As discussed in Nbt on cryptsy here is my proposal for a liquidity pool on Cryptsy. To stay in line with the water related theme names for liquidity pools I thought I’d call the pool Nustream. The pool will start out as a single custodian liquidity pool wherein the operator @Dhume will provide all of the liquidity with his own funds. Targeted liquidity for the first 30 days is going to be 15000 split into 7500 on the buy side and 7500 on the sell side. The pair being supported will be the NBT/BTC pair. The fees for this liquidity provision paid for by shareholders will be 10% for 30 days which is also the running time of the pool. Operator @Dhume will make a conscience effort to manually balance buy/sell side walls in case they get out of balance due to buy/sell pressure.
Fees will amount to 10% x 15000 = 1500 for 30 days. This mean custodial fee requested will be 1500 Nubit for a liquidity provision of 15000 for 30 days. Custodial fee is to be paid at the end of the operating period, after services have been provided.
As Nubot/pybot are not yet ready to be deployed on Cryptsy yet pool operations will begin when @Willy, @woolly_sammoth and @desrever have had the opportunity to write the necessary wrapper needed for the bot to be functional on Cryptsy. In the meantime I will setup the Cryptsy account and accredit it with the necessary funds. Making sure operations can start the moment the bot is ready.
Update: Due to the efforts by the amazing bot tech team stated above, the bot should be ready for deployment on Cryptsy. I will run the bot tomorrow and if all is well operations can start immediately. If the bot runs well tomorrow I will update this topic to a motion to be voted for. First day of operation will be when this motion is passed.
After roughly 3 weeks a new draft proposal combined with accounting data from previous operation will be posted on the forum and request for payment will be made. If there is a strong desire for changes to for example pool size, or internal operations they can be posted in the upcoming topic.
After the first operating period aka 30 days it is my goal to change the pool to a TLLP comparable to Nupool and similar pools where participants can earn up to 9% interest a month. If more liquidity is offered then the pool size participants will have to compete with each other in which the participants satisfied with the lowest interest get priority. If shareholders agree with this direction I will register the domain: nustream.org when this motions passes and get a website live hopefully before the second operating period is over and start marketing the pool at various crypto related forums.
This makes for the following timeline:
-First operating period (30 days) it will be a single custodian pool as described above
-Second operating period (30 days after the first period) it will be a TLLP without website or marketing
-Third operating period a website (nustream.org) will be live comparable to nupool website and I will market the pool on various crypto related forums.
Disclaimer: Above is all under the assumptions I can get the technicalities working, but support so far deems me to believe there is no reason to assume there are insurmountable obstacles to adhere to above timeline.
message @assistant with “help” and he will tell you nice things.
Back to topic:
I don’t really get why you make a pool for a single custodian ship? Paying a pool fee (150 NBT) plus interest (1350) for one single person doesn’t seem fair to me if no one else is supposed to join the pool.
Maybe I’m overlooking something here.
Reading your proposal, I think a single custodianship might be more ideal for the first 30,60 or 90 day term. You could just run NuBot, save the hassle with TLLP and still get 9% per month as reward.
If you want your pool fee, make it a real pool and allow others to join ;). This also drives competition and gives Nu the opportunity to get a rate under 9% per month.
The interest is compensation for the liquidity provided the pool fee is compensation for the operators time, server and continued support. I’d be checking the bot every few hours daily to make sure its running correctly. From my experience with pybot it needs to be restarted every now and then due to it starting to generate errors. From what I gathered comparing with other pools the liquidity I provide including operators fee is actually on par or cheaper than existing pools.
nubot is a much lighter weight software than pybot. Pool operator fees are reserved for people that have to deal with customer service, branding, marketing, etc. in addition to a more complicated liquidity provision software.
I think 150 Nubit a month is not a high fee for my services and server. Without an operator fee there essentially is no incentive for me to setup a new pool over just leaving funds in the TLLP they are in now. Aside from that to guarantee 24/7 uptime I will need to check the pool regularly say every 2/3 hours to make sure its running doing this daily is going to cost me considerable time every month
All the money is going to you, the cost is 1550 for 1 month of 15k (10.33%), no matter how you break it down.
Why do you need to check the bot that often? If you’re thinking about how often a Pybot restart is needed, firstly that can (and has been) automated and secondly Nubot should not need a restart anywhere near that often (though I’ve never used Nubot personally).
The incentive for you to run your own private liquidity is that you are awarded the full amount as long as you provide the liquidity, no matter how much competition there is on other tllp pools.
I think you’ll find the most labor-intensive thing you’ll have to do on this pair is to balance your funds occasionally using the pool on polo and other exchanges. I’m expecting cryptsy to act irrational in this first month (the mentality of NBT = $1 has not yet been established on cryptsy).
