[Passed] NuPool 8 ALPv2

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.


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

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

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

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.

1 Like

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

##It looks like the whole NuPool is down:

##maybe already for hours:


1 Like

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.

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

1 Like

That looks fresh and attractive

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.


1 Like

@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.

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.

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.

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.

Good morning everyone.

I’m afraid I’ve done a silly thing. in creating scripts to automate the setup of ALPv2 for other pool operators I have inadvertently deleted the nud directory and wallet. Contained in the wallet was the private key for the address currently being used for voting on this grant.
I’m going to change the address in the OP and on daology. Apologies for the inconvenice.
The slightly better news is that the scripts are coming along nicely so automated set up of the ALPv2 software will be available soon.

this is the new address?
ok, confirmed by checking the edit post. I will update the voting list.

if you have old backups of the wallet and your original 100 keys haven’t been all used, and your “lost” priv key was generated from the same wallet, the key should still in the backup. You only need to send some coins to it to activate the key i believe. (or get 100 new addresses after restoring the backup and pickout the address that had been posted in the old OP.)

1 Like

Mmmmm backups