[Passed] NuPool 9

I guess only @woolly_sammoth can solve this debate. We are speaking only out of experience right now.
I have tried various offsets since the start of ALP v2 and i see that i can reach 0.8% offset and be payed
normally.

Maybe the streamer is doing something to avoid the deviation concerns.

These last few comments caused me to re-examine the code that decides if an order is within tolerance. I’m afraid to say that I haven’t been factoring fees into the quoted tolerance which explains the issues LPs have been having getting credited as tier 1. I am truly sorry for this as NuPool hasn’t been working as advertised. I can blame the copy paste attitude I used to create the last proposal but it is just an excuse.
For me, this is the last straw. I will need to discuss with @Willy but I don’t think I’m suitable for continuing to maintain a pool of such importance to Nu while making such basic mistakes. The bit I enjoy doing (and so find easier to do) is the development and maintenance of the software so I would be happy to keep the server running but I would like to explore the possability of NuPool ownership becoming a shareholder concern. I’m not sure what that will look like (proposals still need to be written by an entity) and I realise that we can’t risk that transition immediately but I will give it some serious thought over the next operation period.
In the meantime I will update the OP so that the fees are incorporated into the tolerance figure and a ‘Spread after Fees’ figure of 1% is achieved.

I wouldn’t be too harsh on yourself. Unfortunately there are only a handful of people here who can without blinking explain you about tolerances, offsets, spreads and whether fees are part of any of those or not.

I’m just starting to understand the new ALPv2 software myself and can see the complexities arising. It takes some solid experience to make it all work and set all parameters right. I think you are doing fine, but might need to allocate a bit more time to writing proposals.

When it comes to it I might be able to fill in the gap you leave given that I haven’t heard whether CCEDK / LiquidBits will continue after the end of this month. Queries in that direction haven’t been answered. The LiquidBits ALPv2 server is fully functional at the moment and being tested by myself. So eventually taking over (partially or fully) any supported pairs on Poloniex or Bittrex wouldn’t be a problem once I’m a bit more confident about its inner workings and stability. Maybe it is possible to have two pools operating at the same time on Poloniex, any thoughts on that?

1 Like

Yes, Polo needs the most possible liquidity we can provide.

Thank you @cybnate. I hadn’t meant ending NuPool, I think it is needed, I would just like to look at how the operational parameters get decided for NuPool, and potentially other pools. I feel more and more that the current method sets up an artifical “us and them” relationship between shareholders and pool operators. That may just be my experience of things but I do think the whole system can be made better. As I said before, the pools is run primarily for the benefit of Nu.

1 Like

And who will make it as well as you or even better and without mistakes?

+1

If you don’t feel comfortable continuing the pool, we should take this seriously. I’m not trying to talk you into continuing it (maybe a little bit ;)).
But I mean it, when I say: you’ve been a damn good operator so far and mistakes just happen. It’s you who blames you and nobody else, because all others are happy with your work!

I could start listing all mistakes that happened so far (some fo them cost real money), but that’s not necessary, because I’m damn sure that we have learned from each of them.
I want to name just one mistake, because it’s related to NuPool:
using hundreds of thousands of USD value from Nu funds on exchanges proved to be a mistake; losing a good part of them was the reason decentralized liquidity provision, ALP (NuPool!) was invented.
I’ve come to the conclusion that providing liquidity with Nu funds with a way lower volume might be able to outperform ALP with regard to cost/liquidity, but when ALP was created, it was the best available choice.

With ALPv2 I expect the decentralized liquidity provision to be much more (economically) reliable than ALP ever was.
So there’s a future for a clever combination of ALPv2 to provide T1.1 liquidity (tight spread, <1%) and Nu funded bots at T1.2 (wider spread >1%) with that revenue from trading might be possible in times when trading volume exceeds the capabilities of ALP - who knows?.
That future needs capable pool operators - you are one of them.

I’d like to see ALPv2 prosper and market aware orders come true with you as NuPool operator.
Ultimately it’s up to you.

Thanks for the kind words. Just to be clear, at no point did I intend to stop supporting NuPool or ALPv2 as that helps no one. I just think the proposal portion of the operation can be made smoother. I guess the incentive to do so is mine but if anyone has any ideas about the process I’d be happy to hear them.

There haven;t been any requested changes to the OP for a while so I have put it up for voting.
Checking the blockchain, there are several votes for the old amount currently there. if you have previously voted for NuPool 9 could you check and reconfigure your vote for the new amount please?

what about issue of bittrex?

I will be trying to get the NuBot wrapper working more consistently. As I’ve previously mentioned, Bittrex has worked well for me every time I have tried it (for days at a time, not just watching it connect then disconnecting).
The number of reports that it doesn;t work shows that there is something up with the wrapper, it’s just figuring out what. There is definitely at least one other LP who is having no issue with Bittrex as there has been liquidity provided there over the last period. As such, I don’t think the cost to Bittrex should be cut.
If you or anyone else have logs of an attempt to place orders at bittrex that has failed, could you forward them to me? it will all help with debugging.

0.5% tolerance = 0.5% offset ?

Hi shareholders. The pool is currently out of funds. As such I cannot allow it to continue running as there is no way to pay LPs. I will be stopping the software now and would hope that this proposal will pass sooner rather than later.
Apologies for this state of affairs. I had hoped that the proposal in its original state would have been better received and would have been passed before this point.

It is a very unfortunate situation for our largest ALP. I could transfer funds from LiquidBits as I have to close that down in about 7 days anyway. Will probably have 200NBT+ to burn which could be transferred to NuPool immediately. However It is against all rules, so I’m hesitating. Maybe there are better solutions or we should just wait?

It is a very unfortunate situation. Another solution would be if LPs agreed to be back payed when this proposal passes. Getting the approval of a set of pseudonymous users could prove difficult though.
Your offer of liquidbits funds is a kind one, it would certainly keep the pool operational for a while. What are others thoughts on this sharing of funds?

@Nagalim could lend you some NBT from his T3 asap. Then you sent them back when the proposal passes which is a certainty :wink:

That would be another good plan. In return, I would start the next proposal for NuPool 10 immediately to allow enough time for full debate and voting before funds run out again.

What is your daily cost? Can you cover it temporarily from your own funds?
(you have no obligation to do that of course)
Please don’t take down the server, even if it is for free now.

I’m afraid I don’t have any funds available. A tax bill at the end of April all but cleared me out. I will restart the server now as it seems there will be a way to fund it temporarily, one way or another.

I haven’t stopped running my nubot. But now i see something very very strange.
No matter what values i set in buy and sell offsets, i always see that orders are set at offset = 0.005.
My config.json has the correct values i have chosen but in the “configuration” page i see 0.005 !!!
What is wrong here?