dd491de3ed1c69b080092d142ba13470cd398ce3 confirmed
1 Like
dd491de3ed1c69b080092d142ba13470cd398ce3 verified and
voted
@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?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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:
if mass<100:
newrate = 0.2oldrate
if mass<1000:
newrate=0.5oldrate
else:
newrate=oldrate
This is a blending of the fixed cost and the cooperative model:
Custodial Rules for the Static Peg with Fiat
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
1 Like
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.
On CCEDK:
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.
1 Like
Fine, I’ll vote for it (begrudgingly, lol). I’m not sure about the ccesk btc fee, the trading page says 0.2% but I haven’t actually tried trading there.
You can take the 300 nbt. It mentions 300 nbt pretty explicitly and your grant is too much anyway.
voted
There’s a typo there. It’s SouthXchange, not SouthExchange.
3 Likes
it is a matter of hours until it passes 
edit:
now it is a matter of minutes 
edit2: it passed!
1 Like
Grant passed indeed. Thanks for your confidence in LiquidBits!
Just burnt 864 NBT in excess funds due to a calculation error (see previous post):
https://svr1.nubitsexplorer.nu/tx/f328c8d8a2ee2baa6844695f7c4bb0f850787de6d71c652876727a72292f4e81
and moved the rollover funds into the new payment address for this term: BA9tumP4zyM1g2M8ZNieD2iAnMgdVPuQe3
Also restarted the server which means the new terms are valid from now on. A manual payment for today’s fees will follow in next 24h.
1 Like