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.
Up for voting.
BEv74GNRYyAeRJbXxjQvbbS48E7YvDgfs6 | 450 NBT
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.
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.
Added to my data feed
I think you made a calculation error assuming this is a 30-day grant as advertised.
2 x 30 = 60 NBT + 5 x 30 = 180. Total 210 NBT for 30 days
2230 + 2530 = 420
There are 2 sides to each pool. It’s about 1/3 the cost of previous operations and the same size as the last one.
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.
The spread was always 1% for ALPs. You think we should lower it? How much?
<=0.75% is enough for ALPs imo, so we can leave the =>0.75% to <=1% spreads to the gateways.
Smaller amounts (<1000 NBT) can be even lower during low volatility than 0.5% reducing frictions for the end users.
I like it but only for small exchanges. For Poloniex though, gateways are moving between 1-2% in order to keep the peg.
Market aware offsets combined with parametric order books will be a boon. But market aware offsets will take a bit longer until they are available.
For now we have to make sure that Nu doesn’t lose more money than necessary when keeping the peg while supporting the BTC hedging business.
An offset of above 1% combined with only a few thousand USD value in that range seems to be sufficient to shy professional traders away. Their bots seem to be configured to hunt for higher volume at lower offsets.
I don’t care much about the spread for ALP as this is a different kind of business.
If we can’t reach the ALP targets for the fee we are offering, we need to increase the fee or allow a bigger spread.
As long as we are close to the target, the spread can be as low as possible
For the Nu funded gateways it’s somewhat different. They aren’t really meant to handle the main trading volume and are designed as line of defence for the peg, that steps in, when ALP fails.
For those who might doubt the effectiveness of that - did you find a lot of alarming messages, paging FLOT members to deposit this or that here or there in the last weeks?
One reason is the relatively stable BTC rate.
Another reason is the buffer the gateways introduced, which can handle some swings without having the liquidity derailed - especially valuable at Poloniex.
To make this buffer created by Nu funded bot funds last as long as possible, the offset beeds to be decent.
And my sell side only gateways are even at above 1%.
Creating arbitrage opportunities by maintaining sell side only gateways with a too small offset would be silly
I see reducing spread as a job for a future iteration of nubot. There will be tiers offering higher compensation to tighter spreads. For now, we should focus on having some liquidity on both buy and sell side. Anyway, id really prefer such concerns to be done in the form of a global motion referencing a model and a plan rather than putting pressure on individual pool operators whose operation funds are dwindling.
This passed - title to change
You can edit the title.
I already did.
I think cryptog is pointing out that cryptocoiner can as well.
I was trying to imply the same