[Passed] NuPool 8 ALPv2

[willy]

Will the use of NuBot be encouraged

It will be forced. Maintenance of pybot is discontinued.

I am currently drafting Nu tutorials which will go live with the beginning of this operation.

[Nagalim]

This is indeed a problem. I noticed it a couple months ago and I was hoping my restart would fix it, but you’re right that it didnt. We will be doing basically a rolling reboot of liquidity operations as ALP v2 comes out, and the software should be a lot more robust.

[cryptog]

Looks reasonable to me and it is in accordance with my belief that we should reduce the liquidity provided by ALPs.[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:15, topic:3631”]
product to USD(expressed in BTC), but to USD.
[/quote]

What is the difference?

[masterOfDisaster]

What is the difference?

The supported trading pair.
BTC/NBT != NBT/USD

As long as wel support BTC/NBT (which will likely go on forever - B&C Exchange will have no USD…), there will always be a more losely pegged NBT in that pair than in a NBT/USD trading pair.
But a peg to USD (NBT/USD) is what Nu promises saying “…always a Dollar…”

[woolly_sammoth]

I’ve amended the title of this post to explicitly put it up for voting. I had thought that voting would start naturally but I can’t find reference to this grant in the current custodian votes.

The funds for the current NuPool operation have run out. I’m going to stop the pool server and make a start on updating the Operating System and making the switch over to the ALPv2 software.
As I’m doing that I will create an Ansible playbook which will be able to automate the process. I will then make that available ot othe rpool operators so that the process of making the change to v2 can be as smooth as possible

Apologies for the slightly shambolic change-over. I am continuously sorry that Nu falls to the bottom of my priority list. That is just where I am at the moment but, sorry, again.

I feel confident that FLOT and the NuBot gateways put up by @zoro and @masterOfDisaster will be able to hold the peg while NuPool takes this break. I think the combinations of Liquidity provision available to shareholders show an increasingly healthy ecosystem within Nu. I hope that ALPv2 is able to live up to the promise and bolster the ALP portion of that.

[zoro]

Well, the problem now is in Bittrex. It has no LP support!
Oh wait! There is a passive dual pybot gateway there:

[Decommissioned] PyBot passive gateway on Poloniex and on Bittrex

This is the thread in order to make available the details about the passive dual-side Pybot gateway on Poloniex and on Bittrex and to report the status and other information. The original grant detail are here. Here are some details of the provisioning of this service. Deposit addresses for dual side bots: Poloniex BLHvAB5GsCWCGB51YUYrWVESxLvYee1WJK (NBT) 1MxHW35Danbgm8kbi8f9gxJ73d39ro5hDS (BTC) Bittrex BDiddGCcbHpPnWLTbz5BTbeKicUZTfKPw2 (NBT) 1HAmbT2zgHgN8VAa2mhAmLF4k27aNZ5i3L (BTC) S…

I almost forgot
But it needs FLOT’s funds.
@Nagalim, can you send some T3 funds there and ask them from FLOT later?

[Nagalim]

Firstly, id need to decide on a price. Which brings me to the next point, the T3 gateway is set up so that I can charge whatever i want based on whether i want to make the trade or not. So if I charge a 10% markup, how do i know it wont later get rejected and then we’re all in a sticky predicament.

I think FLOT should make a 1of-8 btc address with $5k btc in it for sending to gateways.

[dysconnect]

Let’s say 3-of-8 or at least 2-of-8; trusting you and trusting every single person in FLOT with $5k is quite different. One compromised key and all will go in a puff.

[masterOfDisaster]

What about 2 2-of-3 groups with $5k or $10k each?

That way both agility and relatively high security together with the need to achieve consensus for executing transactions could be achieved.
Alternatively one could think about singlesig FLOT addresses with smaller amounts of funds, although I think this is not the way, which Nu should go.

But a subdivision of FLOT with more agile multisig (e.g. 2-of-3), where only relatively small amounts are kept, makes sense.

[masterOfDisaster]

@woolly_sammoth, @willy, is there something wrong with NuPool?

##It looks like the whole NuPool is down:

---

##maybe already for hours:

[GLock]

@masterOfDisaster

The funds for the current NuPool operation have run out. I’m going to stop the pool server and make a start on updating the Operating System and making the switch over to the ALPv2 software.

I feel confident that FLOT and the NuBot gateways put up by @zoro and @masterOfDisaster will be able to hold the peg while NuPool takes this break.

[masterOfDisaster]

Thank you.
Oh my - I missed one of the important posts when I replied to a multisig topic here…
I’m sorry for the confusion.

[zoro]

You forgot to sleep again?
Bittrex has 0 liquidity that is why we need FLOT to send funds to @Cybnate 's nubot there

[crypto_coiner]

the new ALP software uses a new reward mechanism which has been dubbed CRFR. This is a fixed reward mechanism meaning that the same amount of reward is given each minute. The reward is shared out amongst participants based on the percentage of the total liquidity that they have provided. The only time this isn’t true is when the targetted liquidity amount hasn’t been reached. In this case the percentage of the target that has been reached dictates the percentage of the reward that is split amongst the participants. These two factors together mean that there is incentive both to provide the most liquidity (to get a larger share of the reward) and ensure that the target is reached (so that the maximum amount if reward is payed out).

ALP v2 uses a database for all operation so there should be no more missed payments if the pool restarts and reporting will be much much easier.

That looks fresh and attractive

[cryptog]

Total Requested for both exchanges: 1360 NBT

Custodial address: BAwVjnLqxF5oiEEGcCWsN22gQMFTa2BM2R

The reduction of costs combined with the implementation of ALPv2 to take advantage of the parametric order book align with my vision of a Nu liquidity which must be cost-effective and robust against traders that want to hedge btc volatility cheaply.

Voted.

[Cybnate]

of the parametric order book

@cryptog I’m not aware that this is available. I thought it would only be in the next version of NuBot. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I still think the spreads are too high for an ALP. With such spreads, there is no need for shareholders to pay a premium on top of it.

[Nagalim]

Parametric is available currently. However, LPs have no reason or incentive to use it.

The tolerance for this motion is the minimum allowed by the regulation motion. If you are uncomfortable with that, i would suggest you propose it in another thread or as another motion rather than hesitating to vote for an operator that is simply obeying shareholder-voted regulations.

[mhps]

I still think the spreads are too high for an ALP.

I’m not aware of any evidence that users of Nubits would feel it too high.

[Cybnate]

I’m not aware of any evidence that users of Nubits would feel it too high.

That is a fact, there is also no proof to the contrary though. That is why I said -think-. Just based on perception of a pegged currency, but I accept that is only my opinion, other may or may not share that.

From a profit point of view as Shareholder, I feel that we are paying twice while the high spreads would almost pay back for themselves. Why not make the spread even higher, so trader can get their rewards without subsidy from Nu? We started with a perfect peg minus fees, we now have spreads of over 1% on either side minus fees and I believe we are still paying too much in proportion.

[Nagalim]

To be fair, it’s been over 6 months since we offered spreads lower than 1% and they have not been increasing, so a slippery slope argument is historically invalid.