The fund providers consider that a lesson learned and a big loss (because the calculate in BTC)
They started with roughly 6 BTC worth 1,500 USD.
Current status is 3.1 BTC (at currently 340 USD/BTC worth 1,054 USD) and 292 NBT.
That makes a total of $1,346. Together with the 200 NBT (their share from the grant for which I’m going to propose a draft soon) they are at $1,546.
They consider it a loss, because they are down from 6 BTC to 4.54 BTC.
I consider that a gain, because I calculate in NBT. If I add up the 25 NBT I asked from them for my service it’s a gain of 71 NBT for 30 days or 4.5% per 30 days.
If there’s interest for such a small liquidity provision (1,500 NBT total) in the light of NuLagoon being at hitBTC as well, I would continue the operation and just pay off my buddies with funds from my ALP bots.
From a technical perspective it went very well on my RaspberryPi2 and my private internet access.
The hitBTC worked very well as far as I can tell
The only outage I recognized (and only for some hours) was due to trouble with the streaming server.
The fees I proposed for this grant were quite high and I don’t intend to lower them for the next term.
I offer less liquidity than NuLagoon and likely at a higher compensation rate.
But I can promise to keep up the walls no matter what (except for technical issues, but not for economical issues).
If customers of NuLagoon do a “bank run” at it might be different.
And with 2 liquidity providers and 2 independent NuBots at the same exchange it feels more decentralized
I’m not sure whether that’s worth it for Nu, though. But I wouldn’t want to do it for less compensation with my own money.
Thoughts?
I hope I had paid more attention to the wall movement on hitBTC. There’s a lot to learn here.
On NuLagoon where the actual interest rate is somewhere like 7% for Pool A, we observed about 20% gain in NAV over 6 months (early April - early October) where the BTC price at the end points were similar. About a 3-percent gain per month. The actual cost of volatility (and possibly exchange fees) was then something like 4% per month.
Similarly, 4 months from the start of Pool D (late May) the BTC prices were about the same at the end points, and the NAV went from 1.087 to 1.276. About a 4% increase per month. The actual interest rate of NuLagoon was between 11% to 13% depending on the interest rate of Pool C, so the volatility costs were roughly 7-9% per month.
Over your 30 days, the cost of volatility was apparently over 10%. Perhaps a lot of that was due to the recent wild swings and a large exposure to BTC.
Dear NSR holders,
the 30 days of modPuddle term 1 are over.
The funds at the end are
3.1 BTC * 312 USD/BTC = 967,2 USD
292 USD
= 1259 USD
The liquidity pool is 241 USD in the red. 225 NBT from the grant which will be drafted soon (for the back pay of the 30 days) will compensate most of the loss.
I pay off the participants who don’t want to continue, let NuBot run and propose a new draft for the next term soon.
I will move 241 NBT to hitBTC to fill the liquidity volume to 1,500 USD again.
The device on which it was operated on (RaPi2), was urgently required to operate the NBT exit and the NBT entry gateway simultaneously. The current BTC price swings drained first the sell side, then the buy side. This might not be over.
RAM issues with nud 2.0.3 prevent operating two NuBots on the same RaPi2.
As I have no 2.1.0 blockchain synced yet, I can’t tackle the RAM issues.
I decided that supporting the peg on Poloniex is more important than on hitBTC at the moment.
