better to have a demarcation point at $0.95 that seems sustainable for an extended period of time?

[Dhume]

This is the best we can do for now unfortunely, its a byproduct of pegging BTC/NBT instead of USD/NBT. We do have a decent ammount of funds in multisig now though so we need to keep an close eye we keep the bots filled to maintain the “weak” peg.

[Cybnate]

Think what would have happened, if we didn’t act according to my proposal.Imagine what would have happened to the buy side when limited to max spreads/offsets

Technically you don’t know what would have happened. At some stage the amount of NBT in the hands of traders would be empty. Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of data on how much NBT is held on exchanges. Also unexpected was 1 trader selling of a huge amount at once a scenario we stupidly didn’t prepare for.

I think spreads should exceed 2.5% when reserves are still available. When they run out unexpectedly we see a crises. With a real crises anything should be possible to save the peg. With running out of BTC available to support the peg we should have gone into grinding the network to a halt. I’m glad we choose to support a weak peg instead.

However, I believe some work needs to be done regarding the reserves and managing liquidity, not on changing motions for spreads during crises.

[masterOfDisaster]

Sure - and raising awareness for flaws of proposals when those flaws are apparent is not welcome?

Technically you don’t know what would have happened.

I agree, we don’t know, but we can make an educated guess. Educated guesses is what lead to the creation of the gateways in the first place and the parameters were determined based on educated guesses and experience.

Are you in favour of getting data this way?

[Withdrawn] 0.6% Maximum Spread for ALP/MLP, 1.2% for Nu Funded Liquidity Operations

But we can make a test and lower the spread of the NuBot gateways to 2.5% (offset 1.25%), if you want to see it, before you believe it.

You still don’t trust my experience. Understood.

[Cybnate]

Sure - and raising awareness for flaws of proposals when those flaws are apparent is not welcome?

Are you in favour of getting data this way?

As I said we are in a crises without timely and adequate BTC / reserves. So not a good idea to test now probably.
I just tried to say that we should separate out the way we behave during a crises and how when we have adequate reserves to support the peg.[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:1783, topic:1239”]
You still don’t trust my experience. Understood.
[/quote]
I get you are not happy, but that is not what I’m saying.