[Passed] Motion to regulate spread values for liquidity operations

We have been advertising for more than 6m. What is the impact of that ad campaign?

Nice. Tks. I ll give it a try.
But this parameter only works with your fork of ttlp, right?

Like the question, but don’t have a great answer. Obviously not good enough, but do we have anything better to increase demand? Just launched NuDroid, hope that everyone buys a lot of NuBits soon…

My fork is a pull of cybnate’s main repository, then changed in ways that shouldn’t affect the running of other pools (with or without specifying the new parameters).

Personally, I only want NBT for 3 things:

  1. TLLP
  2. Trading for btc
  3. NSR/NBT auction

Sometimes parking when park rates are super high.

We should get some vendors.

The impact is that we have outperformed almost every competitor that was released after Nu. From a previous post:

It’s important to note that Nu is still outperforming almost every competitor that was released after us. Of the 21 projects ahead of NuShares in market cap today, only two were released after Nu: Banxshares (which only released 37% of shares to the public, and are only traded on an internal exchange that self-reports numbers), and PayCoin (which is an outright scam).

NuShares have never traded in a bull market in its entire history. It’s tough to be critical of the performance of NuShares when by all accounts it has out-paced the market. Peercoin has dropped 90% from last summer for example. The past year and a half has seen a severe contraction in enthusiasm for cryptocurrencies from the heights of January 2014. As long as we’re improving our products (NuBits) though, I’m optimistic that enthusiasm will begin to grow once more and the price of NSR will reflect that.


It seems this motion has become fixed at 35%. That means that at least a third of shareholders think that at the very least think there should be some kind of motion setting out to place minimums and define quality of liquidity. Perhaps someone can propose another motion of similar wording with a tighter peg and if both motions pass the looser peg takes precedence (because it’s easier to enforce)?


We can push out the disclosure requirements first for gran proposals, as that seems non-controversial. A template on minimum offset for each trading pair can be made and voted on independently (and also revoked / updated independently if needed), as putting too much into one single motion can be confusing and hard to rally for.

1 Like

This motion is a no brainer. With a wider spread, we’ll get endless liquidity from arbitrage since there will be a guaranteed way to profit off price bouncing back and forth between walls. We will guide the price and traders will compete for the better spread. Nothing else exists like this in the crypto space. This is also the most likely way to see additional pools develop out of competition.

This touches on my biggest gripe with the original design of Nu. Why create this beautifully constructed piece of financial software to help bring freedom, stability, flexibility, and transparency to an economy and not let the free market decide peg spread? Makes no sense to me.


I think i cannot agree more.
I think most shareholders fear that allowing for a free to adjust spread would harm the peg.
Well it would depend on the market’s behavior. If most traders make transactions involving a higher spread, then it would get the peg to move away from 1 usd.
If on the contrary, those transactions involve a lower spread, then it would keep the peg close to 1 usd.
But it is safe to say that those traders would choose a lower spread in most cases.

This is only my understanding of course.

There’s a simple tool to tell us how it needs to be changed. Plot an ATR (average true range) on a five minute chart of bitcoin. If the ATR reading is below 1, we should use the tightest spreads. If it’s above 4, we should be using the widest spreads.

1 would indicate low volatility.
4 would indicate high volatility.

Yes this is the idea, i feel.
Perhaps it is linked to the idea of market-aware liquidity distribution of NuBot by @desrever
in there.

Looks like it’s going to pass after all…

This motion has passed. Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion, and to the network whether or not they voted for this motion.

If an operator has concerns on complying this motion I am happy to help with the clarification of the rules and other things.

This motion may not be perfect but we look forward to bringing out the best practices for liquidity provision through experimentation and shareholder agreement.

I am aware of concerns on the perceived weakness of a slightly looser peg, but a majority has decided that the benefits overweigh the drawbacks. I expect that a loose peg can be seen as a safetly line for users while trades can decide to trade at smaller spreads, as @pennybreaker seems to also suggest.

1 Like

This requires 1% more Share days destroyed. Please do not stop voting for it quite yet.

1 Like

Please change the prefix of the title from [passed] to [voting] since it is not passed yet as pointed out by @Nagalim

I suppose now that each liquidity pool manager will reward each participant contributing to the peg with a liquidity that matches the condition imposed by the pool on the spread. In other words, the pool will reward up to a certain amount of liquidity on a specific side (buy or sell) up to a certain spread.
The question that I have is: are you going to be more rewarded if you tolerate a smaller spread than someone else that set a higher spread?

I see the effects of this motion as follows:

  1. Pybot operators will need to link to a pool repo with the appropriate ‘spread’ or ‘offset’ parameter. They will also need to restart their servers with an appropriate tolerance. NuBot operators will need to adjust their order placement as well.

  2. In the future, when pybot is replaced by a nubot push system (parametric order book) this motion states the playground that shareholders are willing to tolerate. This is a good framework to build off of that we can change if we need to.

  3. The overall effect this motion has is to stimulate the market to hold the tight peg such that we can reduce custodial compensation.

Hazah! Passed

1 Like

Today I am pushing out some code to enforce this motion in Nubot. Will see it live in next release.