[Passed] Increased HitBTC Liquidity

[nmei]

I’ve updated the initial with the details. I’ll hash a motion tonight.
The core:
Liquidity volume: 2000 NBT
Spread After Fees: 0.5%
Ask/Bid Reward Rate: 0.33%/day (not paid in advance)
Operator Fee: 0 NBT
Initial Motion Grant: 1 NBT
End of term Funds: 198 NBT

[nmei]

The Assistant is not replying to my requests…Will hash when available

BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu 1 NBT

[cryptog]

Voted.

[Cybnate]

Strategy: Tight PegSpread After Fees: 0.5%

What are the fees? Tolerance is very high, won’t call it a tight spread. The reward is also 0.33% which is higher than the top3 ALPs (0.24%). Not sure whether this is a good offer, could you please sell it to me over an ALP offering?

[nmei]

There are no ALPs on HitBTC - the software isn’t available - or I would run one.
HitBTC currently has no fees for NBT.
The other two NuBot operators are both >0.5% offset.
The other two NuBot operators are both > 0.33%.

In my mind: if this were just an ALP where I could come and go with my money - the rate would be lower. But the fact is: my money will be locked into this effort for a month, and there is a cost for that.

So for 0.33% you get two features you don’t have in an ALP: Guaranteed 2K liquidity & at a minimum weekly re-balancing. You don’t get this with an ALP.

Consider a 2K 0.24% ALP with operator fees: 144 + 20 = 164.
So for that 35 NBT extra NBT you’re getting the above two things. And I can tell you the re-balancing will take more than an hour over the month. So that’s less than $30/hr for highly skilled labor - a very difficult rate to find on the open market.

[Cybnate]

Sold! Thanks for your explanation. Value the guarantee and balancing of funds lacking better options. Will add to my datafeed in next 24h or so.

[crypto_coiner]

Added to my feed

[nmei]

This is now active on HitBTC

11:01:43.531 [sendLiquidity] WARN - Liquidity info submitted:
tier=1 buy=997.24900212 sell=1000.0 identifier=1:NBTBTC:hitbtc:0.3.2a_1450841480417_79ffd0 response={“submitted”:true}
tier=2 buy=-1.07 sell=9.497 identifier=2:NBTBTC:hitbtc:0.3.2a_1450841480417_79ffd0 response={“submitted”:true} [c.n.n.t.SubmitLiquidityinfoTask:144]

From Nu:

nud getliquidityinfo B | grep “BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu” -A 2
"BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu" : {
“buy” : 1010.18,
“sell” : 1009.49

[cryptog]

passed.

[nmei]

From Nu:

nud getliquidityinfo B | grep “BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu” -A 2
"BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu" : {
“buy” : 0.1,
“sell” : 1910.126

I will balance tomorrow. This will be the second re-balance since the start of the program.

[nmei]

BTC is up…balancing agian

[Cybnate]

Can you share with us the amount of balancing you need to do and how you manage without a T3 custodian? Are you balancing across exchanges or just with NuLagoon?

[nmei]

If there is good liquidity on either side of HitBTC I take down my bot and convert on HitBTC to give them trade volume. Since that was the goal initially…
Of the 6 times I have made the re-balance…I have only been able to do that once.

The rest of the time I am the T3. I re-balance from my off exchange funds. Otherwise I shift from among my T1 funds that I am providing to the ALPs. Only twice I have had to actually convert funds - because BTC swings left me with only BTC or NBT. Both those times I’ve made the change on polo…

[Cybnate]

Thanks for your elaboration. This is a great example of how a T1-T3 custodian I think should work. See the discussion here: [Withdrawn] T3 Trusted Custodianship @Nagalim. A T4 interface is not here though as Nmei is self-funded, but I’m sure that T4 (FLOT) would be interested to deal with NMEI at some stage to balance T1-T3 liquidity when required.

[nmei]

I need to re-balance. Will have to be later this afternoon.
I am unsure weather I want to keep this operation going at this point…

[masterOfDisaster]

I have ceased my operation a few days ago, because I needed the RaPi for Poloniex.
If you’d cease operation as well, that’d leave no LP left, right?
I might continue my operation there, but not too soon.
The last modPuddle term ended on 2016-01-12. The grant for the payment might be the last thing I do regarding hitBTC for some time…

[zoro]

I am testing a nubot there. Perhaps another “gateway” is useful in hitbtc?
Since with this BTC volatility LPs are too hesitant to provide liquidity, only FLOT left to fill that role, i guess.

[masterOfDisaster]

Gateways aren’t the way to go, of that I’m now sure.
Dual side NuBots are, which can be funded on the side that needs support.

Gateways are the inferior solution to gateways.
The reasoning is here:

[Passed] motion to permit dual side NuBot on Poloniex

Continuing the discussion from Current Liquidity: TL;DR Have a custodian run a dual side NuBot on Poloniex with Nu funds to create a buffer and support the peg. This is a band-aid solution until e.g. T3 custodians and fixed cost compensation have eased the liquidity situation and improved the reliability of the peg. Poloniex as the exchange with biggest NBT trading volume is very important for customers evaluating the peg. /TL;DR Assessment / Reasoning This motion draft is trying to solve…

If you need help with the configuration, please ask.

The BTCUSD rate suged from $375 to $415 in little time (~2h), the trading volume on Poloniex from $20k to >$50k.
Still the peg has been more or less kept:

It’s not perfect, but I have no clue what happened without the NuBots operated with Nu funds, which pretty much offer the only liquidity for most of the time.
Nupool ALP clearly don’t want to provide liquidity at the moment:

[zoro]

Gateways aren’t the way to go, of that I’m now sure.Dual side NuBots are, which can be funded on the side that needs support.

Yes, this is what i wanted to say with “gateways”

If you need help with the configuration, please ask.

thanks! I will

[nmei]

Yes,

I could definitely run an open dual side nu bot.
But as stated - the BTC swings are very difficult. No only is the loss a pain, but the re-balancing isn’t as simple as it sounds…