[Passed] Single Sided NBT Gateway on HitBTC - Updated 18FEB16

[masterOfDisaster]

100NBT could be expensive

Current liquity provision cost around $10,000 - per month.

Single side (sell side) NuBot (or PyBot, although I prefer NuBot due to the parametric order book) can save a lot of that money!

With 50 NBT per month and operation there’s some buffer to compensate the risks Nu needs to face for that type of operation.

[Nagalim]

HitBTC has gone down in volume from 700 NBT/day to a dollar or so (using ALIX). This is almost certainly due to the lack of liquidity, though there are other factors. I certainly think <2 NBT/day is worth it.

[masterOfDisaster]

I certainly think <2 NBT/day is worth it.

That order of magnitude would be great for fostering small ALP operations - just in case somebody has an appetite for a dual side operation with a slightly tighter peg at a particular exchange.
The problem is that the ALP operator costs come on top.
I find the NuBot operations more and more attractive.
Just make the sell side NuBot a dual side NuBot and operate it at <2 NBT/day…

[zoro]

dual side NuBot and operate it at <2 NBT/day

a brave and rich person probably

[crypto_coiner]

I find the NuBot operations more and more attractive.Just make the sell side NuBot a dual side NuBot and operate it at <2 NBT/day…

That makes the operation less complex imho

[masterOfDisaster]

That makes the operation less complex imho

On the contrary!
Sustaining and supporting dual side operations makes Nu appear responsible for both sides.

Sell side only requires a refill of the sell side from time to time and already makes it clear that this is an exchange with reduced support.

Placing the message that the peg isn’t really ensured by Nu at those exchanges is easier this way imho.

Don’t just look at the NuBot operation. Try to draw a bigger picture.

…the NuBot operations alone would indeed be less complex in dual side mode as they require less interaction.

[crypto_coiner]

Sustaining and supporting dual side operations makes Nu appear responsible for both sides.

Right from the operator perspective –
I was focusing on the accounting –

[crypto_coiner]

Added to my voting data feed.

[masterOfDisaster]

I was focusing on the accounting

You can try to imagine something else:
if Nu supports dual side operations at a lot exchanges, it should require more funds per exchange to provide a good customer experience.
In this case Nu needs to risk even more funds to make customers happy who want to bet against Nu and use NBT to hedge BTC volatility.
While this is good advertisement, it’s expensive and the past showed that trade volume doesn’t just come because liquidity is available.
Trade volume is where customers trade. Full stop.
This is currently more or less Poloniex.

If there are plenty of single side operations, but only a few dual side operations, Nu has several benefits. I already lined out the administrative benefits and some of the economical benefits.
It provides a small, but valuable additional economical benefit to sustain only sell side liquidity operations at most of the exchanges:

• people who want to sell NBT, which they bought at a sell side only operated exchange, might need to send them to another exchange with a sufficient NBT buy wall -> tx fees need to be paid -> revenue for Nu!
• arbitragers who operate the buy side on their own (because there’s money for them to be made from the offset…), might need to withdraw NBT from time to time -> tx fees -> revenue for Nu
• this works better, if we allow sell side only operations to run dry from time to time; otherwise the arbitragers can just balance with the sell side NuBots
• even when arbitragers balance with sell side NuBots, it’s not bad for Nu, if the offset is big enough to make money for Nu from the offset

[crypto_coiner]

people who want to sell NBT, which they bought at a sell side only operated exchange, might need to send them to another exchange with a sufficient NBT buy wall -> tx fees need to be paid -> revenue for Nu!

I wish people would hold their NBT and use them as a medium of exchange for payment of products and services rendered–
Store of value and unit of account have been achieved, so far.

[masterOfDisaster]

I wish people would hold their NBT and

You can’t make people do what you wish.
But you don’t need to support activities you don’t really like (offering NBT to hedge BTC volatility at the expense of Nu is not what Nu loves best) without limit

[crypto_coiner]

You can’t make people do what you wish.

This is not what I stated – this is taken out of context and cut in the middle.
To be honest, I’m afraid this conversation is not really constructive. --let us stop here
I will refrain from elaborating further on, but I believe I was accustomed to more intelligent/mindful from MoD, I believe.

[masterOfDisaster]

Did I step on your toes in any way?

[Nagalim]

I thought it was a productive discussion…

[masterOfDisaster]

I thought so, too, but maybe I said something wrong or in a wrong way.
That wasn’t my intention and for that reason I asked for the toe-stepping.
@crypto-coiner, please tell me.

The transition of the liquidity provision scheme seems to be on its way towards more Nu funded gateways and less ALP support.
This needs thoughts, discussions and a sharp eye. Even if we think it’s the right way, we need to watch closely.
This type of transition can’t be grasped in theory only.

[zoro]

It has passed.

[nmei]

I have been on travel for work…
I will get it active and post the addresses within 24hrs.

[zoro]

@nmei, are you still absent?
But MoD’s gateway is much cheaper

[masterOfDisaster]

50 NBT or 30 NBT per month is no big difference if you compare that to the current liquidity costs of thousands of NBT each month…

Redundancy is always welcome, albeit maybe not at each and every exchange.

And you need to take into consideration that @nmei offers a different level of monitoring than I do!

[nmei]

I have returned from travel.
I am available once more to perform operations.