[Passed] T3 Trusted Custodianship: @Nagalim - Second Attempt


Just tell the FLOT if you start to run dry, or even create a tx via Cointoolkit and post it in the approriate FLOT (BTC, NBT) thread.
A link with the redeem script is in the OP of each thread.

Reading the terms again

I think we need a fix for the reward scheme.
Effectively you won’t get any compensation in times when trading with you is important.
If ALix reads <40% on one side, that side needs support.
Yet you receive no compensation for a trade under those circumstances, which I find bad.

I suggest that for trades if ALix reads <40% on one side, you pocket the 0.1% for supporting that side (which is still not much…).

How do you handle btc volatility risk?

I don’t, Nu does. I make sure not to trade during volatile 15 min intervals, but I can do nothing about day to day bitcoin volatility. What was FSRT or JL or FLOT doing about btc volatility risk when making deals with custodians?

nothing! :stuck_out_tongue:
really now, after some transactions i had with FSRT and JL, their first (and only?)
priority was to have a decent liquidity in exchanges (Poloniex) so the peg was safe. :wink:

I wasn’t clear. I mean when you hold BTC, how do you avoid, assuming you want to, losing value when BTC prices drops.

He doesn’t, Nu does.
Nagalim is handling the funds on behalf of Nu. It’s Nu property he’s dealing with.
They are just as prone to BTC volatility as T4 funds still are (we need NuSafe!)

If this were a collateralized custodianship, it could change that, if the contract were made regarding $x in BTC.
A collateralized custodianship about x BTC would be different and keep the volatility risk at Nu.

OK. I was confused for a moment. Somehow thought he bought his fund from NU.
That just made me think of another kind of custodian – borrow fund from Nu against collateral and use the fund to earn profit from LP subsidy. Nu get more liquidity out of it.

That would be version 2 (“collateralized custodianship about x BTC”) of what I explained above, right?
If that’s after your fancy, make a proposal! :wink:

not quite but close. if one has btc he can be an LP using his btc, w/o going to Nu. the collateral should be other coins – ppc, bks, nsr…

If somebody uses from BTC from the own pocket, the volatility risk remains at him(/her).
Receiving BTC from Nu in a collateralized way (to keep the volatility risk at Nu) of course requires something different from BTC - PPC, BKS, BKC! (as soon as they are available), NBT?

If you want to put the volatility risk on a T3 custodian (by making him use own BTC funds), the compensation will likely be far above the compensation Nagalim requests.

I see a purpose for both models.

I wasn;t thinking of reducing volatility risk about the other kind of custodian. I thought it’s just a way to use other funds to increase T1-2 liquidity

That version (collateralized loans) is very similar to distributed reserves, i think.

It has a similar effect.
One of the reasons why I included USD stable tokens like BKC and NBT.

If we think about who pays the fee when I send a customer NBT, it should be obvious that I should pay the fee because it’s just Nu burning its own NBT, no big deal. However, when I send BTC it gets to be more complicated. How much of a premium fee do I send? Does Nu pay for it, or should the customer?

For now, I am having Nu pay the fee, and I’m using a 0.0002 BTC fee.

0.0001 is enough like Poloniex does :wink:

I thought 0.0001 was the minimum, don’t we want a little bit of priority given that we’re making thousand dollar transactions and not just spam?

I really don’t know how faster it would be with more fees. It depents on network congestion.
But i don’t have any complains when i withdraw from Polo.
The trick here is (for you, T3) to sent BTC directly to an exchange’s BTC address thus with 1 or 2 confirmations
the funds are ready to fight for the peg :wink:

1 Like

Whoever is voting for this as a hash should stop that.

So I’ve been thinking pretty seriously about increasing the bar for withdrawal while keeping everything else the same. Alternatively, I could increase the withdraw wait time to 48 hours or something similar. I realize people probably don’t really know the intricacies of what I’ve been doing here because it’s behind closed doors by design. However, I think anyone can see that some of my interactions with FLOT haven’t been completely useful. It’s difficult to tell the future and predict whether I will need the funds tomorrow or not. I’m open to suggestions.

I don’t see a problem increasing the withdraw wait time even far beyond the 48 hours.
While a more frequent withdrawal decreases the risk Nu needs to face, it increases your efforts and in turn the costs of your operation.
I see it similar to ALP vs. Nu funded NuBots: does Nu want to buy a kind of insurance or face a risk?
You know my answer already.
I dare say withdrawing once weekly would be fine as well.
You already have some efforts when making deals although you get a tiny compensation for that from the spread.

Do those activities need to be kept behind closed doors?
Would it help to make them publicly available or would that hinder business partners from dealing with you?

Is it wrong to say that each time you made deals, you saved FLOT from efforts?
Based on that assumption I consider your interactions very useful!