I think other questions are the degree of asymmetry, the period of time this asymmetry persists and the trend (does the asymmetry increase or might it bounce back).
As we don’t have agreed thresholds, we are bound to our discretion.
Would you say in the current situation a withdrawal of 10,000 NBT from @zoro’s gateway account at Poloniex to FLOT NBT makes sense (I do)?
After FLOT agreed and zoro withdrew the funds, FLOT should deposit BTC to zoro’s account.
Can’t FLOT members run a bot, like NuBot, that signs for them in certain extreme circumstances? If the bot is open source and all FLOT members understand exactly what code they are running on their computer using their security protocols, can’t they trust their own automated signatures?
My concern is the creation of a barrier between an automated signing and a manual signing. It opens us up to a lot of balance sheet attacks and polarizing politics.
Because the other liquidity operations apparently have at times proven unreliable, I think these bots should be kept balanced to some degree independently of the rest of the situation.
My bot is buy side heavy and after balancing zoro’s bot, it will be buy side heavy as well.
This bot imbalance is necessary to (partially) balance the rest of the network:
Signing requires a broadcasting medium. Which can be Bitmessage or Github if we’re desperate, or a centralized webserver, or everyone having their own server. It’s technically easy but not resource-friendly enough for FLOT. In the long term the infrastructure should ideally be distributed so we may be looking at something like dapps, or natively built into Nu, which may be feasible if we merge some parts of BCE in the future.
Yeah right, writing on mobile phone makes copy&paste not as convenient as c&p on a regular computer.
And writing values manually is error prone.
We need more automation!
I’ll adjust it…