[Passed] 1% Maximum Spread for ALP/MLP, Above 1% Allowed for Nu Funded Liquidity Operations (e.g. Gateways)

[masterOfDisaster]

1- should Nu reward liquidity whose spread is >1% ?

The only operations at >1% spread (that broadcast liquidity) are NuOwned operations. Those receive no reward.They cost an operator fee and Nu needs to bear the risks, but a reward doesn’t get paid.

How can we make sure that T1.1 is our major liquidity product?Because if T1.2 becomes major, our product would decrease in liquidity and we would lose customers.

This is a philosophic question which can’t be answered in a scientific way.
The parametric order book is a great idea and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be applied to NBT/BTC.
The only trading pair at which I sincerely believe, T1.1 (at a tiny spread) should be the only rewarded liquidity is the NBT/USD pair.

All other trading pairs - including NBT/BTC! - have risks, which can be (at least partially) compensated by a parametric order book.

T1.1 as major liquidity product makes sense for NBT/USD.
I believe it’s dangerous to have a too tight spread at other pairs than NBT/USD.

Do we want to stay where we are, settle in being the means of hedging?
Do we want to focus on making hedging for traders convenient or do we rather want to advance Nu?

[zoro]

making hedging for traders convenient or do we rather want to advance Nu?

how can we achieve both?

[masterOfDisaster]

We already offer pretty nice liquidity.
I consider one part achieved

…at least if BTC doesn’t go haywire.

[crypto_coiner]

Currently at 2% support

[masterOfDisaster]

While Jordan’s proposal is at 26%.

If I couldn’t convince anybody in the last 5 months and the current events don’t open the eyes of shareholders, I can only concede my fight for the peg. I won’t waste my energy trying to fight for a peg at the NBT/BTC pair, if a spread above 1% isn’t allowed.
I don’t waste energy in fights that can’t be won.

I give up, if future NBT/BTC operations are forced at a spread <1%.
The peg can’t be guaranteed with these parameters.
This is madness.

[crypto_coiner]

I ll add this motion as soon as I can

[zoro]

If I couldn’t convince anybody

you only need the data feeders, 4 people?

[masterOfDisaster]

Bump.
No love for this motion?

This motion is the only one of the competing three that supports and prolongs the current operation model.
Poloniex would be with an empty buy side for a lot of hours, if not for @zoro’s NuBot that runs at an increased spread.
Operations like these will be forbidden in the future by @JordanLee’s and @Cybnate’s motion.

Do you prefer no peg at all to a slighly decreased peg?
If yes, keep ignoring this motion and vote for @JordanLee’s or @Cybnate’s (although her motion at least is a step into the right direction ;))

[Cybnate]

Operations like these will be forbidden in the future by @JordanLee’s

That is the real worry I share with you.

and @Cybnate’s motion.

That is incorrect, shameless plug follows, (MoD hope you forgive) 10% of the total liquidity (currently about 10k on either side) would be provided at this level in my motion.

[cryptog]

As a data feed provider, I have not made my mind yet but I will make a decision today.

I think there are 2 things that we need to do from a business perpsective.

• provide a lot of very good liquidity (tight spread <=1%)
• have a way to limit our costs (bleeding) to protect ourselves (some liquidity at low quality spread )

So in that sense, I think your motion or the motion made by @Nagalim or the motion made by @Cybnate are the most appropriate.

But there is one concern: there might be some chance that most of the liquidity is provided at a low quality spread.
We need to make sure that most of the liquidity is provided at a high quality peg.
This seems to be difficult to be specified in a motion.

[Cybnate]

We need to make sure that most of the liquidity is provided at a high quality peg.This seems to be difficult to be specified in a motion.

My motion is the only one providing percentages of high (60%), medium(30%) and low quality (10%) peg, although I have to admit the percentages are a bit arbitrary but I believe a good starting point lacking fundamentals to work with. Mostly based on the actual situation except that the high quality is not there.

[masterOfDisaster]

So in that sense, I think your motion or the motion made by @Nagalim or the motion made by @Cybnate are the most appropriate.

I’m curious - what makes those more appropriate than my version? I understand that for @Nagalim’s version, which is in the end a just a much much more precise version than I drafted.

Why do you find a maximum of 2.5% sufficient to defend the peg?
@zoro’s NuBot runs close to that spread and already traded already one third of the funds in the last day.
Market awareness might require even bigger spreads than that…

2.5% is not enough for all conditions.

[cryptog]

Sorry for being unclear.
I did not mean that cybnate s version is more appropriate than yours just that it seems that the 3 other versions look more reasonable than jordan lee s version.

[Nagalim]

I had percentages. I ditched them because i realized it was impossible to implement smoothly using nubot.

[Cybnate]

As explained here the percentage doesn’t need to be programmed in NuBot gateways. Even better if they are not. They just reflect the amounts the gateway holds on behalf of FLOT. This is based on contracts of e.g. 1-3 months and should be adjusted not more than once a month. It is not a percentage that should be changed every hour of the day.

[masterOfDisaster]

Can somebody in the face of the current situation try to explain this voting behaviour?

It would be especially great to have an explanation from those who vote for one of the competing motions.
What am I doing wrong?
Why don’t you realize that all that keeps the peg on the current level is an offset far beyond what the competing motions allow?

[crypto_coiner]

Blind subscription and or whole lot of shares?

[zoro]

Currently it seems no one’s motion will pass
Do you know how data feeders are voting?

[masterOfDisaster]

You can check yourself by visiting the respective github pages.

[zoro]

MoD is voting for this proposal.
Cybnate for her’s proposal.
Cryptog for no proposal!
crypto_coiner for no proposal!

i hope i didn’t do any mistake searching github.