[Passed] Proposal to Provide Sell-Side Liquidity and Shareholder Dividends

[Chronos]

At the time, my understanding was that no other grants were outstanding and something was needed quickly since it would still take at least a week to pass.

Based on that report, KTm still has over 95% of the original grant supporting the sell side. We are in no danger at this point.

Do we have other data that points toward an urgent need for a second grant?

[jmiller]

Do we have other data that points toward an urgent need for a second grant?

I started the proposal less than 72 hours after NuBits went public and it hasn’t even been a week since launch. I would say that this amount of time is hardly enough to gauge the future demand for NuBits.

The important point is that the proposal is there if it is needed. It does not have to be voted on now or ever.

[Cybnate]

Edit: It is also quite possible that we could stick with the original grant and have a motion to amend the proposal pass long before the first dividend payment is due.

I think that would be the best way forward.

[Hibero]

Good points raised. There are other solutions if we don’t want to make perpetual liquidity. All this scam/ponzi/ accusation are making me worried and I don’t want to make shareholders look greedy to the outer world. I d rather use profits to buy nubits and burn them ( reducing supply ), give them to a bounties fund to develop the network, give to charity (what about that fund?) … Really I am pretty much for anything that is not free profit for shareholders and can lift our reputation. We want to build a strong community, not short terms speculators that want PPC to dump them and go home with some profits.

I am completely for using a large percentage of dividends for bounties or for development but we should also keep at least ~40% for shareholder dividends. That way we can show to the Peercoin community the positive trend that NuBits brings to Peercoin. (That is assuming that the dividends that are for bounties and development costs are not converted to Peercoins. Also development should be getting the dividends from undistributed shares anyway.) I think we should heavily push development though. From reading some of the criticisms on the Bitcoin subreddit, one of the largest frustrations of the community is the ease of use of the Bitcoin client. So my idea is to push exchanges, client development, and a smartphone wallet. After we have about 4-5 exchanges, change that priority to a getting a payment provider or fund our own.

[desrever]

Do we have other data that points toward an urgent need for a second grant?

Chronos, I have some data that points towards a urgent need :

Number of elected custodians putting NBT into circulation : 1

[jmiller]

Hi all,

Below you will find a link to my amended grant proposal which specifies using the granted funds in dual-side mode for the first 90 days of the Grants operation.

Proposal to Provide Dual-Side/Sell-Side Liquidity and Shareholder Dividends (amended)

Here is the SHA-1 hash of the raw amended proposal: 56a848081d3452b06255a4edca8fd88a49825a61

Also, it has been brought to my attention that the three additional grant addresses will no longer be necessary due to a recent development with NuBot. I have removed my votes for these three additional addresses.

jamie

[jmiller]

Hi all,

Jordan Lee has pointed out to me in the following thread that he intended to use the motion voting system for a couple of important up-coming motions. As the client is currently designed, only one motion can be voted on at a time.

Smaller LPCs are best for now. Submit a proposal!

I did have in mind that people would provide their own liquidity for the bonus. I do like the idea of you using the funds you are likely to receive for liquidity, however. We have very low bandwidth for motions at the moment where shareholders can only vote for one at a time. That will likely change in our next release. For now, I planned on finalizing my draft protocol change motion and then offering a second motion later about the burning currency protocol changes. Until the protocol changes t…

Because of this, we will use a grant for 1 NBT to decide if we should use the amended version (0.1.1) of my grant proposal.

If you wish to amend my original proposal, please vote for the following grant for 1 NBT:

BMmwnkZo61gw2m3fqRFApPS5nbW1JNwf5J - 1 NBT

Please accept my apologies for the additional troubles.

Thanks,

jamie

[Cybnate]

Shouldn’t this thread be moved to Custodial grant proposal? I think a lot of people wouldn’t look at it in this thread. Let me or one of the other moderators know if you like to have this moved so the shareholders have all proposals ready for voting on one page.

Edit: I meant here: http://discuss.nubits.com/category/nushares/custodial-grant-proposal

[desrever]

yes it should .
Sorry we created the category yesterday !

Moved !

EDIT: a request for @jmiller . Could you please follow the styles of other custodial grant request and make clear and visible the address and the amount you are requesting a vote for?

Currently is at the bottom of the message and I had a hard time finding it.

Next time, don’t submit a proposal directly. Please first submit a draft for discussion, and only when its ready to be voted for, then you can make a different new thread.

Cheers. Casted my vote

[desrever]

After reading your post again, with the two edits, I finally got it.

Please edit again. I believe you should have a huge bold text at the beginning of your post, and repeat it down here with a summary : Something like :

To the attention of all shareholders (fac simile)

I am requesting a grant of 200400 NBT;
My proposal has two versions : v.0.1.0 , and v.0.1.1 ;
The second proposal differs from the first in respect to xyz, because of ijk. You can find differences here

To vote for using the funds as specified in v.0.1.0 just vote for 200400 NBT @ B9fv9Di2Y4RxUHzrwjtfq5fetAhqULzWKL

To vote for using the funds as specified as inv.0.1.1 , in addition to the vote above, cast a second vote of 1 NBT @ BMmwnkZo61gw2m3fqRFApPS5nbW1JNwf5J

Also, please specify how much will you wait to see if the 1 NBT grant passes, and what will you do with the funds in the meantime.

[jmiller]

Thanks @desrever !

To the attention of all shareholders

I am requesting a grant of 200400 NBT;
My proposal has two versions : v.0.1.0 , and v.0.1.1 ;
The first version is for sell-side liquidity only. The second version will operate the granted funds as dual-side liquidity for the first 90 days. You can find differences here

To vote for using the funds as specified in v.0.1.0 just vote for 200400 NBT @ B9fv9Di2Y4RxUHzrwjtfq5fetAhqULzWKL

To vote for using the funds as specified as in v.0.1.1 , in addition to the vote above, cast a second vote of 1 NBT @ BMmwnkZo61gw2m3fqRFApPS5nbW1JNwf5J

Version v.0.1.0 is already close to passing. I will not wait for v.0.1.1 to pass before beginning the original grant’s operation. If v.0.1.1 passes, any proceeds that have been set aside for dividends will immediately be put into a buy wall and the bot will be switched to dual-side mode for the first 90 days.

jamie

[desrever]

It looks like you have been elected. Congrats !

Please feel free to get in touch over email/pm/hipchat for any help setting up the bot.

I remind you that when acting in sell-side mode, your sell price has to be set slightly above the buy custodian price. The current default price-increment of the bot is 0.001 USD, and it can be overwritten by setting the priceincrement parameters in the bot configuration file. The custodian is free to set this increment as small as accepted by the exchange, as long as it is non-zero.

Citing the white paper :

[custodian] should offer the entire balance of NBT for sale using the formula of one USD + transaction fee + one pricing increment. Let’s say our exchange has a transaction fee of 0.2%. Some exchanges allow the fee to be discovered through their API, while others do not. If the fee can be found through the API, it will. If not, the user should be asked to specify the transaction fee. Let’s say this exchange supports 4 decimal places in its order book on the NBT/USD pair. Using our formula above, the trading bot would place an sell order for 10,000,000 NBT at a price of 1.0021. The reason it should be 1.0021 instead of 1.002 is that we want dual side sell orders to be executed first, so their funds can be returned to providing buy side liquidit

[jmiller]

@desrever Thank you!

All,

Quick update
The grant was received about three hours ago. You can see the transaction here: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/fc4b489f901b33533bccb1ed23bdb419a5dd0353c2b5e126322f95b979158e42

Two transactions of 10 NBT were sent to test accounts on Bter and ccedk, where NuBot testing began: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/15952a40f41e9f4bff0f5cd299a1212142034563153470fabc57bfe8501cbcbf
and: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/ee459175db5ad2d1d5a8ce7af375d9759fe8dc4241c1baa2b462cb4fad784e16

Two transactions of 10 NBT each, were then sent to the Bter and ccedk NBT/BTC trading accounts to test deposits: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/7027bc25522c359a8ffee92f55b56300b93d8b159ef739506d052603e0a81259 and: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/ddaa0857ae231a88ac6db362dff41c0357b044393582ab71ac5601309dfb0a16

Two transactions of 5 NBT each, were then sent back to the custodian address from the trading accounts to test withdraws: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/25bffee94ed634ca0e1c7b04084b7cc6cdf0abd517df5d2fd1ff6dd096eaeddc and http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/5d7a7f7fc37ace3f015f788fdc7504e4c977f00e388346f49f501ee5c26f4eb5
See if you can tell which one is Bter

Once the withdraw tests were complete, 49995 NBT was transferred to each of the accounts, to make a total of 50,000 NBT in each NBT/BTC trading account: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/908ae32f22ebc7f98ff6e980940689e161e3ca2a92d058a10e1dbae136c35277 and http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/95da9d814952885e5eebe8fbcc0ef922ecbd458f11ba8940a45f8e58a8dcf4c2

Both of those accounts are now live with Nubot.

