Is this [Decommissioned] PyBot passive gateway on Poloniex and on Bittrex its current status? So if you have nubits on the sell side with say 0.6% SAF on both sides, then traders could buy the sell side with 0.3%+fee and sell it back from the gateway’s buy side with 0.3%+fee?
Is it unfunded? All you need is FLOT to fund it?
I don’t know if the pool motion approved prohibits such change of spread. As all LPs can freely set his/her own minimum offset, I suppose lowering pool spread doesn’t force anyone to trade at a lower spread. Only those who don’'t care will get lowered.
But the uncertain amount of liquidity at different spread makes the experiment environment messy and difficult to interpret the result. It’s better to have a dedicated pool or gateway. @Cybnate’s gateway seems to be ideal.
Had about 2000 NBT volume in last 24h at current spread (1.4%) on my Pybot gateway on Poloniex. That is encouraging. I’m prepared to seek the margins of the motion the gateways are running under and reduce the spread with the transaction fees for the experiment. With average fee of 0.2% on bot sides, the effective margin will be 1%. The Pybot can’t work with uneven buy and sell side.
I recommend just start with the 1.4% to test the waters. When BTC buy side liquidity is gone within hours, than I’m not sure whether it is worth to reduce the spreads even further at this stage. I believe Jordan’s comments re tight peg reflect a normal situation where decent reserves are available, not really what we are in now.
What about the equivalent of about 2000 NBT to start with? If ok, I will withdraw 2000 NBT to FLOT to keep the balance of funds the same on Poloniex in order to keep the exchange risk the same.
Regardsless I will raise a motion which request more flexibility for the spreads of the PyBots.
Of course it’s worth it. I suggest start with all sell side and no buy side. Just observe. Take advantage of this singular opportunity.
Not sure what you are suggesting. There are 2000NBT on sell side at 0.7% offset (1.4% spread on pair). As said I’ve seen some volume (trading backward and forward in last 24h), but I doubt that will continue with BTC having upward pressures again. Reducing the sell side spread is unlikely to make a difference in BTC bull market.
So what holds FLOT back to use my Poloniex Pybot gateway to test the uptake at 1.4% spread levels?
Jordan asks for 1% spread and that is 0.5% offset on each side.
That is just opinions. We all have ours. What we have is Jordan thinks there will always be tradings going on and reducing spread to 1% attracts traders significantly. moD and you think the effect will be not or not very significant. We want data to tell whose view is closer to reality. So I am suggesting this experiment that has low spread. Your gateway can be a clean test bed although its volume isn’t up to big arbitrageur’s apetite. But still it’s worth a try.
Can you find out your trade volume with 1.4% spread in the last 24hr?
To look at it from another way , it’s now either that or do nothing.
1500 NBT sell and 1500 NBT buy in 5 transactions on Poloniex in last 36h.
Great. So that was from 2000 liquidity provided.
Correct. 2000 NBT placed on order. The rest, ~4500 NBT, is not on order as per the motion details.
Most weren’t asked.
How many FLOT members do you think is enough to authorize it. I know you have a new motion to add flexibility to set the spread. I try to start the test before btc moves again.
We don’t need a new motion at 1.4% spread as it is now, just a BTC transaction into my Poloniex account by FLOT. That motion is only to reduce the spread even further. So we can get started right now.
Yes we alread started to collect data. ( Maybe a new thread? ) but to reduce the spread to 1% which @JordanLee prescribed you’d need more authorization?
That’s not what I say, or try to say; the focus is wrong.
I say: the offset needs to be big enough to keep trading going on instead of just selling funds from one side.
Of course everybody is more interested to buy BTC at an offset of 0.5% opposed to 5%!
This is the important part!
I bet I could sell 31 BTC in less than an hour using NuLagoon Tube 
Technically I need the motion to pass. Not keen on violating contract with the Shareholders.
The best I can do is submit it for voting now and see whether it obtains more than 50% in the last 100 blocks in the next 24-48h hours. It likely requires all datafeed providers to add it. When that happens I’m ok with changing the bot spread to 1% and subject to FLOT before the motion passes.
If I understood it right @JordanLee said there is no way to predict price movement so there will always be trading going both directions. Traders who have small enough spread WILL keep trading going on.
High frequency traders profit on micro movements of markets. I think Jordan has a point but don’t know if it’s applicable here. Hence let’s test it.
…mosts didn’t reply, I’d say.
I don’t think that the current situation justifies paging them each time a postm might require their attention.
The liquidity provision is derailed at the moment.
That needs close attention.
You don’t need to predict it. Believing in a direction - that proved to be the right one - emptied all BTC on buy side some days ago.
Trading stalled, only the buy side was attractive.
I have my NuBot at 0.45% sell side offset most of the time. Didn’t sell many NBT…
I’d like to know how many trades @Cybnate’s gateways made between last Friday and yesterday and when in that time frame.
OK we can take more data of 1.4% spread in the mean time. Can we collect data this format every ~24 hr
date-time sell-side-liquidity buy-side-liquidity Num-of-buys vol-of buys num-of-sell vol-of-sell
p.s. when can [Passed] Changing Spread for Passive Dual-Side Pybot for Poloniex and Bittrex become voting?
Can @CoinGame please put these in a new thread "Experiment of trading volume at different spread using a gateway"
Current Liquidity to 1778
Current Liquidity to 1813
Current Liquidity
Current Liquidity to 1838
Current Liquidity to 1868
Current Liquidity to 1873
To get that data you need a properly executed experiment. See?