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?
Bittrex has 0 liquidity that is why we need FLOT to send funds to @Cybnate 's nubot there
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.
@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.)
Yup I have a backup from the server and have been through the address pool but no joy. Didn’t know about having to send coins to it though.
Will add this to my data feed
First of all, who isn’t voting for this? Why not?
Second of all, @woolly_sammoth next month you should keep the same fixed cost and cut the targets in half.
Very bad that this is so difficult to pass. This service gives a great value to NU and it isn’t expensive in contrary with other more expensive proposal that is oftenly missing from Poloniex!
@woolly_sammoth, will you consider lower the tolerance to 0.009, perhaps it will give a chance to be voted by more voters.
The ultimate aim is to automate the server parameters so that they change in response to market pressures during the course of the pool operation. That’s a little way of though and needs some work on what actions the software should take in response to certain market conditions. The upshot of that is that the tolerances will come down and the peg will get tighter.
This operation though is the first outing of a completely new software. It has had testing periods but the only safe way to see that it does the job it is intended to do is to run it in a comparable manner to the software it replaces. That is why the pool parameters have been kept the same, not from wanting to make Nu pay higher than necessary for the service the pool provides, but to allow us to see that pool mk2 is the same as pool mk1. Once that is confirmed, we can start tinkering with parameters.