[Passed] Motion dual side NuBot gateway at Poloniex by masterOfDisaster

[masterOfDisaster]

-#-#-#-#-# motion starts here #-#-#-#-#-
Intro
@masterOfDisaster - below called “the operator” - will run a NuBot on Poloniex. The liquidity is being broadcast using a custodial address to allow tracking the liquidity situation of the bot.
The operator promises to send all funds to a FLOT multisig address upon request of a majority of the FLOT members or by a passed NSR holder motion.

Availability
The operator offers to check for Nubot’s good operation daily and holds replacement hardware available in case of hardware failure.
As NuBot doesn’t support the multi use of API credentials, this is no hot standby solution.
Furthermore there’s no guarantee.
NuBot malfunctions, outages of the internet access or the security of the funds on the exchange are risks Nu needs to bear.
The experience so far showed an extraordinary availability of both hardware and internet access.
For security reasons VPS won’t be used for this operation.

Begin of operation
Operation begins on the day NuBot puts the first deposit of funds by FLOT on the order book.

End of operation
Operation is ceased by request of withdrawal of all funds or if operator sends all funds to FLOT multisig address(es). NuBot is put on standby afterwards.

Operation parameters, e.g. offset
NuBot operation parameters are intentionally not part of the motion to allow adjusments to market needs.
The offset should be higher than the offset of ALP (NuPool) or MLP (NuLagoon) operations to effectively build a last line of defence.

Modes of withdrawal
NSR holders can request withdrawal by motion.
FLOT members can request withdrawal to a FLOT multisig address for which they are signer by posting in the forum.
The number of FLOT members to request a deposit to a FLOT multisig address equals the number of FLOT members to execute transactions from this address.
The operator may withdraw funds to a FLOT multisig address by discretion.

Compensation scheme
The operator charges 90 NBT per 30 days of operation.
Upon passing this contract will automatically be renewed unless FLOT majority (5 of 8) or NSR holder motion ceases the operation.
The fee will be paid by FLOT, taken from funds on the exchange account if sufficient funds are available or raised by grant.

Premature activation
If the FLOT deposits funds at the operator’s exchange account, they will be used by the operator as if this motion already passed.

Last words
This motion intends to replace motion [Passed] motion to permit dual side NuBot on Poloniex.
The former motion provides Nu with a Poloniex gateway as well, but unattended on standby and at a daily charge of 15 NBT if being activated.
-#-#-#-#-# motion ends here #-#-#-#-#-

The full text can be found here as well:
https://daology.org/proposals/213c7c064e1967000cf9cf29d543539a1d0f6315

TEXT HASH ( RIPEMD-160 )
b59c750a307160b4f1cb5bedfd6027e17b5a0ab4

[masterOfDisaster]

Not seeing any feedback the day after I created this draft I want to announce that I intend to put it up for voting soon, because I find this offer superior to the contract [Passed] motion to permit dual side NuBot on Poloniex

While the other motion offers a kind of “insurance” in case other gateways fail (at a high premium when used), this motion offers a continuous service.

Looking at the processing time of the recent BTC deposit to @zoro’s gateway account (more than 11 hours!) continuous service with funds on an account might be the better approach compared to trying to deposit funds in emergencies.

Any feedback is still welcome!

[Nagalim]

3 NBT/day is fine.

[masterOfDisaster]

Not as cheap as it could be, but I know from experience that you have more efforts operating a dual side NuBot at Poloniex than, say a sell side Nubot at hitBTC at which I services at 1 NBT/day.

[zoro]

For a crucial nubot like this in Poloniex, the compensation cannot be cheaper regarding also the daily effort by the operator.
Moreover, the cheaper the fee, the fewer the gateway proposals!

[masterOfDisaster]

So you are basically saying that you - based on your experience as NuBot gateway operator at Poloniex? - can second the requested compensation?

[zoro]

I will vote for this if this is what you mean

[masterOfDisaster]

I was just hoping for more feedback and some backup of a person who is very familiar with operating a NuBot gateway on Poloniex
…who offers a competetive contract for a NuBot gateway at Poloniex!

[zoro]

You gave birth in this gateway concept! you have more experience than anyone here

[masterOfDisaster]

But I’m known for offering my services too cheaply

[zoro]

too cheaply

no cheaply, but costless
this is the first “logical” proposal of you
edit: about poloniex

[masterOfDisaster]

I was trying to stay close to yours, while slightly undercutting your offer

this is the first “logical” proposal of you

What about that?

[Activated at 2016-03-023] sell side gateway at hitBTC by masterOfDisaster

Continuing the discussion from [ANN] sell side gateway at Bittrex by masterOfDisaster: Intro To continue the path to a focussed liqudity provision scheme, I want to offer a sell side (sell side only!) gateway at hitBTC. That's why I thought a sell side gateway there might be appreciated. About the exchange I once provided liquidity there ("modPuddle") with a dual side operation (MLP style, with funds of friends and later own funds) and found the experience (reliability, stability of API, u…

[cryptog]

I am fine with the terms.

[Cybnate]

Sounds good. Bring it on

[masterOfDisaster]

I changed it from “Motion” to “Custodial grant”.
There are only minor adjustments besides that, but nothing I consider relevant.

The reason for that: I need a new liquidity broadcast address very soon (currently only in use for the sell side operation at hitBTC)

…and back to motion - I already have a new liquidity broadcast address…

[Cybnate]

Didn’t notice this on first read:
“The fee will be paid by FLOT, taken from funds on the exchange account if sufficient funds are available or raised by grant.”

Why are you so keen to not use the grant and being paid by FLOT? It doesn’t make sense to me. Why not just have a 60 or 90 days grant and have shareholders confirming that they are happy for you to continue. This instead of having to gather a bunch of unhappy shareholders voting against you when they want something changed.
I’m not a fan of those endless subscription models as you know.

[masterOfDisaster]

To me it makes a lot sense.
It’s not endless, but only creates efforts to end it opposed to a limited contract that needs to be renewed, and renewed, and renewed.
What’s the benefit of that increased effort?
You realize that FLOT can end that contract as well?

[Cybnate]

It’s not endless,

To me it is as very close as it requires an effort for the Shareholders to end it.

What’s the benefit of that increased effort?

The benefits are:

1. Every 60 or 90 day period the performance can be reviewed and that the onus is on the custodian to raise another
   offer.
2. There is space for other to raise a competing offer at the same time every period. This improves the competitive environment which increases the chance that Shareholders always get the best deal.

You realize that FLOT can end that contract as well?

Did you get FLOT to agree to pay you? I still don’t see FLOT as a governance group or group of directors for custodians.

I keep this proposal on hold unless the FLOT payout is removed. I won’t support FLOT in that kind of role and neither do I like termless proposals cutting potential competition.

[masterOfDisaster]

I’ll have a look at the voting behaviour for some days and will change it to a grant, if it doesn’t get traction.
I thought it would make things easier.
If Nu wants to have precise control via grants over 90 NBT monthly, I’m fine with going the grant way.
It will be hard to scale Nu up, if you have to approve all recurrent costs monthly (or in whatever cycle).
Just think of the future products when assessing the situation!

I think the road I was going to take is better, but I won’t fight for it.