I haven’t made any fees off this service yet. Every trade has been at 0.1%, which goes straight to Nu. With a 0.4% offset, for example, I would make 0.3%. I’m not there yet though, still doing proof of concept and every trade I’ve made has made the liquidity more balanced to I’m happy to do it.
Yes, protect customer identity.
The biggest thing I’m doing is securing a relevant price feed for both Nu and the customer. The second biggest thing I’m doing is allowing FLOT to sign at leisure. Most of the time so far 1 trade = 1 FLOT request. However, in my opinion this is an indication that we need more T3 providers to absorb more trades per FLOT request.
Or an indication that the total T3 provider funds need to be increased.
With you still being the only T3 provider that means: more funds under your control.
But I don’t have a lot of motivation to do this unless my involvement in pools is of a similar size. That’s why I am hoping that some LPs step up as T3 custodians and start trading with themselves. I’m just not sure it’s a theoretically sound thing to give someone more credit than they ask for.
I’m considering adjusting the 24 hours to read 7 days and the $4,000 to be $5,500. Note that this will regularly leave my operation in a state where there is >$5,000 total liquidity, sometimes as much as $10,000. However, I would urge shareholders to consider before requiring collateral for this increase of operation two points:
I have already performed 11 trades, most of which were at the max of my volume, and most of which required an individual T4 interaction. T3 is much more useful when it can do several trades per FLOT txn.
Gateways hold much more liquidity in a more dangerous way and have not yet required collateral. Before using this motion as an opportunity to change precedent, please realize that current operation is not terribly efficient and it wouldn’t be great to be stuck with this iteration of the T3 contract.