You can see that liquidity info has been updated:
{
“B7mmVdVQ1SNNcT9zuQRK1B3Cbvo8vHeoB1” : {
“buy” : 63033.84540000,
“sell” : 1315338.08780000
},
“B9fv9Di2Y4RxUHzrwjtfq5fetAhqULzWKL” : {
“buy” : 0.00000000,
“sell” : 100000.00000000
},
“total” : {
“buy” : 63033.84540000,
“sell” : 1415338.08780000
}
}

There is 103978.84 NBT remaining in the custodian account. Tomorrow I will put the other two bots online and transfer my fee to a separate address.

jamie

[Chronos]

It looks like your sell walls are placed closer to the peg than KTm’s (see below). Would you be willing to move them slightly further from the peg, so that they have a lower priority? KTm is already acting as a dual-side custodian, so that will strengthen our buy walls in the short term.

Thanks!

[jmiller]

Hey Chronos,

This is just a slight timing issue. I’m only 0.00001 above KTm sell price, so sometimes the price will change and her bot will adjust before mine does.

Current sell orders on Bter:

Price Amount(NBT) Total(BTC)

0.00267478 397523.483 1063.28786
0.00267517 35138.056 94.00027
0.00268332 1.276 0.00342
0.00273600 0.460 0.00126
0.00276000 0.460 0.00127

Current sell orders on ccedk:

Price (BTC) Volume (NBT) Total (BTC)
0.00267993 149 147.4268 399.7046635
0.00267993 149 147.42679768 399.7046635
0.00268046 23 708.2174 63.54892841
0.00268046 23 708.21739813 63.54892841
0.0032 174.73308228 0.55914586

I’ll try a slight adjustment to move them a little further apart.

jamie

[jmiller]

Grant Update

Hi everyone,

It’s been a long day of testing but I believe we’ve finally got the sell-side bot settings configured to keep my orders right above KTm’s dual side bot.

Early this morning, while the price of Bitcoin was moving pretty fast, some of the bots orders briefly ended up on the wrong side of KTm’s orders due to a timing issue between the two bots. During a couple of these instances, there were some sales proceeds, totaling roughly 18,000 NBT. I will provide a more detailed account of these numbers tomorrow.

Please, if you have not already done so, vote for my amended proposal so we can get these proceeds put back into a buy wall. Vote for 1 NBT @ BMmwnkZo61gw2m3fqRFApPS5nbW1JNwf5J if you would like to see this amendment pass. My OP has been updated with the details of this.

The remaining 100k of granted funds has not yet been added to additional markets. I have opted to stay out of the NBT/PPC market until a decision has been made about my amended proposal. KTm already has strong control of that market and I do not want to run the risk of picking up too many PPC in a declining market, this early in the life of the grant.

I will likely be providing liquidity to our new NBT/Euro market, but we’re still waiting on support for that market to be added to NuBot.

jamie

[Chronos]

some of the bots orders briefly ended up on the wrong side of KTm’s orders due to a timing issue between the two bots.

We should have seen this coming. This will ALWAYS happen if two NuBot operators work on the same non-USD pair, due to timing issues in a moving market. Please keep further sell-side funds off of non-USD pairs that KTm is already trading on, until the Nu team has a chance to assess the impact. Thank you!

[jmiller]

@pennybreaker contacted me this morning and requested that I take the bots off of the BTC markets until a better solution is available. I will be focusing on the NBT/EUR market, for the time being.

jamie

[desrever]

. This will ALWAYS happen if two NuBot operators work on the same non-USD pair

you used the same words I used filling the issue.

A software solution to this problem requires synchronisation which in turn will require either some centralisation or high complexity. Long term, we will move away from non-USD pairs. But for the time being we need a rule, and JL seems to agree.

No more than one custodian bot at the time on the same non-usd pair.

This rule requires - imho - that any future custodian proposal should include specification in how the grant will be coordinated with other custodians. This is also valid for the three LPC custodian being voted now.

Any suggestion is more than welcome

[jmiller]

Hi everyone,

Sorry about the lack of updates over the last few days. There have been some unexpected issues with the performance of NuBot. I’m working with the NuBits team to help test and resolve these.

The ~18000 NBT of sales volume that I mentioned above, turned out to be collisions with KTm’s bot. I have sold this BTC back to KTm to effectively roll back the mistake. This was a loss to the grant of about 400 NBT in fees and BTC volatility.

I am now supporting the NBT/EUR market on Ccedk. We’ve had a total 2543 Euro in sales.

The amendment to my grant is very close to passing. This will cause the terms of the grant to switch to dual-side for 90 days on all markets that I support. It’s about 300 blocks from passing, so I expect this switch to take place later today.

That’s all for now. I will update soon.

jamie