@CoinGame pin plz ty
Can we run the bot now?
I hope the rate displayed is easy to understand for potential LPs. Something like
0.0052083 NBT/min = X.XXX NBT/day/100NBT_liquidity_provided
the math for X.XXX on the right hand side is
7.5NBT/day / (current_liquidity_provided_for_this_minute_in_NBT / 100)
I’m confused why this a motion instead of a grant.
Because I don’t need the money yet and I want to separate the fixed cost vote from the home pool grant and the possible hitbtc grant. This motion will increase the requested funds in my home pool grant by 450 NBT and will cause the network to owe me 100 NBT. My home pool grant will continue the trend of CNY/NBT 5,000 NBT on each side at 0.2% rate with a 50 NBT operator fee, which I fully expect to pass. The purpose of the home pool grant as opposed to controversial motions is to provide a set of buffer parameters whereby consensus can be reached between operators and shareholders for the actual grant proposal so the system better resists stalemate.
The setup comes from here:
[Draft] Periodic 90 Day ALP Grant Competition
but the approach is more general than that for this particular motion. I am specifically testing the shareholder support on Fixed Cost Pools in Term 5 of Nupond for the BTC/NBT pair.
@huafei The current server is 184.108.40.206:3333 and I am working on putting it on NuPond.net. Once the motion passes I will smoothly transition all LPs into the fixed cost model with a simple python script restart and manual distribution. Upon achieving shareholder support, nupond adoption will not require any changes to the client by the LPs.
2015/09/29-12:26:31 DEBUG: starting liquidity operation with sampling 80 2015/09/29-12:26:31 INFO: starting PyBot for btc on bter 2015/09/29-12:26:32 INFO: successfully deleted all orders for btc on bter 2015/09/29-12:26:33 INFO: waiting 12.61 seconds to synchronize with other trading bots for btc on bter 2015/09/29-12:27:32 INFO: bter - balance: 0.00000000 rate: 0.00% ppm: 0.00000000 efficiency: 0.00% rejects: 0 missings: 0 - 81C5AE35-21D1-48F3-9F3D-24EA0A303194
download from the github, using client-bter-cny-fix-payout-test.bat, change the cny pool to BTC
I definately have you in my logs. Do you have NBT or BTC on Bter? Is the bot putting up orders?
sorry , my bad , only have CNY . exchange into NBT and restart now , it is OK now.
thanks for your help!!
I want to be clear here. If shareholders fail to vote for this motion, it will not necessarily defund NuPond on the BTC pair. This motion is specifically aimed at gauging shareholder support for fixed cost pools.
no payment if fail voting?
Does that mean you convert the compensation for liquidity contributions based on the log files to the standard model in the case this motion fails?
I sincerely hope this motion succeeds, because the potential of fixed cost pools is tremendous.
Either 1) this motion passes or 2) this motion doesn’t pass or show support within some reasonable time frame.
I will set up everything for fixed cost and submit the home pool grant with fixed reward for the CNY pool. This grant will contain the 450 NBT requested for term 5 in this motion, as well as any rollover funds and so on and so forth. Once I’m confident I have the funds (and the shareholder support) to begin fixed cost I will. The exact timing will be fuzzy, but as we are not in an official periodic operator competition anyway the timing is assumed to be fuzzy. As this will be done as an upgrade to the current pool, there will be only seconds of downtime and no chance for the operator to unfairly take funds on an empty pool.
I will propose a standard NuPond term 5 grant. This grant will be fixed reward for both the CNY and the BTC pool.
What is NSR holders stopping from voting for this grant?
@assistant motion vote 187e547074c3fe0508a56d684dd705ec5d9929ee
Fixed cost pools will be nothing short of a small revolution in liquidity providing.
The fixed cost concept can very well be adapted to running multiple NuBots at the same exchange and even a combination of NuBots and an ALP at the same exchange.
With fixed cost liquidity operations the world can be told how much liquidity providing at a particular exchange or pair is worth to Nu.
Let the fight for a piece of the cake, that liquidity providers will then lead, begin!
Example: Poloniex liquidity will be announced to receive in total 2,500 NBT per month.
It will be very attractive for liquidity providers to get a piece of that cake. Providers will compete for a piece of the compensation with higher volume and lower operator fees than already proposed grants until a point is reached from which no more volume and cheaper operator fees can be afforded.
It will be especially nice to have fixed cost ALP and NuBots in parallel at the same exchange and pair, for the ALP compensation rate will raise the bar for the NuBot efficiency (economically speaking).
A side effect will be an increased decentralization, if the same exchange/pair is supported by different liquidity operations.
Fixed cost liquidity operations are an impressive way to lower the liquidity costs.
Fixed cost ALP can be used to determine the compensation rate for which liquidity providers will do a job. This is especially important for new exchanges and new operations.
From that rate Nu can derive how much compensation is required to have a desired liquidity volume at the exchange.
I seriously thought this motion to test the fixed cost operation were a no-brainer. What did I miss?
Here are the details for the Motion Vote on 187e547074c3fe0508a56d684dd705ec5d9929ee:
Blocks: 6 (
Share Days: 1294696 (
it seems only you, me and nagalim vote for it
I don’t know who votes for it, but I think this motion deserves more support.
Especially after [Withdrawn] Motion to lower compensation for NuLagoon sell side was made to lower costs with a sledgehammer approach.
I perceive the fixed cost approach as more sophisticated as it doesn’t dictate liquidity providers conditions.
They are offered a compensation instead and need to tell Nu how much they will offer for receiving the compensation or a part of it.
Free market will make ensure that Nu will get the best deal for the provided compensation.
Should I make this a grant? Would that make people vote for it more for some reason or another? I was hoping to keep it synchronized with the CNY pool because fixed cost pools are expected to have vastly fewer rollover funds and timing of the grants will start to become much more important.
I don’t know.
Maybe you wait for the outcome of my shameless plug…