This is the thread in order to make available the details about the passive dual-side Pybot gateway on Poloniex and on Bittrex and to report the status and other information. The original grant detail are here.
Here are some details of the provisioning of this service.
Settings
Both bots have an offset of 0.007 (0.35% on either side). Poloniex have been set at a maximum of 2000NBT on
sell. Bittrex is set on 1000NBT. I’m fine to tweak these parameters when this is beneficial to Nu and on FLOT’s request.
The bots place order fully automatically once funds are received up to the maximums as above. Will aim to confirm receipt of funds within 24h.
Constraints
I still have a maximum withdrawal/deposit limit of 2000NBT / day for Poloniex. I’m good for transfers back to FLOT on a weekly bases preferably during the weekend (UTC+12) or for emergencies. I will report on a weekly bases once the
bots are funded. At this stage I appreciate to have the bots funded with no more than 15k together. I believe this reflects best the current security measures I have in place and the way the operation being managed and encourages decentralisation of the bots.
The PyBot only advertises T1 funds, therefore I would post updates from time to time in this thread in order to enable FLOT to follow the status of the bot.
I know I’m hammering terminology, but offset means ‘to either side’. I’m guessing you mean 0.7% spread with 0.35% offset. Unless your ‘offset’ parameter is 0.007, in which case you have a 1.4% spread.
Can you please give reasoning why a passive gateway has a tighter spread than any other Nu operation? Specifically, why should it operate inside the ALP? If this is indeed your intention, I’m curious as to the reasoning, because I have always assumed that ALPs would be the front lines and that passive liquidity sources are acting more as a backup. With an offset of just 0.35% the passive liquidity would become the front lines and if FLOT attempts to keep it balanced it will take a very active participation indeed, rather than the passive operation that the name implies.
Clearly the terminology continues to confuse me greatly. The offset parameter on the bot is set to 0.007. Now I understand from you that it translates on a 0.7% spread on either side before transactions fees. Is my understanding correct?
It operates inside the ALP as that is a ‘cheap’ way of running it. That’s why my PyBot is just 50NBT/month. It is just piggying back on the LiquidBits operations and requires almost no effort and runs basically on spare shared resources already paid for by Nu. Don’t want to have Shareholders paying me twice.
Re spreads, I still live in the world were we pay ALPs to keep a tight spread and basically compensating for holding that tight spread although with relative low volumes. That way I think we can compete with Tether which appears to have higher volume lately and still keeps a tight spread. Are they loosing a lot of money? Unlikely.
Have to admit that I’m not surprised with our spreads getting larger and larger by the day we are not looking great in holding a peg as mentioned elsewhere and still paying a lot of money for it. I think we are really heading in the wrong direction with ALP’s advertising high 1%+ spreads. We should have ALPs with low spreads and low volumes especially on high volatile pairs as NBT/BTC. The NuBots/PyBots funded by FLOT should cover the high spreads and should pay themselves back most of the time on average. I recognise that I’m repeating other voices on the forum, but I don’t see changes as Nu-Pool is raising a high spread proposal again. I think I can’t support it any longer now we have adequate NuBots/Pybots running on Poloniex.
This seems to contradict everything else you’re saying and the parameters you plan on using. I’m getting the feeling you’re imposing an ideology about tight spreads in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.
As for tether, it’s pretty obvious most of the volume comes ultimately from eth/usdt. If you look at btc/usdt on polo the spread is about the same as us, which is ~1%.
My understanding of terminology is that an offset of 0.007 on either side leads to a spread of 0.014 or 1.4%
This is the world I want to live in as well.
At the moment Nu supports tens of thousands of USD value at a tight spread at Poloniex.
This needs to end to prevent Nu from bleeding out.
Several hundred or even a few thousand USD per side at a tight spread should be enough at the moment. It’s mainly the traders whi use NBT for hedging and not the users who want to buy a cup of coffee.
We need to stop making professional traders rich at the expense of Nu.
Pro traders might still be happy to buy/sell big amounts of NBT at 2%, 3% or even more percent offset. Increasing the offset for the big volumes means traders who urgently need to buy or sell participate in the costs.
Any references for that?
Fully agree!
500 USD at <1% spread. I’m so keen on NuBot as ALP client with CRFC!
That needs to be the ultimate goal, because it would drastically reduce the costs of liquidity provision. If they can compensate the exchange risk as well, Nu is not on the road to bancruptcy!
What really needs to change is the spread (down) and the targets (waaaay down).
I applied the highest offset thinking it was the same as the spread. My intention was always a high spread for the bot, but I thought it wouldn’t work outside the LiquidBits parameters. This seems not to be the case, which is great.[quote=“Nagalim, post:5, topic:3630”]
I’m getting the feeling you’re imposing an ideology about tight spreads in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.
[/quote]
Not sure, gateways should have high spreads. This is a gateway thread. Am I confused again?[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:6, topic:3630”]
What really needs to change is the spread (down) and the targets (waaaay down).
[/quote]
Can’t repeat it often enough
Tether doesn’t keep a tight spread, that’s what I’m saying. What’s going on is that people are using BTC/USDT and ETH/USDT on polo to arbitrage ETH/BTC on polo using bitfinex BTC/USD and bitfinex USD/USDT. Bitfinex USD/USDT has basically no spread, but that is the only place they actually keep the peg. They can do it on bitfinex because they are under the same corporate umbrella as Bitfinex.
Change highlights:
Seeing a sellers market on Poloniex, just sold 3 BTC and funds are in frontline with even a wide spread. Bittrex received funding on sell side. 1000 NBT on order. No sells yet.
There is an issue on Bittrex cancelling an order which happened after I restarted the bots. Therefore the bot cannot replace a new order temporarily leaving us with virtually no liquidity on Bittrex. The Poloniex bot is fine.
I’ve submitted a ticket to Bittrex for assistance. As soon as they cancel the order the bot should automatically place the order.
