I might have lost track in between all the merging and pulling, so please handle this version with care: https://github.com/Lamz0rNewb/alp-collection/archive/experimental-0.51.zip
I’ve added the liquidibits server information (formerly “tbd”) into the pool config files of the southx bot versions.
The exchange identifier in the pool config files is ‘southx’ and already set.
You should only need to adjust your API key, API secret and NBT address.
I hope it works with these settings.
i have set API keys and NBT address and below settings:
server=nbt.liquidbits.net
unit=btc
exchange=southx
but i cannot connect to server!
in the log file there is only one line:
2015/11/10-17:57:33 DEBUG: starting liquidity operation with sampling 120
perhaps the server isn’t ready yet!
I’m not 100% sure whether the wrapper I included in the bot version is the final version and works fine. So the problem might of course be on the ALP collection end.
Let’s wait about @Cybnate’s comment regarding the server status before we continue client side troubleshooting.
Where is it from?
I think I took it some time ago from https://github.com/inuitwallet/nu-pool/tree/master/python, but I’m not sure whether that has been changed since then.
I’m currently busy with other things and can’t check that thoroughly, but it looks the inuitwallet version had updates after I included the wrapper.
Exchanges.py is different between the ALP collections branch and the nupool branch. This should not be the case. I’ll make a pull request later tonight.
To my knowledge, there never was a working Southx wrapper on github.
No idea where you got that from.
That one is not functional afaik.
i tried this inuitwallet with southx and i got "unknown exchange"
bittrex is working ok
inuitwallet uses:
def repr(self):
return ‘southxchange’
not southx, like alp-collection does
But @willy says it’s not working anyway, so no use testing.
Same place where I got it from after Woollysammoth said I could test it. Guess we need to wait for his response regarding the state of this wrapper and who can make it work or show how to make it work.
Can confirm that is what LiquidBits uses, but clearly something else is not right.
Update regarding SouthXchange:
There are problems with the API on SouthExchange. The developer have tried to make contact earlier but haven’t received a response. I’m now trying to establish communications through their support tool in the hope we can resolve the issues with the SouthXchange wrapper/API. There are no shareholder costs as no liquidity is provided at all.
As soon as this is resolved I will run according to the grant in this thread for the remaining time it is valid.
Considerations next grant
Although we are still 2-3 weeks away before I will request my next grant, I like to receive some feedback regarding the role of LiquidBits for Nu. LiquidBits has a focus on fiat/NBT pairs and is only providing minimal liquidity on the NBT/BTC pair. Therefore it is not aiming for daytraders and high volumes which shows on Alix.
The idea for liquidity provision is to hold the peg against the USD by setting up a solid wall on NBT/USD pair in order to garantee the NuBits is always a dollar. As an extra service for our European friends LiquidBits is also keeping a wall on NBT/EUR. This is mainly to attract more liquidity than would be available on the USD/NBT pair.
The NBT/BTC pair on CCEDK is setup only to be able to balance the fiat pairs. However I’ve noticed that this is barely used. Therefore I’m thinking to reduce this from the current 1500 NBT to 250 NBT on each side. Why not zero? I think it is good to have some liquidity on the NBT/BTC pair for non-traders wanting to exchange small amounts from or to NBT.
The average cost for the Shareholders at the moment is relatively low at about 25 NBT/day or about 750 NBT/month given the current lower rates for the fiat pairs. This excludes the fee of 150 NBT/month.
Going forward
So I’m thinking to keep the current NBT/USD and NBT/EUR pair the same at respectively 5000 NBT and 2500 NBT on each side, providing up to 15,000 NBT liquidity. There is a consideration to increase this now the money supply for NuBits is growing. This based on the increasing risk of a large dump threatening the peg.
I also suggest to reduce the NBT/BTC pair on CCEDK from 1500 NBT to 250 NBT as it is barely used.
Please let me hear your thoughts while I’m starting to think about how the next grant for LiquidBits would look like.
3 Likes
i would say make the NBT/BTC pair from 1500 --> 500. 250 is not even one BTC now days 
Hey Cybnate,
first of all, I’m very glad that you’re taking ALix volume metrics into account for your decision making. This is exactly what it’s for.
As a shareholder, I’m glad that you’re reducing liquidity costs on, in terms of trade volume, rarely used pairs.
I feel like @zoro regarding the 1500 -> 250 reduction. That jump seems a bit crass.
2 Likes
Announcement
LiquidBits will be down for a short while for scheduled maintenance. The downtime will be shortly after the daily payout at about 2.5h from now.
Edit: server maintenance complete. Normal operations resumed.
1 Like
another day, another balance reset without payment!
My apologies, I’ve been away for a couple of days and noticed that nud decided to stop. Restarted nud and the server which normally get everything to work again soon.
1 Like