This is the thread in order to make available the details about the passive Nubot gateway in Poloniex and to report the status and other information.
A level 3 account is created in Poloniex connected with my main account and secured by 2FA.
The Poloniex addresses that FLOT may use to send funds are:
The API credentials are âcan tradeâ only, right? This is rather important.
The config you pasted is rather outdated. I could enable the parametric order book again, etc.
This assumes a Nu wallet in server mode is running on the same machine.
But I think that part of the setup is already complete, right?
This is a requirement to use the stream server as far as I understand it. There might be more than one custodian running NuBot on the same exchange and order collisions can be prevented using the stream server and "multiplecustodians":true,
You can choose whatever webport you like.
Are you sure that the stream server is working? Does your NuBot move orders, if the BTC price moves?
That was the issue that made me bypass the stream server: the orders didnât get movedâŚ
Have you tested it?
Make your account empty as soon as you have finished the testing (or note the funds you had there). This will make accounting much easier. I only had $5 or so from testing on the accounts (because of the minimum to have NuBot place orders).
Isnât better to lower the bookSellwall and bookSellMaxVolumeCumulative
in order to minimize the risk of funds after a nubot failure?
Considering that more nubots and ALPs exist in the field.
I am thinking of 500 and 2000.
not deleted walls due to NuBot failure can cost some percent
too small walls increase the risk for damaging Nuâs brand image
NuBot orders being filled means, the ALP before that failed.
Iâd rather have some more funds than $500 in that line of peg defence at 1% offset (or 1.6% SAF).
Thatâs why I ended up with $1,000 from ine NuBot at 0.9% offset and additional $1,500 at 1.0% offset from the other one.
So in total $2,500 have been (and are still until my NuBots take a break) at approximately 1% offset most of the time after 2016-01-23.
The NuBots ran remarkably stable.
Each time their orders were traded, they made Nu money from the offset.
That could compensate parts of the hedging risks.
So my conclusion is: more funds on T1.1!
The parametric order book will make adjacent orders even more expensive
The main risk i see is a power and internet outage (during sleeping, Murphyâs law)
The orders will remain and in a big BTC volatility, NUâs funds will take a hit!
This can be reduced with small walls and a lot of different nubots.
Even different nubots (from different IPs) managing the same account will reduce this risk (i just made a feature issue in bitbucket)
Thatâs the few percent I was speaking of. Not worth thinking about that for too long.
Even if you have in total $5,000 on orders on both sides and lose 1% or 2% of that by trading them too cheap, thatâs just $50 or $100.
During volatile times youâll likely lose more by being used for hedging if the NuBots are running properly.
So if the NuBots fail in such a time, it will be cheaper for Nu in terms of direct loss, although the peg might receive a dint.
The NBT already arrived on the account. Iâm waiting for the BTC to arrive as well and withdraw funds from my accounts to FLOT afterwards:
Sun Feb 7 17:06:52 UTC 2016
status of zoro dual side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 57.505,
"sell" : 5000.0
ninjaedit: that went fast:
Sun Feb 7 17:10:23 UTC 2016
status of zoro dual side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo -A 2
"BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo" : {
"buy" : 5312.125,
"sell" : 5000.0