[Passed] NuPool 7


Hi Shareholders.

Despite saying that the new version of the ALP software would be ready for the next operation of NuPool, it now looks like that won’t be the case. As such, I would like to extend the current operation of NuPool for another 30 days. The parameters will remain the same as the current operation.

The work on the new version of the software is going well. You can keep tabs on the state in the chat room here https://gitter.im/inuitwallet/ALP-Server and on the github repo here https://github.com/inuitwallet/ALP-Server.

We currently have funds for another 6 days (approx) of operation. If this proposal doesn’t pass within that time, I am willing to fund the pool myself for a few extra days.

The proposal:

4,100 NBT


NuPool will operate on Poloniex and Bittrex for a 30 day period. The total target of the operation will be 50,000 NBT split 4:1 between the two supported exchanges in favour of Poloniex. This gives a target of 40,000 NBT split equally between bid and ask on Poloniex and a target of 10,000 NBT split equally between bid and ask on Bittrex.

The pool reward will be lowered to 0.24% per day which translates to 7.2% for the duration of the operation.

The figures are:

Duration: 30 Days Daily Rate: 0.24% Total Rate: 7.2%

Poloniex: 40,000 NBT > 20,000 BID | 20,000 ASK
Bittrex: 10,000 NBT > 5,000 BID | 5,000 ASK

Server Tolerance: 0.0105 or 1.05%
Spread After Fees:
Poloniex (fee = 0.2%) - 1.1% SAF
Bittrex (fee = 0.25%) - 1% SAF

Grant Amount: 50,000 x 7.2% = 3600 NBT
Pool Fee: 50,000 x 1% = 500 NBT

Total Grant Requested: 4100 NBT


Added voting to the title assuming you wanted it up for voting and added to my datafeed.

@woolly_sammoth I just noticed on adding it to my datafeed that you are using the same custodial address as here: [Passed] NuPool Grant proposal 3

Therefore I believe you should change the address and update the grant as it may not succeed or would it be reusable on expiration after 6 months?


Looks consistent with NuPool 6. No roll over funds?

Our period ended some time ago. We’re operating on the roll over funds at the moment.

1 Like

any info on that?

1 Like

A payment is missed today! Server crashing?

My bad. My calculation showed I had another day. Sorting out funds now, expect a manual payment in a short while.

With regards the reused address, it was an oversight on my part that it was reused. The address does show in the RPC output of getelectedcustodians I think that will cause this grant to fail (whitepapaer says that each address can only be used once. I think the 6 month timeout is when liquidityinfo can no longer be broadcast). I have adjusted the OP to contain a new address.
If everyone could redirect their clients to the new voting address that would be greatly appreciated.



OK manual payout has just been sent and the Pool has funds for a few more days (several more days).

1 Like

It seems that the address issue has already had repercussions. The BNUPooL* address that I had originally put as this grant address became a Custodial address on the 19th of June 2015. That means that it stopped being able to bradcast liquidity info on the 19th of December. The pool hasn’t been correctly broadcasting liquidityinfo since then.
I have just restarted the Pool with a different custodial address BEbkDnBh71ZaXHXkr63HXP4bMda9m9BN7B. It is now braodcasting liquidity info correctly once more.

Apologies for the incorrect information over the last few days.

I have made another manual payment for credits earned before the restart.


added to my data feed

1 Like

Sorry for the delay. Voting.

Passed. Thank you all for voting!

1 Like

A payout for Polo is missing 3 hours ago!

Thanks for the warning. Checking now.

Yup, I can see the failed payout. It’s complaining of insufficient funds. I must have messed up my transfer of funds from the custodial address to the liquidity address. I’m waiting for nud load locally then I’ll sort out the issue and send the payout manually. Apologies for the delay.

Payment sent. Apologies for that, Avatar mode (or lack of it) strikes again.

Thanks as always for letting us know.

@woolly_sammoth Down?

To add to @willy s post above: it looks like an instance of the “list index out of bounds” bug that plagued liquidbits a while ago.
It seems that the bug doesn’t cause the server to crash fully, just to stop collecting liquidity. As far as supervisor knew, the server was still running so no action was taken.
I’m loathe to spend too much time bug fixing (I think time is better spent getting v2 up and running at the moment.) what I will do though is alter the code so that caught errors like this stop the server dead so that supervisor can take over and restart it.

1 Like

Just to ask about server tolerance and SAF. Perhaps it is in NU’s interest to lower
these bounds? or not?

While this improves the quality of Nu’s products to lower the SAF for orders, which get compensated, it increases the compensation that is required for liquidity provision.
The current settings are a compromise between those two aspects.

1 Like