Then I believe that’s why both were able to be voted through. I asked about this earlier and was told it’s possible to vote on different amounts, but only the first amount to pass will ever be granted.
More importantly, voting on the same amount as a previous grant with the same address will conflate the votes.
Well it was my mistake. I meant to use a different address…but I copied and pasted the wrong one.
Sure, I’m just pointing out that I think it doesn’t make sense to vote for the address if a grant to it has previously passed with the same amount. I would argue it doesn’t seem good practice to reuse anyway, but in this case there appears to be consensus issues with the approach.
Sorry i’m late here. Grant addresses can only be used once if they pass. I suppose you could use one again if it had not passed but it’s bad practice. You won’t be able to submit liquidity info and there will not be a new record for that grant passing in the client (which you can see on the voting page).
As shareholders may still be voting on the previous grant address+amount combination (or they chose instead to vote for the amount that is used for a subsequent grant with a different amount) it can influence the result of the vote. Even if no votes have been broadcast in a while, clients may lie suspended and later come online and inadvertently cast votes on the new grant, which is unfair.
We’ll I want to broadcast this…
So I’ll have to rehash…
Why 100NBT? is the operation expected to earn or loose money for Nu?
Can you please point me to a liquidity operation that can clearly be stated to have ‘made money’ for Nu?
It depends on how you define “made money for Nu”.
When I operated NuBots at Poloniex at minimum 1% offset, you could argue that they made 1% (minus fees) gain for Nu with the offset at each trade.
But that doesn’t include the losses from being used as hedge.
…that’s why it’s a bit more complicated than just that.
I guess the second last post is about a general misunderstanding of LP; they are in general not here for making Nu money, but costing money instead - that’s the price Nu pays for having liquidity at exchanges…
z[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:29, topic:3456”]
I guess the second last post is about a general misunderstanding of LP; they are in general not here for making Nu money, but costing money instead - t
[/quote]
I am playing the devil advocate to be provocative and see how we can define PROFIT indeed in Nu.
It seems we are printing the profits that we are enjoying on our P/L then, since LPCs obtain a positive net roll over from their grant that we then use for dividend distribution or share buyback, right?
Edit: PoW-pool-based network such as bitcoin or litecoin operate the same, accounting wise – they print (mine) their profit by selling their tokens to users.
But there is a big difference within Nu – we first (get to) issue the tokens to the pools (first kind of users) which will re-sell them to the market.
Profit is complicated when we are building an economy. Every btc that enters t4 can be seen as profit and the inverse as loss. Therefore, balancing a pool is a P/L event. If a custodial proposal increases frequency and/or profit for balancing events, it can be seen as a boon for the system.
I will be re-hashing with the following > address:
BEfKNxhQRVGAozMGUNkk6Wg6bcke2SE5Dm 1 NBT
Daology has been updated:
https://daology.org/proposals/57d57a1ac3ee0b1f2bea22958fc126a385967383
How many NBTs do you expect to sell on hitbtc during these 60days? what’s your objective?
From dual side lpc nubot to single sided sell side gateway using FLOT –
100NBT could be expensive if it does not sell relatively NBTs
Hitbtc has no ALP operators and for some days now no MLP either! @henry?
Alix reports always a 0 buy and 0 sell sides. We cannot expect to have even a small volume there
under these circumstances. We need a nubot there asap!
50 NBT/month is the cheapest liquidity operation we can have ATM 
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.
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.
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…
a brave and rich person probably 
That makes the operation less complex imho