NBT is still a small market - the real user base is small
People providing liquidity are an even smaller base. You need to do some added work to get a client up and provide liquidity.
Many may have exchange preferences - they will only use exchange A or B and won’t ever got to C.
Many may - and I’m including me - don’t understand the complex interconnections between rate and spread. We’re just going to look at the rate and go with the highest - modified by our investment profile/goals.
Allowed spread is only a factor in exchanges with high liquidity.
So long story short…I think if you lower allowed spread and raise rate you would get more interest. Because we advertise rate more. Just go to raw and you see rate very prominently displayed but not a word about allowed spread.
I make a point about using a high spread, and I am of the opinion that my providers notice. You’re telling me to increase rates on btc yet other threads are talking about the exact opposite, and I am inclined to agree that btc rates should be lower. I can’t help but think as much as you’re happy to talk about increasing shareholder expense when we discuss spread, when shareholders actually go to vote they scoff at high btc provision rates. I know I do. Why should the lowest liquidity markets (I.e. the lowest volume markets) be providing the strictest peg? If we really want to go that route I’ll drop the tolerance by 0.5% and shoot the rate up to 0.4 or 0.5%/day. I think the shareholders will scoff at such rates, but they are the logical consequence of this train of thought. Why is 0.85% such a special tolerance number that we want all pools to have it? Y’all realize that number was chosen somewhat at random by creon during initial alpha testing right? Like, there are other numbers in the world.
It’s really a question of philosophy about the quality of our peg. That’s why we passed a philosophical motion that defined our ideal btc peg to have 1% spread beyond fees. That is what I have been doing. If y’all want something different, pass a different motion.
I made a post where I propose some motions that I would like to refer this discussion to. I appreciate the strong support I’m seeing for the NuPond 4 motion. It’s also nice to see Nu 2.0’s NSR voting in action on http://blockexplorer.nu/votes, thank you Nu Team.
I will be paid. This is being done very very intentionally such that shareholders can choose to pay me in nsr or nbt with a preference on nsr. The nsr grant passing or failing has nothing to do with the continued operation of NuPond.
If you prefer to pay pool operators with NSR if they actively are asking for it, vote for the NSR grant. If you prefer to pay in NBT, wait and I will put out an NBT grant later. If the NSR grant fails, those voting for the NSR grant will be asked to switch over to the NBT grant. The voting body that is against NSR grants for pool operators can be approximated as (percentage voting for NBT grant - percentage voting for NSR grant) given some reasonable window of averaging (like 1,000 blocks).
Please vote for the motion45f6e4d5f503528e4258859b143f603b51bcfb7fif you wish NuPond to continue operation.
Voted. Moved it back to custodial grants proposed. Maybe we should not have two different grants up for voting in one thread. Just have a thread for each grant. It doesn’t help to provide the overview on what is open for voting. Just my thoughts.
The derivation is like this:
Deviation is 0.0025 for btc, 0.0015 for fiat, 0.00005 for USD. Take the tolerance and subtract off the deviation. Then, subtract off another number: either 0.0005 for price feed fluctuation or 0.00005 for no price feed (I.e. USD pairs). The result is the offset. To get the SAF, subtract off the fee and multiply by 2.