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?