[Passed] NuPond Term 8

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

I like the focus on the CNY pair, which is one of the pairs, for which ALP are truly useful even if a paradigm change would happen and the BTC pairs would thereafter only be supported with single side (NBT sale) gateways.

There’s no reason we can’t keep these pools running with peanuts as long as the operator costs are bearable. We can build passive liquidity and gateways on top of it. Anyway, I think we need an intermediary term here and I’d like to see how this pans out. Theoretically, a lower fixed cost total grant should reward similarly to a bigger fixed reward grant. But anyway, yes, CNY pool should be kept up because Nu can’t do anything with CNY on Bter except things like NuSafe or ALPs (or buy BTC with it).

1 Like

no payment for 3 Feb?

Will someone please explain to me what happened here?

My nupond Txn is in that missing series of blocks, one of them happened in block 730,975 with hash b536966edb185cbf3ad45a8403a935148d7a0b0625e700879569ab213fa993dd. The Txn ID was df3caf518b471705603ddb4c55f60039cd28dd26c759253c1ff047c503ffb3a2.

I had a payment for 3 of Feb. It should be above 1 NBT in order to be payed.

Sorry for the delay. I understand the reason for the reduction.
c74bac0f778783ecc95644bfc70b845f5c2f9325 verified.
By the way, how have your FC ALPs perform so far?

They were doing alright up until most of my LPs pulled support. Basically, it shows me that no matter how much money we offer you just can’t get some people to risk their money on an exchange like Bter. Fixed cost seems to do quite well at keeping the sides balanced, but cannot force magnitude of liquidity like I’d hoped. CRFC should help to fix that, or at the very least reduce costs in that case.

1 Like