[Passed] Changing Spread for Passive Dual-Side Pybot for Poloniex and Bittrex

[Cybnate]

==================================================================================
This motion amends motion a9346a00acd50d26d174c3d2f6c0ee69c9466c49 (link to Daology)

The 1.4% fixed spread of the passive dual-side Pybot referred to in above motion and currently operational, will be changed into 1% by default when this motion passes.
Then FLOT members will also be able to suggest changes to the spread making the best use of this facility given the liquidity situation. For changes at least 2 other FLOT members will have to endorse publicly in the forum a spread change suggested by a FLOT member. The operator will respond as quickly as possible but at least within 48 hours.

======================================================================================

This motion has also been published here: https://daology.org/proposals/8f8e256f97aed06fa8c82bccb4179ab439e38649

Will submit this for voting somewhere in the next 48 hours depending on the feedback.

Motion hash for voting is:

28ad569f5224884fc1247bd9a18bf96bf8b8f0ab

[mhps]

It’s good. Please put it on voting ASAP.

[masterOfDisaster]

It’s good. Please put it on voting ASAP.

[Cybnate]

Submitted for voting, will add to my datafeed soon.

[mhps]

@cryptog show your love and vote yes please

everyone - see details in Current Liquidity and links therein

[cryptog]

All right. Will put it in my datafeeds tonight.

@crypto_coiner ?

[masterOfDisaster]

I felt like focussing on other matters was more important in the last days than updating my data feed.

But I’ll put it in my data feed as well, although I realize, that no - at least not many - shares are voting based on my data feed; who wants to register outdated feeds?

[crypto_coiner]

The 1.4% fixed spread of the passive dual-side Pybot referred to in above motion and currently operational, will be changed into 1% by default when this motion passes. Then FLOT members will also be able to suggest changes to the spread making the best use of this facility given the liquidity situation.

I appreciate the flexibility and that motion is not in conflict with [Passed] 1% Maximum Spread for ALP/MLP, Above 1% Allowed for Nu Funded Liquidity Operations (e.g. Gateways) , that I am currently endorsing.
Added to my voting data feed.

[cryptog]

28ad569f5224884fc1247bd9a18bf96bf8b8f0ab

voted

[Cybnate]

The voting rates exceed 50% and as promised I will act upon this given the crises situation we are in.
I like to stress that I will consider turning it back to the original setting when this motion eventually doesn’t pass in the next 2 weeks. So please keep your votes on, until it has officially passed. Thanks.

Will change the spread of the PyBot from 1.4% to 1% in the next hour or so and report in the FLOT liquidity threads.

[crypto_coiner]

Because this is now in conflict with my current supporting to restore the original lp model,
I must withdraw this motion from my data feed.

[Cybnate]

Because this is now in conflict with my current supporting to restore the original lp model,I must withdraw this motion from my data feed.

@crypto_coiner Why is this in conflict? It is a gateway at 1% and subject to FLOT to either reduce or increase it further. I’m lost.
Do you really want to give this gateway up and have me returning it to 1.4%. Sounds very contradictory to me.

Is it because you want to abandon FLOT altogether? Just trying to understand this.

[zoro]

Moreover, what is the purpose of voting both JL’s motions?
His first motion is to make all LP operators run operations at 1% max spread.
His second motion is to negate MoD’s, zoro’s and Cybnate’s LP operations and stop them all together!
Then these 3 individuals should make new LP motions in order to provide any liquidity again with gateways or other means at 1% max spread!
Am i missing something here?

[ConfusedObserver]

After lurking most of the time, I had to register, because I want to ask something.

I understand that there’s a discussion, even a fight, about liquidity and spreads.

Can somebody please tell me in summary what’s going on, because I’ve lost overview?
Why do people get insulted instead of focusing on the case?
Why was lowering the spread not enough?
Cui bono?

[crypto_coiner]

Because this motion authorizes to go beyond the 1% level, potentially. Which I dont support currently, in consequence to my current supporting of [Passed] 1% Maximum Spread in Shareholder Funded Liquidity Operations

[crypto_coiner]

His second motion is to negate MoD’s, zoro’s and Cybnate’s LP operations and stop them all together!

The second motion does not specify any particular name.
I agree that the contents is vague but I look at it more like: let s agree and find a consensus about what is bad liquidity provisioning.

[Cybnate]

Because this motion authorizes to go beyond the 1% level, potentially. Which I dont support currently, in consequence to my current supporting of [Passed] 1% Maximum Spread in Shareholder Funded Liquidity Operations

Right, so you don’t support FLOT any longer too because they would be the only to advise changes in the spread. The only reason I built that in is to have some flexibility to either side as static motions are no good we have learned.
But thanks for your response anyway.

[cryptog]

We are having. 5,045 (50.45%) 1,244,088,337/2,600,038,595 (47.85%)

So it passed right?
I am always unsure of whether or not we should discard SDD.

[Cybnate]

So it passed right?I am always unsure of whether or not we should discard SDD.

Motion pass when the votes pass 50%. Custodial grant should also, but the blockexplorer and Nu client haven’t been changed to behave as the shareholders asked a while ago.

Passing of this motion basically allows FLOT or anyone who represents them to change the percentage. The pybot is already set at 1.3% spread (about 1% SAF on Poloniex) against a $1 peg. Awaiting instructions from FLOT or Commanders who take reign