I’m still hesitant because it is a lot to one person…I understand the service provided. But still seems counter to how all liquidity is being handled.
The idea is to give a good bang for the first month at cryptsy. No matter what, dhume is one person who wants to provide 15k at 10%, we should accommodate that. What’s more, dhume is willing to set up a whole pool to aid in decentralization.
@nmei is your objection the centralized first month, or nustream in general? I agree that the initial custodial grant dhume is talking about is bigger than how most of the other pools started out, but cryptsy is a big exchange and we want to make a big impression.
The risk-concious part in me worries what if adverse condition develops and it turns into a bad bang as @Dhume, apparently not familiar with liquidity provision as a pool-runner yet, has to shoulder it both technically and financially by him/herself.
The only big technical concern in this first month is nubot, which is a straightforward implementation as far as I understand.
The other option would be for dhume to continue with funds in the other liquidity pools while setting up the one on cryptsy and to start out with a small target and increase each term. The downside here is that we may see a broken peg on cryptsy until nustream comes up to speed.
Seeing as the fee is paid after my service has been completed I don’t see how this is a risk for Nushareholders?
We don’t want to lose you when say a series high profile double spendings occur in the QT-XT fork and BTC price dives. Then some medium sized traders on Cryptsy come in and in a few transactions bought all your sell side NBT at 240. When things crash and burn for a while they sell into your buy wall, which has all your funds in it, at 150, just before the BTC core team nuke the offending chain into oblivion. BTC price bounces back and you and Nu’s high profile peg are 40% in the red.
When the last time similar situation happened, facing shareholders inquiries, LPC’s argument boiled down to why don’t you try it?.
The shareholders have been brushing off this systemic risk and hang Nu’s fate on BTC prices by providing most liquidity in the risky nbt/btc pair. It’s not all your or LPCs’ problem. We are all stakeholders on the same boat. Deep liquidity seems particularly profitable to hedge against on an exchange full of whales.
The question is: when will Nu begin to focus on the trading pair it really promises a peg: NBT/USD?
That would reduce the compensation by the volatility/hedging aspect and provide Nu with cheaper and the liquidity provider with less risky operation.
Traders who want to move BTC to NBT still can do that utilizing the BTC/USD pair.
For how much longer shall Nu pay for traders’ comfort by supporting NBT/BTC?
If the shareholders are willing to stomach losing $120k value in a few months with nbt/crypto pairs, why not use 1% of that amount every month to make the interest for nbt/fiat pairs the same as nbt/btc pairs, which I think is enough to equalize the liquidity distribution between nbt/btc and nbt/fiat. @Cybnate
I’m all for adding more support for NBT/USD, but how does removing support for NBT/BTC mesh with @JordanLee’s plan of turning NuBits into an intermediary currency that provides the best liquidity for every coin on every exchange? Embracing this intermediary role and creating the necessary amount of liquidity, credibility and trust was the first step he saw in our path toward driving mainstream adoption…
Those quotes were made in mid December last year before Nu lost heavily in exchange hacks and BTC price fluctuations. Much has changed then. Jordan’s vision might still hold valid, but the path to them is perhaps far from a straight one. Since then B&C has been created to address the exchange hack problem but I don’t see the volatility problem has been effectively tackled.
The NuBot development roadmap mentions futures market integration. Would automating something like this help?
If anything, I believe as a shareholder we should lower the BTC/NBT rate instead to say 0.25%. We are still paying a premium rate, but I recognise the market is still immature and/or still perceived risky. We are missing the number of participants, so it is too early. In 2 weeks time the NuDroid / NuBits ad goes up again. So hopefully that attracts more users/competition.
- 10% is not that higher than the 9% asked by pools. So I would not have any problem with the 1500 NBT requested for the first month.
- i think balancing the sell/buy sides from time to time would be preferable. Would it be possible to add an element about that?
- after the motion is passed, within how many days would you start the operations?
I am not against Nustream. We need to be on Cryptsy now.
I’m against granting someone a corner of the liquidity market on that exchange.
So what’s the consensus now?
Let’s see if nbt/usd on CCEDK can reach and stay at the 5000 target at 0.2% perday. It’s a lower-limit for nbt/btc rate.
I’d like to see the wording of the grant (you will need a custodial grant address to submit liquidity, so at least 1 NBT). Ultimately, you need to write your contract yourself, but i personally liked the 30 days private then tllp.
If there is a private nubot on an exchange, can there be a tllp on pybot on the same exchange without a lot of coordination between the operators of these bots?
I would support this too. We’re looking forward to having a reliable liquidity provider on Cryptsy, so write up a motion using the feedback you’ve received here and let’s see how the vote goes.
There can even be multiple tllps on the same exchange if all the participants agree to play fair and not try to get double counted. Theoretically, there is no way for the tllp to prevent the pybot user from getting credited in the tllp as well. Practically, this is not an issue if we trust our pybot providers.
For example, both NuLagoon and NuPool operate on poloniex.