I feel that bittylicious.com would make a good platform from which to provide direct fiat liquidity. Addition to the service would contribute to our overall liquidity provision in a way that is separate from traditional exchanges. There is less risk from a default as bittylicious.com act as mediators between traders who complete the trade peer to peer. Bittylicious.com ask for a deposit of £200 to look into adding an alt coin. There are other pre-requisites too which I am happy to undertake as these are largely providing data about the Nu network.
This custodial fee grant proposal in intended to raise the asked for £200 in a way that gauges the general perception of this idea amongst shareholders. At the time of writing £200 was just over $307 according to Google. I have rounded that up to $320 to account for exchange rate fluctuation during the voting and to cover fees as they ask for the deposit in Bitcoin. I’m happy to cover any excess should the exchange rate change so much that the grant amount doesn’t cover the £200. Conversely, any NuBits left over after the deposit has been paid will be donated to the Winston Fund. I have used Bittylicious.com several times for buying Bitcoin and found their service to be fast and simple with quick response times from support should something go wrong. I feel that by allowing custodians to provide liquidity through bittylicious.com in exchange for fiat, direct with the end user, we can begin to diversify our portfolio of liquidity provision. That in turn should make our network more robust.
=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=
Verify. Use everything between and including the <custodianhash></custodianhash> tags.
I have already submitted a support request about this and the reply was the above link. I think that being able to link to this custodial proposal gives a very good show of how Nu differs from other alts
Bittylicious had a relationship with Peercoin last year too. Perhaps @Sentinelrv could send them a DM through Twitter asking about the possibility of waiving the fee since we would potentially add a lot of traffic for their service.
I assume the 200 in the proposal is the 200£ asked on the website. 200 GBP surely aren’t that much money, but I am always doubtful if a fee is required just to look into the coin, since this is a common way for exchanges to make money. I am wondering if Vertcoin payed this money and I am pretty sure that Blackcoin did not have to pay it.
However, its worth mentioning that this money will be fully refunded if certain conditions on the trading activity are met:
A deposit of the equivalent of £200 (in BTC) which is refundable in the following ways:
50% if the first month’s sales is greater than £5,000
50% if the first three months’ sales is greater than £20,000
As I understand it, if I want to vote for this I enter the custodian address and amount into the custodian vote section of my client and that is all. Am I understanding this correctly or do we also need to vote for the correct hash?
Hi all, thanks for the replies.
Yes it is £200 GBP. I did type that in the proposal but assistant seems to deem that a special character and has stripped it out. I’d imagine that that is the cause of the hash issue too. I’ll have a look at that in a bit. (I did type it on my phone too so that might have done something weird).
@GreatScott. You are right, it is just the address and amount that you enter. The hash is just there to verify that the text hasn’t been altered in the original text.
@creon, yes they do say we can get the deposit back if we hit the targets. If it did come back I’ll ask the best course of action from shareholders at that point.
@tomjoad. If there’s strings that can be pulled then that would be great. I still think this proposal has value to see how much support the idea has and also as a demonstration of what sets Nu apart.
I have to admit that I am cautious with this custodial grant. They are asking for 200 GBP and require that at least one seller will always be present. They furthermore reserve the right to remove NBT if the volume is smaller than 20,000 GBP in three months.
I know that both requirements are easily achievable with a custodian, but the monetary entry fee looks more like an “altcoin firewall” so they don’t get so many requests. Note that basically none of their coins meets their own requirements:
I furthermore know from Blackcoin that they did not have to pay the 200 GBP.
Don’t get me wrong: I think it would be good to be added to Bittylicious, but they have so much to win by adding NBT under the same conditions as previous coins and I see no need to bribe them.
I’d rather suggest that we get a custodian who is willing to operate on Bittylicious. Then we can provide them with a guaranteed liquidity over a 30 day period or longer. They would be stupid to reject this offer.
I have edited the OP to contain pound signs (£) and recalculated the hash accordingly. Everything should match up now, apologies for the confusion.
@creon. I’m inclined to agree with everything you said however, playing devils advocate, I can see things from the bittylicious side too. They are running a busy service and would, I imagine, get requests from just about every alt coin under the sun. They have put these hoops in place for coins to jump through to differentiate the ones who are willing to put in some effort. As you say, the £200 deposit is a firewall to put off those who are merely making a pump and dump coin.
My hope was that by replying to the other points mentioned in their acceptance list and discussing the implications of the system we have in place, along with an active proposal for the deposit, we can differentiate ourselves from the coins that are just after a sheer profit.
I think having this proposal in action strengthens our case that we are different. I would hope,they would waive the need for the deposit in light of that. If they don’t, it’s not a hugely substantial amount and there’s every chance we’ll get it back in 3 months when our volume has blown the other coins out of the water.
They mention having automated trade abilities in their acceptance list so they must have an API somewhere. I can build a wrapper for that to integrate with NuBot and then operating on Bittylicious becomes very nearly the same as any other custodianship, with the benefits that brings for both them and us.
You mean the 24$ Dogecoin trade they had to manage the last day?
But ok, I see your point. Just one more question: What is the current communication status with them? Did they actually confirm that they would be willing to run the (still closed source) daemon on their platform?
I submitted a support ticket outlining who I am, what NuBits are and the proposed situation for having a custodian active on their service.
The reply I got was pretty much just a link to the list of actions to add an alt coin. Again I think that is just a canned response they give to all enquiries of that nature. It is my intention now to write the full proposal with full details of NuNet, linking to this Proposal, submit it and see what happens.
As for the closed source daemon, They didn;t mention anything specifically but in the list they do mention that only Bitcoin API based coins will be considered. I take that to mean that they use the JSON RPC interface to communicate with the daemon so the closed source nature shouldn;t be too big an issue. If it is, they can wait a month and then poke the code as much as they want.
As for busyness, it depends if those Dogecoin were all bought together or in separate transactions. I’ll have 1 DOGE please. And another. And another…
As long as you use the same method used in the proposal, there is no reason to make it work with all the tools that work in the browser. The scope is “text not going to be altered”, and that you can verify using the assistant bot.