[Nubot Gateway] Poloniex @zoro (sell offset:0.25% , buy offset:5% ) - stand by

I guess by trial and error. We don’t have a formula about it.

That might have caused confusion as aired by @MatthewLM

Well, i can change anything (T1,T2,spread) whenever you guys tell me so.

I can’t risk all our buy side vanishing in a flash.

I vote T1 to be placed at 1% spread, but only if T2 has equal fund as T1, and FLOT will decide when T2 is promted to T1 after observation.

If all fund has to be in T1, half of the initial fund should be placed at 5% offset.

T2 becomes T1 automatically as T1 vanishes. We cannot control the flow of T2 --> T1.
Some days ago T1+T2 had 20 BTC. Now they have 10 BTC even ta 5% buy offset!
Imagine what will happen if we lower the spread!
We prefer to have no buy side at all than to have some at high offset?

ok, lets try something else
buy offset at 4% and more fnds in T1:

Order type Quantity (NBT) Price
SELL 2969.968635 0.00207127
SELL 1530.031365 0.00172263
SELL 1500 0.0017192
BUY 1000 0.00164297
BUY 1049.993905 0.00162584
BUY 1950.00609463 0.00128697

Thanks for the info.

I don’t want to imagine. I want to see. Data will speak.

So my vote is

T1 to be placed at 1% spread, and T2 has current ratio of fund with respect to T1.

We have seen this with ALPs already, at 0.5% buy offset :wink:
What it remains to be seen is an empty buy side.

The confusion I had was about the high reported tier 1 liquidity. Tier 1 liquidity as I understand it should be on the order books.

As I understand the reported liquidity, if that is what you referred to, has been a dodgy issue. All grant addresses can report liquidity even it’s not used for liquidity provision. Right @masterOfDisaster ?

I did a bit of digging: What is going on with Poloniex?

I’m not well informed about how liquidity is reported, so this is involving a bit of guess work from me.

As long as they have been granted in the last 6 months or rather x blocks, where x should be approximately 260,000.
That’s the reason why I wanted to make FLOT (or another group) pay for expenses rather than making grants.

The other vote came from me. I believe this is wrong, but we need to test to find out.
@cryptog, @Dhume, @dysconnect, @ttutdxh, @woodstockmerkle, what’s your opinion on that matter?

You’ve been asked before. Please vote.

An alternative proposal of @mhps is

As @JordanLee doesn’t like parametric order books (at NBT/BTC), we should put all BTC in one single order at a tight spread.

Total Bitcoin 8.96952798
On orders: 3.23739749
BTC value: 8.96952798

NBT NuBits 32740.93951743
On orders: 6000.00000000
BTC value: 54.75005387

sell offset at 0.25%
buy offset at 4%

FLOT members,
please don’t forget about below term in my dual gateway motion:
"End of operation:Operation is ceased by request of withdrawal of all funds or if operator sends all funds to FLOT multisig address(es). "
I would prefer if you want me to cease the gateway operation like that than to vote the despicable motion
that has the sole purpose to stigmatize community members!

I would prefer if you want me to cease the gateway operation like that than to vote the despicable motion that has the sole purpose to stigmatize community members!

That’s funny right there…

sorry, what exactly is funny?

Your wording of the situation. It is funny in the darkly comedic sense.

Yeah, you are right :slight_smile:
It is hilarious if you think that the gateway operators can be stopped by a simple request from FLOT
in an instance!
If the motion passes, then FLOT is incompetent too because they fail to stop the incompetent operators.
In fact, shareholders are also incompetent since they elected FLOT!
Very funny :smiley:

Conclusion: All humans are incompetent. I’d vote for that motion. :grin:

1 Like

Despicable me.

→ typical FLOT minions

1 Like