[Passed] LiquidBits term 7 (addendum)

This proposal is an addendum to the LiquidBits term 7 proposal which passed on 21 Feb 2016 (UTC). Unfortunately it contained errors in the calculation of the rewards leading to current operations being funded inadequately for the next 60 days.

This proposal seeks to top up the funding to continue the operations as per the original proposal till the end of the 60 day term.

The full proposal can be found on Daology: https://daology.org/proposals/c6c43ae1094415808f576c4c4179d80f180bdc36 Hash: 6d03947a0135be4eecad5bcf811a235daca91f33

Please add my datafeed to your Nu client OR add the following manually to your Nu client when supportive:

BCigRTj8Lg25xSZLW59eUwuszw8nuPAubs , 990

Thanks for your consideration.

1 Like

Currently gathering around 7% of support –

Thanks for bumping. Any reason why it hasn’t been added to your datafeed yet?

It is worth noting that the amount of liquidity provided on the fiat pairs increased despite the lower rewards. I think NU gets a better deal now, so I hope that is worth voting for.

I am taking time to making sense of the figures – How much Nu is granting to support how large a liquidity

I suppose there are not any errors left.

Better check for yourself :wink:


Just bumping this proposal as it seems to have lost a lot of support in last few days after it almost passed.
Please check your client or let me know why you dropped support.

The current balance allows LiquidBits only to operate for around 18 days at best given the average rewards.

Here is the address again for your convenience, or just add my datafeed to your client.
BCigRTj8Lg25xSZLW59eUwuszw8nuPAubs , 990


1 Like

Just wondered, since the original grant had been passed, shouldn’t the addendum being requested from FLOT directly?

That is an interesting thought, but probably not entirely appropriate given that the calculations were wrong which might have had some shareholders voting for this which wouldn’t have when the numbers would have been correct. That’s why I think it is better that this is confirmed again. If not I probably should stop operations and burn the remaining money. It is a difficult dilemma I’m finding myself in. What would be in the best interest of the majority of the Shareholders?

interesting point! Although the majority of shareholders would just vote for a useful operation never care if something is “cheap” or not.
As a matter of fact it is difficult to evaluate a service of this kind. Especially if you live in a poor or a rich country, wages are totally different.

For me, perhaps 2 elements that refrain me from voting at that time:

  • ccedk
  • pre-payment of reward

What part of the “reward” do you mean? The operator fee?

then you didn’t vote for the “original” term 7 grant?

This is the case for every ALP’s grant for the last 6 months or more :wink:

The 2-month compensations for Liquidity providers

I voted for it – but these days, I am more into funding Nubot gateway operation

ccedk has only one ALP, no nubots and no MLP.
Moreover, nubot gateways are very cheap
thus there is room for ALP/MLP operations. :slight_smile:
Unless you mean that nubot gateways are the only operations we should have in exchanges.

Thank you for your support.

Unfortunately fiat pairs can hardly be supported by Nu funded NuBots, because FLOT can’t get fiat in and out of an exchange.
For fiat trading pairs, ALP still is the best solution that I can think of.


NuSafe can support them.

That’s right, but that would require a new contract with @Dhume.
At the moment NuSafe is designed as operating on T3.

Plus I need to suppose that an MLP operating on fiat pairs can be quite costly, because it creates more effort than operating on crypto pairs.
It would be great to find a proposal from @Dhume for offering a competing (and hopefully competetive) service at fiat pairs!

1 Like

NuSafe is T4. The BKS collateral is the nusafe contract. But yes, we’d need to pay dhume more if we expect support for the pools.

1 Like