0,016 
I wonder who will keep a tighter spread <0.1% in Polo.
The tighter you make it, the less gain for Nu, if your bot trades funds
I just don’t want to scare away the NBT traders due to the larger spread.
Are you speaking of thoseNBT traders who often successfully hedge with NBT and drain money from Nu?
They don’t need to have a tight spread.
The guys who just want to buy and sell some NBT need a tight spread, not the whales.
Parametric order book was made for that.
In the future there might be a very tight ALP with not very much order volume, which can be provided cheaply and bots run by Nu, which offer bigger volume at much higher spreads.
This way the big traders pay some money for the service Nu offers.
I have no intention to move the wealth of Nu to traders by offering big volumes at low spreads.
As I run the NuBot with Nu funds, I will of course follow each order that is given by motion.
I can only recommend to keep the orders close to the mid price small.
The current ALP scheme is not really matching that vision.
1 Like
You have a point here. But the thing is that i am hearing sometimes that 1 NBT is not 1 USD but 1,01 usd
or 0,99 usd, etc. You know, it is like we are “telling lies” about the peg and i don’t like it when i am reading those things by new users.
Nu never promised to offer NBT as a pegged product to USD(expressed in BTC), but to USD.
It’s very tightly pegged to USD!
Sadly the “advertising phase”, in which a “peg” to USD(BTC) is offered, is still going on and costs a lot of money.
It’s really about time to get US-NBT focussed on USD:
3 Likes
We arent offering to buy and sell at $1. We are simply offering the best product on the market. As long as that’s true, we don’t have to make any promises. You don’t hear the sun promising to rise every morning, but I’m still pretty convinced it will again tomorrow.
1 Like
Evening.
Apologies, the 0.015 is a misprint, it was intended to be 0.0105 to mirror the current tolerance of NuPool and keep the spread-after-fees consistent. I will update the Op now and the daology post shortly after.
3 Likes
OMG! So much debate about spread and it was a misprint! 
1 Like
I’m still open to debate on it, just thought it important to correctly show my initial intentions.
Debating liquidity and parameters is debating one of the most important parts of Nu.
This can never be wrong 
1 Like
Liquidity providers will be able to run the NuBot software now with ALP v2, so that means they’ll all have access to NuBot’s redesigned interface/gui…
Is this the point where liquidity providing becomes so easy to do that we can advertise pools to normal people (no technical experience) to get more providers on board? Reducing the difficulty like this should lower the barrier for entry.
I’m thinking about ads on the Daily Decrypt, Reddit ads and other places, but only when it’s necessary to increase the amount of liquidity provided. Of course I understand we need to go through a testing period first before doing this. What do you think? Is it getting close to the time we should start advertising liquidity providing for Nu?
3 Likes
We don’t pay $10k/month for the Sun to do it, and on top of it we always stay on the losing end in arbitrage – by design – every time BTC pricce swings.
1 Like
I believe this should be lower e.g. around 0.7% allowing for transaction for fees effectively having a tight spread of around 0.5%. ALP should hold a tight peg, but reward relatively high for that, although with a low volume to reduce costs.
I don’t support ALPs continuing with high spreads going forward now we have a decent NuBots infrastructure available supported by FLOT which can support the peg as a second line of defence at high 1%+ spreads.
Also the volume can be lowered to reduce the cost of a tight peg.
Please elaborate?
May I?
2 Likes
There is a motion which states no alp running on poloniex can require an offset lower than 0.7%. If you dont like that, you’ll need to pass a motion nullifying that spread regulation motion. Saying you wont support a motion unless it goes directly against existing motion is a difficult place to put operators in.
Are you referring to this motion?
1 Like
As Polo is going to offer <0.15% fee for market makers the minimum spread is going to be 0.65%. Hopefully the liquidity situation is will be more transparent as more people place open orders rather than dump directly on the walls. Though I suspect some code about matching orders might go against that.
Yes, I remember that highly contentious and debated motion. See my response to it here: [Passed] Motion to regulate spread values for liquidity operations. I supported some sort of guidance but this went too far in my opinion and now appears to be unnecessarily constraining as I suggested at the time.
As I’ve shared my position in that thread I’m not going to debate this again or raise motions to nullify. Instead I will call for the minimum offset this motion allows in order to have my support, which I understand is 0.7%.