[Passed] NuPond Term 8


  • Reduced CNY Support by 50% and BTC by 80%

  • Reduced operator fee by 33%

  • Full calendar month of March

Proposal RIPEMD160 hash: c74bac0f778783ecc95644bfc70b845f5c2f9325

=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Custodial Address: B5V5SaL2WGKodLG8LsMoGhV8MtMWhrQQC2
Amount Requested: 620 NBT

Operator: @Nagalim
Type: 2 Fixed Cost ALPs
Pool and Term: NuPond Term 8
Exchange: Bter.com
Start: March 1st
End: March 31st
Tolerance: 1.5% CNY & 1% BTC
Spread After Fees: 1% for Both
Bid/Ask Reward Rate for BTC: 2 NBT/day
Bid/Ask Reward Rate for CNY: 5 NBT/day
Total Grant Without Operator Fees: 420 NBT
Previous Operator Fees: 300 NBT
Rollover Funds: 100 NBT
Current Total Operator Fees for Next Term: 100 NBT

=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the <custodianhash></custodianhash> tags.
1 Like

I intend to update this with observations on the behavior of the NuPond pools. The drafting period will be around 30 days long, and should include discussions about my operator fee and relative supports for BTC and CNY pools.

So far, the pools tend to be much more balanced than before the new price feed. It seemed like the BTC pool has had 5-10k total liquidity while the CNY pool has often had more like 5k or below. Alix does not report the CNY pool properly all the time, I still use this to see how much liquidity is actually getting paid:

cny pool will be 7.5NBT/day/side? why?

My argument for a reduction is that I tend to see less liquidity on the cny pool, and the volume tends to be lower. I’d like to hear your arguments against reducing it.
Nothing here is set in stone yet, I’ll be leaving this as a draft for a while.

my point is about the risk of exchange , i think bter risk then ccedk, team of bter is not appear for long time , and still no news about return the holded-BTC. more risk ,more reward . :stuck_out_tongue:

Or more risk less liquidity. Shouldn’t shareholders see that as a reason to put support on a different exchange rather than bter?

the thing is less exchange can trade NBT with fiat.

PS. All we need is B&C launch soon

1 Like

But the question is how to get other exchanges to pick up NBT…
We need to start pinging other exchanges.

all exchanges are risky.More liquidity = more attackers. Thus, polo has the biggest risk right now!

1 Like

Polo is definitely the biggest risk. It also gives us our biggest reward in terms of publicity and adoption.

This is a perfect opportunity for us to really look at what we want out of the bter pools. Do we want more liquidity here, or do we want less risk? Is there a maximum LP we can draw, and have we hit that limit? Would decreasing the cost decrease the support linearly? Or is there a threshold phenomenon?


You are raising a few good questions which apply to all pool operators. We seem to have settled with about 10% liquidity in T1 of the total NBT in normal circulation. Given the number of trades based on Coinerella it appears on the high side. Maybe we should move some of the T1 to T3 or T4 which will be a lot cheaper.

None of the pool operators is keen to lower the cost (interest rate for LP) as we all heard some of LPs that the risks (mainly exchange default) of keeping those funds on the exchanges is still high. However we haven’t tested this, would you be willing to try, not sure how to get proper price discovery here or determine what you call the threshold phenomenem.

So apparently the only way to reduce costs relatively simple is to lower the T1 liquidity and ideally moving that to a higher tier with less risk and therefore less cost to the Shareholder. Any better ideas?

The situation has changed through the course of term 7. As far as I can grasp, the story went something like this:

The BTC pool was more supported than the CNY pool. Then, shortly after switching to the new CNY feed, the BTC pool lost a major LP. For a few days, the pool operated at very high rates with only ~300 nbt of liquidity on each side. Eventually, the rates lowered back down to where they were yesterday:

CNY regularly operates at around 3-4k/side
BTC regularly operates at around 1.5-3k/side
Remember, the cost per side is 10 NBT/day

This has changed in the last 24 hours, and it seems to change often and is difficult to pin down precisely. Therefore, shareholders should just objectively think about how much they’re willing to spend on the operations.

So the rates are high. However, ALIX shows that the CNY pool regularly gets around 1kNBT/day volume and the BTC pool is often around 2kNBT/day. I would like shareholders to consider two specific questions:

How much NBT/day do we want to spend on LPs for the BTC pool?
How much NBT/day do we want to spend on LPs for the CNY pool?

I would rather avoid the question of asymmetric pools for this incarnation of FC if possible.

This poll is asking what to use in terms of BTC:CNY cost.

  • 20:20, just like it is now
  • 20:15, reduce CNY
  • 15:20, reduce BTC
  • 15:15, reduce all support
  • lower one or both to 10 or less
  • raise one or both above 20

0 voters

Until there’s consensus for a paradigm shift regarding liquidity provision, I think it should continue as it is.

1 Like

As a LP - I see the trades and know there is viable volume. As a shareholder, I think we should continue to support this exchange.
Is it the volume of Polo or Bittrex - no. But it is thousands of NBT a day.

1 Like

Is the cost 10:10 or 20:20 now?

20:20, which is 10/10:10/10. Two pairs, two sides per pair.

1 Like

So this proposal reduces liquidity support on the CNY pair.
What would be the rationale behind it?

That was an old draft. I think you’ll find the new draft much more drastic.

If you can’t tell, im unhappy with bter defaulting 1%. It was made clear to me that shareholders value the cny pool, so i have adjusted to be a low cost operation with an emphasis on the cny pool.

I would like some feedback on this. I intend on hashing it soon and I think it’s far from achieving consensus currently.
@cryptog could you give me your opinion?

Up for voting