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?