[Passed] LiquidBits term 8 grant - Automatic Liquidity Pool (ALP)

There appears to an issue with the auto payout. I will look into this after the last payout in about 24h. I appear to have the logs to do a manual payout, so that will follow.

In 24h I will reduce payout to zero and effectively end operations on CCEDK. LiquidBits will continue to operate for the Poloniex and Bittrex gateway contract for the next 10 weeks.


I’ve set the payouts to zero and restarted the server.
Orders can no longer be placed and trading is not possible on CCEDK as per their announcement. It is recommended to stop your PyBots. The server continues to run to support the gateways. It is now again correctly reporting the liquidity in the gateways on Poloniex and Bittrex.

I will process the backpay in the next 24h and burn the remaining NuBits for this operation.
When trading is enabled again and an adequate API is offered I will submit a new proposal for a pool at CCEDK.

You can’t increase the spread, because of he motion, on which the gateway operation is based upon, right?
In that case the PyBot gateways are pretty useless with the current offset parameters at the moment.
If I were operating them, I’d disable the buyside and reduce the sellside offset to <0.5% - if that’s compliant with the motion.

I can’t change the offset or the spread according to the motion.
I was thinking of submitting a motion to make the offset variable/subject to FLOT guidance/decisions.

1 Like

The motion says:

Nitpicking, I could ask why not making the spread asymmetric: 0.4% sellside, 1.0% buyside?

I know that this can be perceived as bending the rules.
But strictly speaking it’s within the limits and reflecting the extraordinary situation we’re in.

It would be a step into the right direction.
With 0.7% offset each side, this gateway is at the moment rather useless with a too big sellside offset and a too small buyside offset.

It is great for the experiment.

Since the motion didn’t say the 1.4% spread is SAF, how about taking it as non-SAF? That leaves 0.9% SAF I guess. Tight spread and isolated accounting from other liquidity. It’s perfect for the experiment.

1 Like


@Cybnate Are you OK with running the experiment with your gateway?

We need to be careful with the reserve and should start with small amounts of BTC…

Heh what BTC? We only put in NBT and set low spreads on both sides and let the traders do the rest. (Why do I remember we had the same conversation before…?)

Because I’m like a broken record?
There are already a lot of NBT in @Cybnate’s PyBot account.

Then We need to set the spread to 1% (less if possible), record the setting, and count volume every 24hrs. Is that is alright with you @Cybnate? what is the current liquidity and spread?

1 Like

I basically responded here: Current Liquidity

Pybot gateways are about liquidity, thought that was more appropriate than this thread.
Otherwise my PyBot thread?

As the above never happened, some funds remained and should have been burnt a while ago. My apologies for that as I thought I had done that, but I found them still in a wallet today.

The remaining funds are 296.1896 after deduction of NBT 150 form this grant.
The transaction can be found here: https://svr1.nubitsexplorer.nu/block/86fcc274ed21a9dd834db9f666da0a7c64a6476958d904323675873aae15401d

I burnt everything but 0.05 NBT as it wouldn’t let me as there are no other funds left in the wallet. I think that is a bug with the burning command. So I still owe the shareholders NBT 0.05. Please let me know if someone wants to collect it. Will pay it from my own wallet :slight_smile: