[Passed] Passive Liquidity Source on Poloniex: @Nagalim

Thanks willy! What exactly is the question for me? Yes NuBot does monitor the balance and places new balance on order, everytime a resetorder is triggered (time elapsed, t1 gone, btc price shift…)

How about triggering on total account balance increasing by over $1000 (nbt+btc), or something like that?

will you please prepare it for voting? :wink:

I’m gonna take a look at running nubot this weekend.

You will need 1-2 hours to master it. Voting needs 1-2 weeks!
MoD will get a stroke until then :smiley:

Any success with that?

Yah, im ready to hash, life stuff is making me hesitate. Ill do it soon i think.


This has been reworded somewhat and hashed. Please note that I have not completely set up NuBot (and haven’t heard a thing about the certificate or whatever that i need; I filled out the form) but I’m fairly confident I can get it up and running in a jiffy after this passes. Of course, I will not charge shareholders a dime until NuBot is putting FLOT funds on the order books.

1 Like

I’m still torn as it is a limitless operation hard to control for Shareholders. There is no end date and the only way to end this operation appear to be raising a motion or the custodian saying they had enough.

The compensation is also not entirely clear to me. When the gateway is used for a couple of days during a 30 day period would that become chargeable for a full 30 day period? And what if FLOT doesn’t use the gateway for 30 days in a row at all after having it used at least once?

I’m holding my vote for now.

You’re right, i forgot a clause about if the bot has no funds for a full period i won’t charge. But yes, if FLOT deposits funds for 1 day and demands a withdrawal the next day i intend to charge 150 nbt. If you want me to rehash with the clause i will. (Note that such a clause allows FLOT to discontinue my operation)

I like that clause as it provides at least FLOT a way to discontinue services in a way we don’t have to actively vote for discontinuing services when no longer required or better proposals are superseding it.


Please be aware that I have edited the grant since inception but maintained the same address. I think the grant is now unilaterally better for shareholders, but awareness of this change is very important to avoid calls of foul play. @cryptog


This looks reasonable.
It is way cheaper than @zoro s proposal and equivalent to @Cybnate s proposal.
What are the differences though?

92263daf3b89a605f9302ad212d12799c0c7bcee verified.

EDIT: I suppose that this is a motion. So people should vote for the hash not for the custodial grant but the block explorer says the contrary.

Can someone confirm?

Custodial Address: BN3XDdiNQw858WWpPEZ3kVr5WsgwYjMRy3
Amount Requested: 1 NBT

Please do not vote for the hash.

1 Like

ok. but how do you make sure that the terms will be kept if we do not vote for a motion?

EDIT: voted

We’ve been doing it this way for a long time (for instance, the grant I basically copied [Passed] Dual side Nubot gateway in Poloniex (by zoro)). Please bring this up in its own thread if it concerns you.

1 Like

Finally, it has passed!

I think this is ready:


1 Like

Is your nubot operational?