BF46YvCKsppCC8eDD55FKeaWQa6nbK7BUx | 806 NBT
https://daology.org/proposals/b6c05b078a6de43eeca8ad7370d7bf6cb39999af
In my estimation, NuPond is currently stable enough to survive such a long period of inattention. The pool is currently awarding ~100% APR on 3000 NBT total liquidity often spread quite evenly amongst the 4 sides.
You continue with pybot, i guess.
Interesting experiment to see whether ALPv1/Pybot can run stable for more than 60 days time. I think the server software is capable of it from what I’ve seen. Most challenges where thrown by either the Nu daemon or environmental changes e.g. exchange APIs, price indices or in my case VPS provider issues.
Overall it is worth to keep it running a bit longer although I think it still runs at a too high cost for the provided liquidity imo.
I can offer a solution (Nu funded NuBot) for the NBT/BTC pair at bter (at 30 NBT fee per month), but not for the CNY/BTC pair:
At the moment there’s already a sell side NuBot operated by @huafei at bter.
If a dual side operation is desired, I can offer that as well, although I think it’s not really necessary to support an exchange with low no trade volume with a lot of liquidity at a lot of cost (direct or indirect):
A sell side operation should do - but that is only my opinion.
With $1,500 total liquidity in a dual side operation on the bter NBT/BTC pair (which I’d offer at 50 NBT per month), Nu might have enough liquidity there.
That would undercut the costs of NuPond, but had to risk Nu funds for the operation.
Considering that the NuPond operator fee is 50 NBT per month (NuPond term 3 runs 3 months!) and the daily cost of the liquidity provision per trading pair and side is 2 NBT (120 NBT per 30 days and pair), I’m inclined to consider NuPond the superior offer (compared to my NuBot solution).
Risking $1,500 to save monthly $120 doesn’t sound like a good deal.
You didn’t consider that NuPond term 11 is for 3 months when you came to that conclusion, right?
If you make a breakdown of the cost per month (30 days), you have 145 NBT (30 day * 2 NBT/(side*day) * 2 side/pair + 0.5 * 50 NBT) per pair.
I’m referring to the rewards for the LPs.
And this:
100% APR is (compound interest included) less than 6% interest per month.
I can’t call that expensive compared to other liquidity operations - just compare it with NuPool:
for a target of 15,000 NBT.
If I said I could run an operation that would guarantee $1 on the all 4 sides at all times and only costs $4/year, would you still call it expensive just cause it’s 100% APR? Cause $4/year does not sound expensive to me. I’m worried you’re turning a blind eye to total cost by focusing so closely on the %, which is an abstract and somewhat arbitrary number anyway. The total cost is a more straightforward representation of the price of public opinion for the product, the liquidity is a derived measurement. This is because not all liquidity is the same, even when offered on the same pair. The second $1,500 buy order does not boost our credibility as much as that first $1,500 order.
I am of the opinion that NuPond is the pool offering the best deal for shareholders in the Nu Network because of its extremely low simultaneous cost and risk compared to the other services out there.
Then again, at the current minute I’ve only got $1,600 on the books and am therefore offering something like 180% APR. Shareholders can decide what they want to do, though of course I’m happy to keep talking about it.
You tricked me with it, so it is the perception what counts here.
Or is it more than perception?
I suppose we need a better model to compare the costs. It is not transparent for outsiders as I even have a hard time to compare this It requires complex spreadsheets and most data is missing anyway. This is not going anywhere.
I rest my case, I support this but for different reasons.
what is the target liquidity?
FC doesnt have a target and never has. I really dont think anyone understands the crfc target anyway.
My understanding is that the CRFC target only tries to state how much liquidity the compensation should buy.
If the compensation can’t achieve that, you either need to adjust the compensatiin or the expectation.
It’s better seen as a lower limit in my opinion. If we dont get at least this much, we’ll start holding back funding. In that way, you can see that decreasing target increases LP, not the other way around.
@Nagalim can you have a check for this?
2016/05/16-15:51:47 ERROR: submit: socket error (111)
2016/05/16-15:51:48 ERROR: submit: socket error (111)
2016/05/16-15:51:49 ERROR: submit: socket error (111)
2016/05/16-15:51:49 ERROR: submit: socket error (111)
2016/05/16-15:51:50 ERROR: submit: socket error (111)Got it, thanks for reporting. ‘Index out of range’.
NuPond all target is 0 at CNY and BTC pool
Exchanges bter
Monthly interest rates 0.0006000000000000001%
Max ask rate 0.00002 % per day
Max bid rate 0.00002 % per day
Current ask rate 0.00002 % per day
Current bid rate 0.00002 % per day
Ask order target 0 NBT filled of maximum 1000000 NBT ( 0% )
Bid order target 0 NBT filled of maximum 1000000 NBT ( 0% )
NuPond operations are down until further notice. I cannot resolve Bter and the log is dropping errors. I’ll do a payout and look into it more later, hopefully after we hear word from Bter.
Bter is up now.
Restarted, paid out both pools
for the BTC deposit and withdraw fee as 0.5% but NBT as 1% ,
how can we fix the order of NBT/BTC?
Id like to hear others weigh in on this issue, if we can draw some economists from the woodworks.