Operator: @Nagalim Type: 2 Fixed Cost ALPs Pool and Term: NuPond Term 9 Exchange: Bter.com Pair: NBT/CNY & NBT/BTC Start: April 1st End: April 30th 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: 100 NBT Rollover Funds: 70 NBT Current Total Operator Fees for Next Term: 100 NBT
NuPond may switch to ALP v2 when the operator is confident of the implimentation. Targets of 500 nbt total for the CNY pool and 200 nbt total for the BTC pool will be used for the CRFC model. 1 week of warning will be given to LPs using the normal channels. NuPond may switch back to ALP v1 at will if confidence is lost.
I recommend adding the maximum amount on both pairs which receive rewards. Especially given the issues with BTER, there is a risk of paying a premium for liquidity and on top having an unfavourable large 1% spread on a fiat pair.
Maximum amount of liquidity provided which is rewarded at the advertised rate.
At the end of the day the liquidity provided counts, it would be good to have the targets clear for NuPond.
Why do i want to limit the amount of liquidity ill accept?
Are you asking me to edit the software again? Cause im probably gonna decline to do that with alp v2 basically already released. If shareholders refuse to vote for a fixed cost motion then I guess ill just stop operating nupond until im comfortable with the nubot software. However, if shareholders refuse to vote for fixed cost then i will refuse to vote for fixed reward, because i think it’s too expensive in its own way. So that basically sounds to me like goodbye pybot.
As a reminder: FC is different from “dutch auction” in the way that it provides a flat amount of NBT per time no matter how much liquidity is provided.
The more liquidity, the lower the reward per provided USD liquidity.
If shareholders had to decide “fixed cost” XOR “fixed reward”, fixed cost would be the obvious choice, if they really think as a corporation with accounting and cost control…
…it would be wise to prefer FC to FR, because only with FC you have effective cost control - unless I mess something up.
Gladly there’s CRFC around the corner, which will bring the best of both worlds
Ok, I need to state my question in a different way then as I’m trying to compare this with other grants in order to assess its value for money. The funding is not unlimited with FC (Fixed cost), the amount of potentially provided liquidity is. So if we assume the same rate as LiquidBits NBT/BTC pair of 0.20%/day how much liquidity will be provided on behalf of the Shareholders?
You’re asking a fixed reward question. The better question is what is the incrntive to rebalance? If you want to do the fixed reward math it’s pretty straight up, 5/0.002 = 2.5k and 2/.002= 1k, so 2.5k per side for cny and 1k per side for btc. However, liquidity is not just magnitude, it is rebalance efficiency. So a very pertinent question is how often would a side on either pool would be at 0. So far, that has happened very rarely in term 8 (like <.1% on either pool), and i would like to tout that as a powerful figure of merit. Especially considering how cheap the btc pool is running.
Updated to include ALP v2 clause. Please remember that FC is equivalent to CRFC targets of 0, so these targets are more conservative for shareholders than the grant as it stands for FC. I will be hashing this tomorrow.
By the way, @CoinGame , formatting on daology is an absolute nightmare. Doublespace then enter required to get a new line? Seriously? What is this, reddit? Why does < BR > not work?
This proposal further reduces cost compared to Term 8 and implements ALP v2.
Let us give it a try and see ALP v2 is more cost-efficient than ALP v1.
Voted.
It’s not a daology thing it’s a markdown thing. Reddit has their own flavor of markup parsing, but we try to reflect github flavored markdown. It will make more sense when syncing to github is implemented.
Thanks for clarifying that. Only issue I have with it is the large spread. I believe ALPs should just have a small spread.
Will support it for another round knowing that an ALP on BTER has its difficulties. Let’s see how it is valued by the traders.
