[Passed] Motion to create the first liquidity pool: The Nu Lagoon

Totally agree. Whats the objective of the high buy in?

i also think you don’t need a motion about this. you just organize the pool and participants just subscribe in it. simple as that. fyi, i am willing to risk up to 500nbt and 2 btc at first attempt

the fee rate will decrease when there is enough liquidity in the pool. Your suggestion is feasible, only the calculation of the pool will be more complicated and we can’t predict how much liquidity the network will need.

Exactly, in this way, we can attract enough fund to let shareholder funded LPC operation exit.
The best practice is to only invest what you can afford to lose, especially at the first attempt.

I am afraid you have to convert them to one currency and deposit fund in one transaction to meet the minimum limit of fund size. There is no difference in risk and return in terms of which currency you deposit.

Tks @henry for pioneering liquidity pooling.

I would like to vote in favor but I have a couple of questions if you do not mind.

Can you make a concrete example of custodian fee grant calculation?
Say you get 50,000 nbt at the beginning of the operations.
Then you make the custodian fee vote and hopefully you get it passed within 10 days (what happens if it takes 11 days to pass btw?).
How much is that custodian fee? Roughly 5,000 nbt? But in that case, it means that you are considering a 1 month period right from the beginning. What happens if the pool vanishes within 10 days for some reason? You give back a portion of the custodian fees to Nu shareholders?

5000 NBT as a monthly fee would be too high if there is only 5000 NBT in Tier1. It would amount to 100% fee somewhat.
The base amount to which the fee rate should be applied should not be the total amount of funds but only Tier1 fund amount imho. Does it make sense?

The requested rate of a maximum of 0.34% per day may need to be amended at some point in the future to adjust for changes in liquidity market pricing. I would envision that taking the form of a motion setting a new rate to take effect either immediately or after some period of delay (perhaps a week or a month). Once such a motion is passed, the participants can evaluate whether they are still interested in using the pool.

Does everyone agree that is fair? Is that consistent with your expectations @henry?

Assume the Nu Lagoon begin operation with 50k next Friday, the btc price at $250 all the time,no new deposit and no withdraw, and the buy side and sell side always perfectly balance. I will submit the custodian fee grant requesting 2380NBT after the accounting report is published at 27-Mar, the last accounting day in month. If that grant passed at 6-Apr, 2380NBT will be added to the operation and it will show in the report at next accounting day,10-Apr.

Just like most previous LPC proposals which get paid after the LPC operation, the Nu Lagoon need shareholders keep to their promise. In your example, I think most pool participants will understand and tolerate the deviation(11 days). But if there is a strong sign that shareholders wouldn’t pass fee grant in future, the Nu Lagoon will cease operation, and fund will be returned back to participants. Participants will reserve the right to ask shareholder to pay those custodian fee in future.

Those custodian fee is belong to the Nu Lagoon participants, it should be distributed to them.

How much will be placed on exchanges won’t be fixed at 10%, instead it will be set according to how much is needed based on several factors, for example the total size of the fund, the trading volume on the exchange, how often the walls will be unbalanced. The base amount to which the fee rate should be applied is the total amount of funds.

Yes. A new rate can be set by a motion. A new rate can only begin effect at an accounting day in future. It is better to have some period of delay to let all the pool participants be noticed and prepared.

I think it is reasonable.

Tks @henry for your clarifications.

Another question.

Let us say that I deposit say 1000nbt in pool A) for only 24h. After 24h I decide to withdraw.
At the beginning you are saying that you would manually keep track of how much time the money of each participant would have been deposited and compute accordingly the fee. Is that right?

1 Like

I think if things get out of control (say NuNet needs to reduce drastically the quantity of NuBits in circulation urgently or the pool needs to be dismantled immediately implying that the pool reward payment is not possible any more), shareholders will make a motion that states that the previously custodian fee grant request is voided.

The sole liability represented by the pool against Nu’s shareholders is the fee grant.
Since the grant is requested on a monthly basis, one can argue that NuNet has enough time to control that liability if needed.

The liability for the Shareholders is still without limit. When the grant is deemed to high the Shareholders are still liable for that grant and can only vote for a motion to reduce future grants by lowering the fee or closing the contract.

I’m still not feeling comfortable with an ongoing limitless liability which requires an action from the Shareholders.to reduce or stop it.

@assistant motion vote b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761

Hi @cryptog

Here are the details for the Motion Vote on b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761:

[1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-create-the-first-liquidity-pool-the-nu-lagoon
Blocks: 4736 (47.360000%)
Share Days: 2367570972 (58.618808%)

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761

Hello everyone,

I would like to propose to create and manage the first private funded liquidity group pool: The Nu Lagoon. The Nu Lagoon will contain multiple pools. Different pool has different expected return rate and different risk. It will up to participants to participate which pool. Following are the details.

Pool A:


Read More

The withdraw order will be processed and take effect at next accounting day.


Previously custodian fee grant request can’t be voided, because the liquidity service is already provided before the fee grant.

If we are going to set a ceiling for fee grant in a month, what is a proper number in your idea?

UPDATE on preparation of Pool B:

I am very happy to announce that @jmiller will join the Nu Lagoon as one of my sig partners. Her current work as a shareholder funded LPC shows high standard of professionalism and obviously gained respects from the community. Her future work in the Nu Lagoon will contribute to its success a lot and eventually contribute the Nu’s success a lot.

I am still looking for another sig partner, as there are 3 operators needed in pool B. Substantial Nu shareholders or community members with a reputation, if you are interested, please contact me.

Nu shareholders,

There are 4700 votes on this motion but the number stop rising now. The motion won’t pass if there is no more support. I spent most of my time in designing and preparing this liquidity pool last two weeks. Can everybody at least agree that the success of the Nu Lagoon will strengthen people’s confidence of Nubits pegging and will help Nubits in becoming a busy intermediate currency, and agree that it’s worth a try. I will do my best to manage it well and I am confident it will succeed. Please vote on this motion and kick off the game.

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761


i still believe no motion is needed to start the project!

So if I decide to withdraw the next day of the accounting day, I will need to wait almost 1 month before getting my reward (my portion of the custodian fee)?

If the pool gets 1m NBT, Nu will have to pay 100k NBT as custodian fee but perhaps shareholders are not sure if the network can sustain such a payment.
This is why maybe we should put a ceiling?

I need shareholders agree with the fee rate and formula will be used in calculation of the fee, so they will pass the fee grant

In pool A, accounting day is every Friday


Ah ok. Tks.

I need now just a clarification on the ceiling before voting yes.

only pool’s participants needs to agree with the pool’s terms. shareholders will not necessarally be the participants!

I don’t think the ceiling is necessary in short term, because I don’t know what is the proper number to set. Ceiling is useful if you are worried about attracting too much money in short term, say 10 days. I really don’t think that would be the case in the early stage of the Nu Lagoon.