Will
coordinate with @woolly_sammoth to see when can we get something out.
[/quote]
Thanks
[quote=“Nagalim,
post:7, topic:2510, full:true”]
All the money is going to you, the cost is 1550 for 1 month of 15k (10.33%), no
matter how you break it down.[/quote]
1500 so 10%
[quote]
Why do you need to check the bot that often? If you’re thinking about how often a Pybot restart is needed, firstly that can (and has been) automated and secondly Nubot should not need a restart anywhere near that often (though I’ve never used Nubot personally).[/quote]
How can I guarantee liquidity 24/7 if I’m not checking regularly? Say I check once every 2 days and the bot go’s down that means liquidity provision would be down for 2 days as well.
[quote]The incentive for you to run your own private liquidity is that you are
awarded the full amount as long as you provide the liquidity, no matter how
much competition there is on other tllp pools.[/quote]
With the amount of pools and current liquidity offering it’s not that hard to get roughly the same if you spread funds on multiple pools (which is what I’ve been doing at the moment), the difference is however that you have a diminished risk of exchange defaults since not all the funds are on 1 exchange.
However as a goodwill gesture I will update my proposal to have fees be paid at the end of the operating period after services have been provided.
I appreciate your gusto. But I think it should be an open pool. I’d be more than willing to give you the custodial fees. But not the liquidity on top of it. Open it up to “competition”, supply your money as you would and then you get what you get. Just my opinion.
If you phrased it as 10% on 15000 liquidity for a month with 0 operator fee, I would be much more likely to vote for it than the current phrasing of 9%+1%.
I think it would be great to get some solid liquidity up on cryptsy right from the start and so would be happy to see you running nubot. I would like to also express my hope that as you get more comfortable with the server and cryptsy gets more use out of nbt, you will promote your server to tllp and accept competition in a full pool. At that point you can surely ask for an operator fee.
10% is fine, though I expect you will have to decrease the reward in future grants if the tllps start lowering rates as nulagoon does.
Through TLLP Nu has had this infrastructure that allows liquidity funds to compete with each other to provide liquidity at the lowest fee (within the target amount of liquidity asked by the TLLP operator in the proposal). As @nmei suggested you could be an LPC in your pool open to other LPCs, Nu shareholders may not be very willing to give up competition, decentralization, and give you an exclusive LPCship on Cryptsy.
I have read your concerns and updated my draft. The intent is for the pool to change into a TLLP after 3 operating periods aka 90 days. I hope I have satisfied everyone’s concerns with the new draft. Let me know what you think.
Single custodian is a lot easier to setup, running a TLLP would require a site, marketing, configuration of pybot etcetc. Single custodian can be up as fast as Nubot is adapted for Cryptsy.
Just run the server and the people will come.
There is barely any marketing for TLLPs at the moment. True, some pairs could use more attention, but I think the Cryptsy pairs will be a no-brainer.
Setting up the server is not very hard. Securing the server takes most of the time, but this is standard admin work, so if you’re familiar with that, it won’t take you longer than 30 minutes.
Honestly, I’m not against dhume starting as a single user. I’ve had experience setting up a tllp and it can be frusterating and demoralizing releasing an unrefined service. In my opinion, we should let dhume provide without a pool while branding, website, server and so on are developed.
Sure those things take time, but 90 days? We’re talking about the end of November / the beginning of December (depending on when this motion passes) here. That feels a bit long, especially if you compare how fast the three established pools were moving.
NuPool started on April 10.
Okay, we had about a week to plan the launch beforehand, but had to figure all the stuff you mentioned (mainly logo, website, something similar to marketing) out by ourself.
If I add 90 days to that starting time, I reach July 9 2015. That means, assuming the proposed time frames in this thread, we would be operational for about 5 weeks now.
Also, we currently account liquidity provision in 30 day terms around here, even for stable projects. I don’t know why it’s that number, but that’s what we currently do.
Btw, what do you consider “branding” for a tllp? Getting a logo?
Good points. I’m thinking about how it took nupond ~3 terms to get fully up and running with a logo and website and everything. However, a large portion of that was basically things that couldn’t be done before the service started (such as getting bter to add cny and making a new server specifically for that conversion). I agree that dhume could probably get up and running in something like 30 days.
@dhume would you consider getting paid 1500 nbt for 30 days of dual side support (no need to specify per day, this is a best efforts operation) then converting to tllp at the end of the 30 days? The first nustream grant could just be for a server that is rewarding participants properly. Then, the second term (>60 days from now) could include a website and a logo or whatever.
