So you have reduced a bit (1000 NBT) from Term 4 (23,000 NBT) .
What would you think about reducing even more?
The current total liquidity in the Nu network is:
Bid: 103033.5664 NBT
Ask: 80361.2587 NBT
It is broken down in the following manner:
Bid: 7837.6984 NBT Ask: 11633.9399 NBT Tier 2: Bid: 0.9 NBT Ask: 10796.8686 NBT Tier 3: Bid: 18787.6363 NBT Ask: 22489.152 NBT```
@cybnate, you are not in favor of fixed cost pools?
(provided that they are tested and working ok.)
I actually reduced a lot more on CCEDK, but allocated a part of that to the Southexchange account. Please note that I’m the only ALP actually reducing the liquidity. I hope I do set a trend, but I’m not yet prepared to cut further when there are no followers.
I think it is a step back, which appears to be required to make steps forward. The fixed cost will increase the cost to the network as most pools are underutilised. That means that the Shareholders are not paying for the remaining unused cost. With the fixed cost reward we need to be very careful regarding individual allocations to ALP as that will be the price we pay and not one cent less even if there is only 1 NBT liquidity provided on that exchange.
I still think the Dutch auction model is far better, the Shareholder only pays for actual liquidity provided and the liquidity providers compete with each other on price. However unfortunately we don’t have the knowledge, documentation and resource to fix the existing bugs in the current software. So it makes sense to step back to a model we do understand and than hopefully make the next step soon.
The only real problem we have with the current model (not the software) is that we have been too generous with the liquidity caps as we don’t have an overarching control mechanism to balance caps across exchanges. The fixed price solution doesn’t solve this, it may even have adverse effects in the short term. However I still support it as there are no better solutions presented.
I’ve put up the LiquidBits term 5 grant proposal for voting. Please verify the original post as I have made some minor changes.
When in favor please add the following to your vote section in the client or subscribe to my datafeed.
Custodial Address: BA9tumP4zyM1g2M8ZNieD2iAnMgdVPuQe3
Amount Requested: 2729 NBT
Edit: updating OP and rehashing, made an error with the address…DONE
dd491de3ed1c69b080092d142ba13470cd398ce3 verified and
@Cybnate, i understand your concerns about fixed cost pools. Then what if we combine somehow fixed cost with fixed rewards?
We can do it with different reward levels. for example:
- we setup a pool with max fixed cost of 2000NBT.
- we setup payout levels according to daily liquidity
(for 100NBT, participants payed with 10NBT, for 1000NBT they are payed with 100NBT,etc, until reaching the max 2000NBT in final level with unlimited liquidity)
too complex for coding? less fair than other models? high cost for NU?
Sounds complicated, but maybe simpler to code. In my opinion the Dutch auction is a very good model to do just that, but way more flexible. It just needs to be combined with the caps on the liquidity.
This can be done easily. Let me run a pool with vanilla fixed cost first, but I can make that kind of modification with just a few ‘if’ statements. I would probably do something like:
newrate = 0.2oldrate
This is a blending of the fixed cost and the cooperative model:
Custodial Rules for the Static Peg with Fiat
It looks that this request doesn’t have a majority to pass. Please provide some feedback if you are not voting for this proposal and I will try to explain, withdraw or change the request where possible.
When this grant hasn’t passed on the 12th which it looks like, I feel obliged to stop operation at least temporarily or use some of the rollover funds. Will only do that when the last 100 blocks shows a majority of the votes during a couple of hours.
Your numbers have SouthExchange USD/NBT with 1,000 target but paying out 1080 NBT over 60 days. That would be true if there were a 5,000 NBT target. I believe your grant should be less by 864 NBT.
Is your fee 300 or 150? It says 300 in the text but then uses 150 in the calculation.
Also, your tolerance is written in the grant as 8.5% not 9%. Typos make for interesting ambiguities for a contract. Of course, neither would be in compliance anyway, as the fee on NBT/BTC CCEDK is 0.2%.
Does south exchange even exist? I can’t find their website anywhere. I’m not sure I am comfortable with you opening operation on two new pairs at once, especially for a 60 day term with no plan for midterm parameter adjustment.
Thank you very much, not sure why a “south exchange bitcoin” google search doesn’t turn that up. My bad, shoulda gone through nubits.com.
South Exchange is also 0.2% fee. The minimum tolerance for compliance is 1% on the NBT/BTC pools.
I think the motion is fine but it is better to separate ccedk and soutexchange and start soutexchanage with a 1mo term first.
Ouch, some quality issues due to time constraints. Not good!
The motion has been up as a draft for over a week before being brought up for voting. Glad at least someone picked it up. Thanks Nagalim.
You are right. You got me there on a nasty copy/paste error. Will burn the excess of 864 NBT on passing of this grant. Have updated the OP accordingly.
The intention was 150 NBT/month, total 300 NBT. Will keep it on 150 NBT as the calculation is based on that. My punishment for making these mistakes.
Not good again. However the motion says 0.85 so I will stick to that for now. Will update the change log in OP, this doesn’t change the motion.
NBT/USD fee = 0.2%
NBT/EUR fee = 0.15%
NBT/BTC fee = 0.001%
So except for the NBT/USD pair I believe I’m compliant
South Exchange is 0.2%, however as you know I can only set one tolerance parameter for all pairs on the pool. Until the software has a feature to set this by pair I’m good to adjust to 1% on all pairs.
That is not easy to change now unfortunately. I still haven’t seen a wrapper though. Even once it is published I like to test it for a week or so. So effectively it will be less than a 2 month term anyway. I chose the 2 months to reduce the voting fatigue and the liquidity provided is very low. We are talking a cost of max. 195 NBT/month for both pairs assuming they are 100% effective and running for the full 2 months period. I consider that amount a test period anyway. Happy to comply to any motion to raise or lower that amount after the wrapper has been tested successfully or raise a motion on a request myself.