As mentioned in the relevant thread, I’m not keen to support the high spreads and large pool size when we are trying to shift away from this. That is why it is on hold on my datafeed. This would be a case where I would be happy to vote neutral instead against or in favour of it.
What is your plan for liquidity on Poloniex? We are in desperate need for a pool there.
NuPool is doing its best to provide a stable product in a place where we need it most. They are obeying a shareholder passed motion for their spreads, so that really shouldn’t have bearing on this discussion (it can easily be changed again by shareholder motion).
So your concern seems to be about the size of the pool. You really think that $1.5k/month for a solid pool on poloniex is too much? Isn’t LiquidBits alone of similar size?
And finally, what is your plan for ALP v2 if we don’t fund the operators that implemented it? Will LiquidBits be trying it out instead then? Because you seemed to be very against that idea too.
It looks to me like you’ve got our Liquidity operations in a bind, and it makes me very very nervous about where that puts the Poloniex peg. Our volume on polo is down extremely low. It’s because we aren’t really keeping a peg there aside from gateways.
What is your plan for all of this, as you reject the plan put before you?
Not sure how that is related, we have a solid peg across three gateways on Poliniex with at least a 1.5% spread. Always heard you and others advocating that this is reasonable and not too high despite my doubts. Apparently it isn’t as suddenly our volume is low. It can be Easter or it is because 1.5% spreads are not interesting enough for traders and yet we are pulling up an ALP supporting that. What is the value?
It appears we are not supporting what we are after, or should we continue with high volumes on Poloniex on second thoughts. Then it makes sense to add an ALP with low spreads e.g. around 1%, but that comes at a cost. Need to make up our minds here.
It is about the USNBT/BTC pool size. Fiat is another discussion and I think it should be reduced too.
That would be my only reason to support it as it stands now.
I suppose what I’m doing, discussing the direction. High volumes are not compatible with high spreads and low costs. Something has to give.
I think you’re confused. The ALP will have a 1% SAF. NuBots are operating at 2% or even 3% spread. Granted, the ‘after fees’ bit makes it more like 1.4% spread in the ALP. However, this is what basically all pools are using now and I think it’s silly to put pressure on NuPool over this. If this is a serious concern, like I said, make a motion and I’m sure NuPool will change it the day the motion passes.
Polo doesn’t have fiat. Maybe we can revisit this if we get a USDT/NBT pair?
What maximum USNBT/day cost do you think we should provide on Poloniex? NuPool is suggesting 35/day. Would you like to see that number be more like 20? 10? Please, I would really really like to hear a specific number here as a suggestion for what you think is appropriate.