23-Feb Updating the datafeed:
Adding custodial grant:
BHAU3ZGUqFNfFpHbMK2Jjf4izL1XGrjGfY , 4760
Added updated address / NuLagoon fee Feb 2016 (henry)
Deleting custodial grant
B7Jj1q3CmFQy2RU6L97hEPPw1tG8rNgreC, 4760
Removed, address used before, see replacement grant above
27-Feb Updating the datafeed:
Adding custodial grants:
BA8di3FFBADAFQmRwEqiAocrkBoMDPBQQu , 1
Sell side Nubot gateway on HitBTC (Zoro)
BExP2RYt43WsPCHGFH8PuwntbC26J19xUz , 4760
NuLagoon fee (3rd attempt)
BCigRTj8Lg25xSZLW59eUwuszw8nuPAubs , 990
LiquidBits term7 addendum (cybnate)
Deleting custodial grants
B7jeGVDdsd4eE5ZGGmv8xXn2QgkS9nAPUC, 100 (passed)
BHAU3ZGUqFNfFpHbMK2Jjf4izL1XGrjGfY , 4760
Removed on request, address used before (2)
BEfKNxhQRVGAozMGUNkk6Wg6bcke2SE5Dm, 1 (passed)
3-Mar-16 Updating the datafeed:
Added Motions:
a21a63a806cbd0d640f692911c503818c1579b94
Motion to join Peercoin FLOT (Cybnate)
25d8226a7aeb47370e8db0c2035296fb7e2c4095
Bitcoin reserve (nagalim)
Deleted custodial grants:
BA8di3FFBADAFQmRwEqiAocrkBoMDPBQQu , 1 (passed)
BExP2RYt43WsPCHGFH8PuwntbC26J19xUz , 4760 (passed)
Fees:
0.01
@cybnate
Is there a reason you aren’t voting for @Crypto_coiner to join FLOT? There’s only about 4 days left to pass that motion.
No, there is not. Just added it.
12-Mar-16 Updating the datafeed:
Added motion:
f27c979e0ba6f8dfc77a4305ccdc9ed9452230b2
Motion to join FLOT (cryptocoiner)
17-Mar-16 Updating the datafeed:
Added custodial grant:
BP7geZ2uhdeaqS5vX8Zx3abd43abs62aus, 1750
Redesign & Rebrand of RAW.Coinerella for ALP v2 (Willy)
Deleted motions:
a21a63a806cbd0d640f692911c503818c1579b94 (passed)
f27c979e0ba6f8dfc77a4305ccdc9ed9452230b2 (passed)
25-Mar-16 Updating the datafeed:
Adding Motion:
ee20086eb56a8a7b0f722227086b05de9941a293
Motion Dual side Nubot gateway in Poloniex - term 2 (zoro)
Added custodial grant:
BLYdibXLb7ixXgKW5bFVD4KiCRLkyk6Ks6, 4760.00
The Nu Lagoon Custodian Fee Request of Mar 2016 (henry)
Deleted custodial grant:
BP7geZ2uhdeaqS5vX8Zx3abd43abs62aus, 1750 (passed)
Thoughts on NuPond? Only 5 more days before funding runs out.
26-Mar-16 Updating the datafeed:
Added motion:
a951e9e8e72bcb313eb7fc6c65c797ccb53b9ef0
T3 Custodianship - Extended Contract (nagalim)
Added custodial grant:
BRUuKfGur7CZSLy65gYUPJUQyQZeT1XQnD , 1 (liability of 50 US-NBT/month)
Sell side NuBot Gateway on Bter.com (Huafei)
BD8ork1pAt3vuVgGaX7j9Ei66xT3vvqrg2 , 1 (liability of 50 US-NBT/month)
Sell side Nubot gateway (BTC/NBT) on SouthXchange (zoro)
B6t3WuYQvqEW9SqjmpJDA1oy9cXbyFzgoq , 3000
Custodial grant to rebuild NuBits.com (coingame)
BEv74GNRYyAeRJbXxjQvbbS48E7YvDgfs6 , 450
NuPond term 9 (nagalim)
NuPool 9 ALP v2 please, I’m excited to see the polo alp back up and running.
NuPool 8
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.
I’m not confused, you are leaving out the PyBot conveniently and change the discussion to SAF.
The PyBot gives me an unique perspective on the trades at 1.5% spread on Poloniex. I can tell you they are very, very low even when the volume was still at 10k/day. So the NuBots and Pybot are just sitting there almost idle which they are supposed to do by the way, but still keeping the peg.
That is the part I struggle with.
It is, but I don’t have the time to put up motions and have even more discussions.
Not sure why you are suddenly go down this alleyway as I didn’t raise costs as an issue. My focus is not in cost but in what it delivers. We need some volume and support a close peg for end users during low volatility periods. An ALP can provide that as LPs would typically withdraw during periods of high volatility leaving the gateways to defend the peg.
So I’m looking for low spreads (=<1%) to generate some volume and support end users and relatively small pools (<10k) as we have gateways defending alongside at the moment.
What is a small pool if not a low cost pool? If you pay x amount of money, you should expect to get y amount of liquidity. Your 10k estimate sounds like 20 NBT/day to me.
As for low spreads, on LiquidBits you are running a 1.1% spread on NBT/BTC, a 1.3% spread on NBT/EUR, and a 1.5% spread on NBT/USD. Why are you going on a crusade against NuPool when you could be leading by example?
Well your motion kind of forced me into that. I supported it because I thought it was good to set some standards about advertising spreads, but you also included high spreads into it which was already not great at the time which you can find back in the thread or related. You probably forgot about that discussion we had somewhere late last year. The only thing I could do is provide liquidity at lower spreads myself, which I regularly do.
My next proposal, if feasible to me, will indeed have a lower offset, probably more like 0.005 and will make a specific statement about overriding your motion. Time is working against me at the moment though as priority is with increasing demand of NuBits.
Just for Poloniex and up to 5k for Bittrex
Be careful going down that low on spread, offset should not be lower than deviation. Your LPs might start trading with each other unintentionally during volatile times. That’s kinda where the minimums came from, practical lower limits.
So what do you want nupool to do? Your feed has effective veto over nupool operations.