Sorry for the late response. As you probably know, we are busy to do some final polishing and tunning work to NuLagoon Tube.
@dysconnect has many valid points regarding the refund of fees and spreads. However, we would like to explain a little bit how we see it from our angle.
As an exchange, NuLagoon Tube does not have the obligation to balance its buy-sell walls.
As a LPC, NuLagoon Pools T3 have the obligation to balance NuLagoon Tube’s buy-sell walls.
NuLagoon Pools T3 does not have the obligation to balance itself from T4.
T4 Managers have the obligation to balance overall network liquidity, including T1 to T3.
So, balancing Tube could be treated as part of T4 managers’ jobs. It is reasonable that you pay some cost to fulfill your job.
We agree that FLOT could have the refund of half spreads. Because assuming NuLagoon Pools T3 buy some NBT from T4, we will accept the price at $1, however, we don’t think it is reasonable to ask T3 to buy NBT at a premium price, such as $1.002
Regarding transaction fee, because we invest a lot of resource to invent and run the service, it is reasonable to have some revenue by collecting tx fees.
NuLagoon Tube creatively provides a better way for FLOT operations but won’t increase its cost.
Minimun time cost and risk. Fund could come back in minutes.
Minimun exchange default risk. NuLagoon Tube is backed by NuLagoon Pools, which has part of asset stored offline. Moreover, the monthly custodian fee could be treated as a form of collateral as well.
Minimun BTC volitilaty risk, the price is fixed at the moment TubeIn tx is seen.
Is that make sense? Could we agree on that NuLagoon Tube refund half of the spread rate to FLOT in one or two months basis.
Thank you
I think below are the key discussions and motions around NuLagoon.
Things I am pondering:
1- does NuLagoon Tube “as a pool” fall under the scope of the motions below? i.e.: is NuLagoon as an LPC operating on the NuLagoon Tube “exchange” considered a pool operation
2- if so, does the self-governance of balancing between the exchanges apply as a function that NuLagoon must perform?
This will require more thought and discussion, for sure.
Thank you for posting the references.
Without much thought I’m inclined to perceive NuLagoon Tube as extra service for which an extra fee is required (I don’t see the capping apply here) if Nu wants to make use of it.
There’s no need for Nu to use it.
But the FLOT might consider it useful, as it provides Nu with a means to move funds from T4 to T3 (and not to T1/T2 like with the gateways!).
I welcome the offer to have a reduced fee for that.
I typed a bunch of stuff a couple of hours ago but somehow the draft was gone. Now I’m typing a bunch more but it will be less organized.
Balancing NuLagoon Tube is not our job, but balancing NuLagoon is. Even if we don’t support NuLagoon Tube, we still need to balance NuLagoon. NuLagoon has refused a manual trade with FLOT on the grounds that a purchase can be made on NuLagoon Tube instead, which of course at that time would have costed 0.6%.
There are are times that NuLagoon Tube needs to buy liquidity from Nu, and there are times where Nu wants to help rebalancing NuLagoon. These tend to coincide a lot.
On one hand, if NuLagoon Tube can thrive and even become a market maker, anything we sell you will be resold for a profit, and Nu has no reason to sell cheap liquidity. On the other hand, if NuLagoon is unhealthy it poses a risk to Nu, but that job is already paid for by your management fee. If trading on NuLagoon Tube is to become an integral part of balancing NuLagoon, I have to point out that your business model is already subsidized by Nu.
For example, any BTC sitting on your exchange is supported by liquidity interests. That’s a few thousand NBT invested per month. This is unless you use BTC out of your own pocket, where you get hit by volatility, or invest a lot more and become a generic exchange that accepts traders’ funds. There’s no reason for Nu to pay to refill that BTC.
I also need to point out that NuLagoon Tube has probably diverted funds from Poloniex. It certainly causes some trouble for FLOT and some T3 people, but both FLOT and shareholders would accept that because it’s good for Nu in the long term. I hope all parties can keep proceeding with good will.
I might personally begrudgingly accept that remaining 0.2% until B&C Exchange rolls out; it probably costs lower than $100 a month for a few more months, not even out of my own pocket. On that regard it’s not worth our time to argue for. However, it is a very important precedent to our power balance with parties such as B&C Exchange in the future. Even if we can do it now, we must not do it forever.
Exactly.
NuLagoon Pools (A,C,D) is a service for NuShareholders and be paid by NuShareholders.
NuLagoon Tube is a service for NBT/BTC traders and be paid by NBT/BTC traders.
That’s not completely true. The option of manual trading with FLOT is still open, only this option brings much cost and risk to us. Most of time, we can’t respond to the request in time.
Although Nu has some historial record of selling NBT at price below $1, we definitely second this, NBT should be sold exactly at $1, not $0.998 nor $1.002.
Very true. All of us should focus on how to work together to offer better Nu services to attract more NBT users.
Tried to broadcast it, but I’m not sure whether that worked. Got no feedback from nud.
We will need to check the block explorer.
This address really belongs to the sell side gateway. That is no abuse, but intended use
Regarding abuse: I started the buy side gateway once more in “sell side mode” as there are still approximately 2,000 NBT to have a buffer until the 20,000 NBT arrive.
Redacted some content that would lead to confusion.
update: the funds on the (ab)used buy side gateway are gone. We need a deposit to the sell side gateway soon…
update2: Just in case it might be required (if the buy side should run dry) I started the buy side gateway in normal (buy side gateway) mode as I’ll be away, like I said…
Can’t let the two gateways run simultaneously - they consume too much RAM together with nud. Sorry.
I’m more concerned about the buy side. The buy side gateway can’t run simultaneously due to lack of RAM and I have no time to move it to another device…
Let’s hope that the buy side survives for some hours…
You can check the liquidity with
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
"BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
"buy" : 23579.79,
"sell" : 10963.0
Remember that the buy side funds on the sell side gateway won’t be put on order! It’s a gateway. You can just check whether there are still sell side funds left (9,000 of the 20,000 that were deposited have already been traded)!
See you later - hopefully with an intact peg!
Done. That might unnecessarily have pinged dysconnect, but was for the greater good
Maybe these threads dealing with FLOT liquidity operations (NBT, BTC, NSR related etc.) should have an OP in wiki mode.
Can some admin do that, please?
