and someone set a buy-side?
i would be interested for an answer in this 
This is not a buy-side draft. I would be less comfortable in that situation for reasons I find hard to put into words.
This was originally a grant proposal for 10k nbt. I changed it because I realized that shareholders do not want to give me funds 2 weeks after they decide they want them. And what happens when I run out? And the risk of me stealing, it would be better to start me off with small amounts first and develop trust.
I will be providing an address that T4 signers can send nbt to that will put them up on poloniex, convert them to btc, and send them back to T4. This is a direct T1 strategy (I only make profit off the orders that are actually placed), skipping T3. A T3 solution would be like @zoro has been doing, which I greatly applaud, where acting as a third party allows Nu to get rid of risk the moment @zoro sends T4 the btc at the start of the transaction. In this motion I will be acting as a trusted hand of Nu and take on little personal risk, hence the need for a shareholder vote.
Think about the liability (not the default risk of me stealing funds). If the network turns around and someone starts massively selling off nbt, what happens to me? Well, hopefully I cease operations immediately. However, I could end up running for another 30 days on the nbt I have before the motion forces me to stop. This is the loophole that worries me, personally.
I raised the weekly limit to $25k. This is the maximum number of nbt that T4 should send me per week.
My understanding
Please allow me a few more comments, because people seem to wonder about this proposal. I might be off, but @Nagalim can correct that.
In normal times, doing a grant could be the way to go.
Normal times mean there’s enough time for the grant to pass.
But these are extraordinary times with a suddenly surged demand for NBT. FSRT was created to deal with that.
Soon the FLOT will be ready and will have some discretion for making decisions regarding liquidity managagement.
As it happens, the FLOT is not ready yet and for that reason this motion was created to put the decision in the hands of NSR holders - this motion allows ongoing NBT distribution without having a grant pass each week!
That’s one of the important aspects of it.
Everything works as designed
Forecast
Grants with similar terms like this motion need to be a part of the liquidity portfolio to save the FLOT and FSRT from being regularly involved in liquidity operations. They are a line of defense if there’s extraordinary need.
That seems to be similar to the not so decentralized liquidity operations Nu initially had with @KTm and @jmiller operating bots on the exchanges and offering buy and sell side liquidity.
The big difference is that this is a motion to inject NBT into the market and put the proceeds in the hands of Nu, but not to put the proceeds on buy side.
The liquidity operations on T1-2 stay as they are: Nu incentivizes liquidity providers by compensating them for their effort and risk providing buy and sell side funds.
This type of motion allows injecting funds from higher tiers (here T4, but T6 is possible as well) into the lower tiers.
Similar motions/grants for the buy side could be made to deal with the need to contract NBT supply.
Having a buy side and sell side operation at the same time, siphons both NBT and BTC from T1. Depending on which side runs dry earlier, it’s clear whether NBT supply is expanding or contracting and which grant needs to be renewed.
The cost for not deciding whether to run only buy side or sell side is that additional costs for exchange fees and tx fees need to be paid as well as the exchange default that is extended to more funds (two sides instead of just one).
I would advocate to have buy and sell side operations at the same time, because that saves the FLOT or FSRT a lot of work.
If the FLOT/FSRT were required regularly (and not only in extraordinary times), the compensation the members of these teams request are likely to be higher than the exchange and tx fees.
in case of emergency, like this that we currently have in sell side of poloniex,
FLOT or FSRT should be the LP to provide NBT asap in the market!
i like this motion but it is very very slow as procedure!
I don’t understand how this isn’t exactly that step, where FLOT or FSRT is bringing NBT to market directly. The only difference between that and this is that I am not a member of FLOT. If I were a member of FLOT, would you suddenly think this is a much faster proposal somehow?
i mean, you cannot provide NBT immediately (right now) in the market. you have to wait for the vote and this could take days!
if motion is passed we don’t even know if sell side would be empty or full.
My question,
is there a way to fill the polo sell side immediately?
it seems LPs don’t want or cannot help in this!
Oh, yah, you’re right about that. There’s very little we as shareholders can do without voting.
I rephrased this motion to apply for all future events. This motion will not need to be passed again if there is an emergency, it can be called upon again as needed.
1 Like
I don’t recognize a direct violation of the operation terms of the FSRT if they hand over funds to people who sell them. They might be no elected custodians, but that should be possible due to the discretion of the FSRT. If an FSRT member had a Poloniex account he/she could do the same.
So I wonder whether this motion is required at all.
The peg is in danger, FSRT needs to and is willing to act.
If there’s not enough people having BTC to trade them directly for NBT, trusting them with NBT might be the only way.
Requesting a collateral from them could be an option, but the lack of an FLOT with multisg capabilities might shy away some people who’d basically be willing to sell NBT on behalf of Nu.
I for one can check my withdraw limit at Polniex. I could offer selling NBT at Poloniex and return the BTC proceeds to the T4 buy side.
As far as I understand the configuration parameters, NuBot can be adjusted to only maintain a sell wall. I’d use NuBot in this case. @desrever can you please confirm that?
This requires some trust in my person, because I don’t have the BTC to trade BTC for NBT directly.
The benefit of having different community members doing this is that the risk is spread over different people.
On the other hand it requires some accounting.
I have no other idea how to bring a big amount of NBT to market in a short period of time while keeping the risk for Nu significantly lower.
The motion would not be required if I weren’t proposing to take the ALP reward.
If @FSRT wants me to perform the above service without contract and thinks it doesn’t violate their terms, I would be plenty willing to start doing this tonight.
The ALP reward could be interpreted as compensation for your efforts
I should have thought about that as well, because using NuBot provides me with no compensation and leaves me with work - assuming the FSRT considers using my offer.
As I don’t know how to disable the buy side of the ALP bot, I thought about using NuBot.
I bet asking for a compensation afterwards (depending on the required efforts) would be no shame 
Using NuBot has one benefit: the FSRT or the community can monitor the broadcast liquidity and the FSRT can refill NBT on the Poloniex account by sending them to the deposit address. NuBot uses those funds soon after they arrive
…assuming there’s a custodian address to broadcast liquidity information you could create a kind of entry gateway.
The ALP also submits liquidity.
Anyway, I prefer to do it my way. I’ll set up the bot and account, hash the motion, and tell FSRT and JL my deposit address. They can figure it out from there.
My intention was not to change your motion, but to speed up the process and motivate others to do something similar like you are going to do
The bot is currently functional at this address:
BQCBzjyLXwJ12TAAmd4vGRcSpzQNAyAW2v
I have not been given any instructions by T4 signers at this point in any way regarding this address, aside from the open discourse shown here.
How does this work with the $2,000 per day limit you mentioned you’re restricted to? It implies a $14,000 per week withdrawal limit, doesn’t it?
I’m actually not happy with this hash and will most likely alter it. The $25k is even if I use multiple exchange accounts or higher withdrawal tiers, also it could wind up with me withdrawing for several weeks after the sales have calmed down. Anyway, I want to change the wording a bunch.
Poloniex will shut down accounts if it suspects they are owned by one person and not linked together. The exchange strictly follows KYC compliance regulations. Shareholder funds should not be put at risk by attempting it. Higher withdrawal authorizations would be great though.
I removed the hash and rewrote the motion to be general. More comments are needed.
There’s still a vast sense of ‘why’ about the whole thing. But then, if people weren’t promised a straightforward compensation scheme, would they go to the trouble of setting up the bot?
Is the linking straight forward? It’s a good idea to have separate accounts for private money and business money. In some part of the world mixing these two will get one into trouble. It might be needed for Nu to explicitely allow it.
Yep, just set "dualside": false