Will also have a PyBot for Poloniex, Bittrex and CCEDK soon…
Re proposal in OP:
I also wondered whether daily refilling is required on this exchange. I think we need better trade-offs between SAFs and rewards. The close the peg the higher the compensation which is mainly covered by the ALPs. The next layer should have more spread against a medium cost , after that automatic bots filled by FLOT can cover with the widest spread. That should not come at a great cost other than custodians ensuring the bots are running and transferring funds back to FLOT once week or so.
I was thinking to offer something different than a gateway. But this is not a big exchange (yet) thus my proposal seems a bit expensive.
The strange thing is that i feel more “relaxed” when i am risking a small amount of my funds than handling a larger amount of NU’s funds. On the other hand, MoD’s proposal is really tempting (like nmei’s grant) since the operator will have much less work and it is very cheap for NU.
Thus i think i will make a clone of nmei’s grant.
Nu should consider supporting more than one NuBot operation per exchange for redundancy (device running NuBot, internet access of that device, operator availability etc.) purposes.
I consider sell side NuBot redundancy less important than dual side NuBots, but not superfluous.
Perhaps we don’t need a second or third sell side nubot in a small exchange. But i have the will to play a redundancy role since i have the time and the servers available.
Moreover, don’t forget that even if a nubot grant is passed, it can be idle for months until a deposit is made by flot
With the dual-side PyBots and NuBots an adequeate spread would be beneficial for Nu. I don’t see why that is a problem. Nu would benefit most of time from high volumes on the dual-side NuBots and PyBots most of the time. The main risk is in the BTC price which may decrease, but single-side bots would be exposed to the same risk.