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

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.

Yes. But I need shareholders to promise to pass the fee grant which is calculated by the terms in this motion.

I agree. If it attracts too much money, shareholders could pass quickly a motion to put a ceiling.
But still, would it be complicated for you to put a ceiling like in the trustless liquidityy pool proposal ?

Yes. If there is a ceiling, the formula for NAV calculation will be more complicated.

@assistant motion vote b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761

Hi @cryptog

Here are the details for the Motion Vote on b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761:


##[b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761][1]
[1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-create-the-first-liquidity-pool-the-nu-lagoon

###[voting] Motion to create the first liquidity pool: The Nu Lagoon
Blocks: 4737 (47.370000%)
Share Days: 2331184000 (58.278660%)


I do not understand fully how the NAV is being calculated but I think the degree of risk that Nu will have to pay a huge fee is low for the first weeks and the innovation brought by this proposal outweighs it.
That is why I am voting in favor.
I will update soon my feeds.

The number of votes is going up very slowly. We need about 200 more votes to pass the motion. I am reviewing all the concerns shareholders expressed and seeing how to address them.

Shareholders, if you are not voting for this motion now and haven’t expressed what your concern is, please kindly tell me what prevent you voting for this motion, by posting a reply in this thread or sending me a private message. If you just missed the thread and voting somehow, please vote :

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761

Thank you very much.

This is an exciting experiment, that could be used as a benchmark vs the trust-less liquidity pool,
Verified and voted.

@assistant motion vote b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761

Hi @cryptog

Here are the details for the Motion Vote on b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761:


##[b5e709a59226b979e4cb59e6d3a3e06b506e3761][1]
[1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-create-the-first-liquidity-pool-the-nu-lagoon

###[voting] Motion to create the first liquidity pool: The Nu Lagoon
Blocks: 5096 (50.960000%)
Share Days: 2262403832 (59.043290%)


This motion has passed.

1 Like

Has PoolA started?

Topic changed accordingly.

1 Like

Thank shareholders for passing the motion. I also would like to thank @woolly_sammoth for suggesting the name of the pool.

Now, I am busy to do some final preparations. The Nu Lagoon Pool A will open for deposit in one or two days, and it will begin operation in next Friday, 20th Mar.

:blush: it’s amazing what your mind can throw up when you’re supposed to be thinking about something else.

I should point out there is a persistent error in the liquidity info displayed in the client. It will be important to factor out the error when calculating compensation, where that is related to the relative size of the walls. We expect to have the bug fixed in the 1.0 or 1.1 release. But for now KTm’s grant address B7mmVdVQ1SNNcT9zuQRK1B3Cbvo8vHeoB1 is stuck showing the following result in the getliquidityinfo B RPC call:

“B7mmVdVQ1SNNcT9zuQRK1B3Cbvo8vHeoB1” : {
“buy” : 0.0,
“sell” : 47520.1653
},

KTm has confirmed she has no operations right now and this grant address has expired, so it is sure to never have valid liquidity info again. It needs to be manually excluded in liquidity calculations.