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 doesnât 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 donât care much about the spread for ALP as this is a different kind of business.
If we canât 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 itâs somewhat different. They arenât 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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
I already did.
1 Like
I think cryptog is pointing out that cryptocoiner can as well.
1 Like
I was trying to imply the same
1 Like
And please change category from 'custodial grant proposed" to âcustodial grant passedâ. Keeps the forum categories tidy 
(already did this)
2 Likes