Nbt on cryptsy

willy 2015-08-15 04:33:20 UTC #11

It’s basically that. Given the recent re-proposals, charging 1-3% of the total liquidity as pool fee has a good chance of getting shareholders vote.

Your intermediate liquidity provision sounds very risky to me, despite the spread being relatively high. Any bigger Bitcoin price swing could result in serious losses for you, if you don’t monitor the charts 24/7 (which I assume you will not.)

Cryptsy is a big player in terms of volume and thus quite important, so I hope that woolly or desrever will come up with a wrapper quickly. cough cough

Dhume 2015-08-15 04:36:20 UTC #12

I understand it’s risky, luckily starting tomorrow I have a few days off so I could monitor Bitcoin even more closely then I’d do normally. Assuming this temporary solution is only for a few days and shareholders are eager to get liquidity provision on Cryptsy I’d be willing to do it.

Nagalim 2015-08-15 04:45:01 UTC #13

If you ran it as a tllp and just filled up your own pools, I’d be happy with the pool fee. If you’re just running a personal nubot, I think you’ll find shareholders won’t want to pay the same premium as for decentralized liquidity.

Dhume 2015-08-15 04:57:29 UTC #14

Contrary to decentralized pool I could guarantee the size of the liquidity 24/7, that combined with the cost of operating it (which wont requires tons of time but I’d be required to check the pool continually throughout every day) justifies the operating fee i’d think.

mhps 2015-08-15 05:15:29 UTC #15

You haven’t said which pair to support. Cryptsy has fiat so you could support NBT/USD and/or NBT/BTC. They have greatly different risks. With NBT/USD the pool only faces exchange default risk, which I think is small for Cryptsy.

Nu only has one exchange offering NBT/USD peg, so I strongly suggest you support this pair. To enable USD account one has to go extra KYC/AML steps on Cryptsy, however. That justifies part of the pool reward to liquidity providers.

NBT/BTC is perhaps what you are having in mind. You can get a draft custodial vote going and invite comments while the dev team work on the bot.

Nagalim 2015-08-15 05:22:21 UTC #16

There is a USD pair! Awesome. Maybe we could have @dhume do nbt/btc and we can run a separate tllp on nbt/USD.

mhps 2015-08-15 05:37:32 UTC #17

Condering that the US, where Cryptsy is based, often has negative or at least unclear policies to cryptos and has a record of prosecuting individual small fishes (ala file sharing cases), it might be a good idea to separate the fiat pool with the crypto pool.

tomjoad 2015-08-15 06:11:43 UTC #18

I’ve been petitioning their wallet manager Nicholas for months to add NuBits. It’s great to see them finally add NBT. I’ll add them to the exchanges page on nubits.com in a few hours.

tomjoad 2015-08-15 06:13:53 UTC #19

Oh, and I just noticed they support a NBT/USD pair! This is huge. Whoever operates on it will likely find a lot of shareholder support for that pair if they choose to operate on it.

willy 2015-08-15 06:16:19 UTC #20

Mh. I just saw that you’ve added SouthExchange to the site as well.

It feels a bit weird to me to advertise for pairs where no peg is established (yet). Can we at least add a note on the site to make customers aware that their nu-experience might not be 100% perfect?

tomjoad 2015-08-15 06:19:49 UTC #21

Perhaps we can wait a day or two? I would expect that arbitrage opportunities should establish a $1.00 peg very quickly even in the absence of liquidity pool support.

masterOfDisaster 2015-08-15 06:32:51 UTC #22

Good idea!
We already have exchanges listed there which have no liquidity from Nu (alts.trade, Allcoin, Shapeshift, SouthXchange).
I think this remark is necessary for all of these to make users aware of that and to save them from falling victim to heavy arbitrage by not checking exchange rates.

Dhume 2015-08-15 07:08:23 UTC #23

I will post a draft proposal later today, my preferance would be to do the NBT/BTC pair since I am not up to speed on US crypto regulations regarding crypto fiat pairs. I do urge everyone to discuss their preferances and reasoning here in this topic which I will take into account in my proposal.

willy 2015-08-15 07:12:19 UTC #24

So… what did you decide for? Single custodian or tllp?

Dhume 2015-08-15 07:17:27 UTC #25

Single custodian, with my own funds (I believe in the past there were single custodians using Nubit grants instead of own funds?) to start with. Incase volume is high and more liquidity is required I could add additional funds or change the pool to a tllp.

Nagalim 2015-08-15 07:18:04 UTC #26

I think we’re settling on single custodian (dhume) on btc and hoping someone will step up and operate a tllp on the usd pair. It would be fun to show cryptsy customers that Nu can be both centralized and decentralized.

willy 2015-08-15 07:22:48 UTC #27

Yes. Ktm and jmiller were custodians with NuBits grants I think.

What pool would you change to a trustless liquidity pool?

As I mentioned before, I would also like to see a fourth liquidity pool on that pair. Any volunteers?

Sentinelrv 2015-08-15 07:23:00 UTC #28

@tomjoad, you said you’ve been in contact with them. Is there any way we can ensure that they properly setup Nu on their exchange? Remember the problems we had with CCEDK and not making sure they read our docs and set it up correctly. I just want to avoid any similar problem.

zoro 2015-08-15 08:15:59 UTC #29

perhaps nu lagoon can operate the usd/nbt pair? i wish

Dhume 2015-08-15 15:40:08 UTC #30

[quote=“willy,
post:27, topic:2506, full:true”]
What pool would you change to a trustless liquidity pool? [/quote]

The pool I am setting up now, for example say there is a ton of volume on cryptsy and 15000 liquidity is not enough, then we’d need more. I could up my pool to 20k but if that is still not enough I could change the pool to an tllp and fill it with my own funds and external funds to generate additional liquidity.