[Passed] Sell side Nubot gateway (BTC/NBT) on SouthXchange @zoro

The grant is ready for voting:

BD8ork1pAt3vuVgGaX7j9Ei66xT3vvqrg2 , 1 NBT

After successfully testing nubot 0.4.1 RC2, i am confident to propose a sell gateway nubot in southXchange’s BTC/NBT pair.
I would like to propose also a bot in NBT/USD pair but firstly i have to check how i can handle the fiat :slight_smile:
The gateway can be used by any T4 party, FLOT or JL
with any NBT amount they see fit.

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: aee58fd4fd6a664a3cf509d96877b8b18dd9b789

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Custodial Grant address:

BD8ork1pAt3vuVgGaX7j9Ei66xT3vvqrg2 , 1 NBT

SouthXchange NBT Entry GatewayIntro@zoro - below called “the operator” - will run a single sided NuBot on SouthXchange.The liquidity is being broadcast using a custodial address to allow tracking the liquidity situation of the bot. This custodial address will only be used for broadcasting liquidity of this operation.The operator promises to send all funds to a FLOT multisig address upon request of a majority of the FLOT members or by a passed NSR holder motion.

The nubot will operate with an offset of at least 1%. Nubot’s configuration parameters are to be communicated with FLOT following the appropriate liquidity strategy that is decided.

Availability: The operator offers to check for NuBot’s operation on a daily bases. This translates in a response time of at least 24 hours worst case.

Begin of operation: Operation begins on the day NuBot puts the first NBT deposit of funds by FLOT on the SouthXchange order book

End of operation: Operation is ceased by request of withdrawal of all funds or if operator sends all funds to FLOT multisig address(es). The remaining grant fees will be burned or send to a FLOT’s NBT address. If for any reason the operator has to stop NuBot for a period of time or permanently before the end of the contract, it will be communicated at least 7 days in advance.

Modes of withdrawal:NSR holders can request withdrawal by motion.FLOT members can request withdrawal to a FLOT multisig address for which they are signer by posting in the forum.The number of FLOT members to request a deposit to a FLOT multisig address equals the number of FLOT members to execute transactions from this address.Once a week the operator will withdraw all BTC to a FLOT multisig address,usually during weekends.

Compensation: The operator charges 50 NBT for 30 days of operation. To be paid at the end of the period.

Reasoning for compensation:NuBot will be running on a private windows server. The compensation is mainly for the weekly manual withdrawals and general monitoring of operations.

Premature activation:If the FLOT deposits funds at the operator’s exchange account, they will be used by the operator as if this motion already passed.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=


Would you consider changing the motion to grant?

The reasoning for my suggestion is in the post from which this bullet point is:

It is a grant actually. I gave an address now.

You should rework it and create a proper custodial grant that is hashed and carries the custodial address in it.

ok, i will hash it when it is ready for voting :wink:

Then let’s get to the contents:

What about amending "This custodial address will only be used for broadcasting liquidity of this operation."
I’m thinking of a future in which there might be a lot of such operations and it would mess things up if the addresses would be allowed for being used for purposes other than for what they have been granted for.

Is it really a spread you want to configure or rather an offset?
What about the parametric order book settings - do you want to include them as well or leave them for (your) discretion (which will mean less control for NSR holders, but more flexibility for unexpected situations)?

Could you live with that adjustment?

1 Like

Thanks! I have updated the terms.

I like this one! :wink:

1 Like

Grant is hashed and up for voting :slight_smile:
BD8ork1pAt3vuVgGaX7j9Ei66xT3vvqrg2 , 1 NBT

A nubot NBT/USD gateway on this argentinian exchange would be really cool –
I support that grant.
Added to my voting data feed

Yes, and i really hope we can have also ALPs there :wink:
@Nagalim , @Cybnate

1 Like

Missing wrappers were the problem that hindered from having ALP there afair.
Creating an ALPv2 CRFC operation with a small target and cheap daily costs would be great.to start with.

1 Like

Cost effective and could be very strategic in a country where btc is used as a way to receive money from overseas by some people it seems.


Realistically it will take a few weeks to be comfortable running a ALPv2 service assuming it is stable. Will need to do some testing and ensuring the VPS environment is able to host it adequately. Maybe Nagalim and others have more time on their hands and deliver this week. It is not the highest priority for me.

Thank you all.
I will prepare and test the nubot in SouthX asap.

@zoro, I have lost some overview: yo you you provide liquidity at SouthXchange as NuOwned operation at the moment?

I’m asking, because next to Poloniex, SouthXchange is one of the few exchanges, where NBT trades happen:

Liquidity in the BTC/NBT pair - yes, it’s BTC/NBT! - is available at a tight spread:

It looks like it’s mainly BTC that get bought there and not really trading back and forth:

but we should keep an eye on that exchange. Relying solely on Poloniex is no good idea.

I’m going to have a closer look at my hitBTC operation soon.

This gateway has never been activated.
Do you think it is a good idea to activate it as a dual one?

Who’s providing liquidity there then?

If activating it, it needs to be a dual side gateway. Big buyside offset (test the waters with 6% and maybe lower it to 4 to 3.5% over time according to my gut), small sellside offset (<0.5%).

Alas, we have no mandate to operate a dual side gateway there.
No, wait: you don’t have such a mandate!

What to make with it?
I have a sellside gateway at hitBTC, that could trade some NBT and has a bit over 2 BTC. It could be run dual side mode - oh, no mandate for that either.

@cryptog, @Dhume, @dysconnect, @jooize, @mhps, @ttutdxh, @woodstockmerkle,
what do you say about the current situation, the focus on Poloniex and the options to convert singleside operations to dualside ones?
I think we should draft motions for it and distribute funds between Poloniex, SouthXchange and hitBTC.
But I already declare: if something goes pear-shaped with Poloniex in between, I will make my hitBTC sellside gateway dualside - with or without motion.

I don’t think that trying to provide many exchanges with liquidity can really be managed and isn’t scalable.
At the moment I believe it’s important to have a liquidity provision that’s as reliable as possible - considering the circumstances.

Using SouthXchange and hitBTC next to Poloniex to run NuOwned operations makes sense to me.
What about bter?
What do you say?

1 Like

If needed, I would be ok.
Also, we need to diversify to spread the risk.
It seems that Polo, bittrex and hitbtc are the most important exchanges, to me at least.

Don’t underestimate SouthXchange with the BTC/NBT pair!
Reading 0.00181685 and working with it might be easy for bots, but human beings prefer reading 550 NBT knowing that it’s $550!



1 Like