@henry, can you please check the function of your NuBot at hitBTC and the settings?
My NuBot is configured with an offset of 1.5% (the 4.99.998 NBT order and the 525 NBT order) and the other order (544 NBT; which I assume are from NuLagoon) is even beyond that offset.
The spreads for both buy and sell side is set at 0.6%
Please check getliquiditydetail in Nu Client. About 40k liquidity at Tube, 10K+ at Polo, 3k at HitBTC.
NuShareholders,
We will continually improve our service as we always did since the creation of the first liquidity pool for Nu. Undeniably it is a huge success that Nubits has been keeping its peg since the creation. However, that is far from enough. At the risk of distracting of the topic, we would like to warn Nushareholders that the pace of Nu seems slowed down for at least two reasons: 1)the number of Nu transactions doesnāt grow much except those created by Nulagoon Tube, 2)the new Nu version which could be easily run on ordinary PC still doesnāt have clear time schedule to release. Therefore, there are so much white spaces need to fill up to bring Nu to success. They are necessary, they are urgent, they should be completed by us.
Admittedly, we are not very active and very responsive in the forum. One of the reasons is that Nu is not our full-time job at the moment, as the revenue could not cover our daily expenditure yet. What is more importantly, we tend to spend more time to fill up white spaces. Just like what we have done in the creation of NuLagoon Tube. We feel that in this way, we could bring more value to the whole Nu community. Surely, we will also try our best to maintain and improve what we have already created.
Please vote on this proposal because you as a Nushareholders have promised that this proposal will be passed in 10 days. Failed to keep to the promise means Nushareholder defaults, will damage peopleās confidence in Nu.
Best,
Henry
I would very much like to see NuLagoon reduce liquidity operations and reduce the mandatory budget (as well as increase the time to avoid default, 10 days is short in the shareholder world now a days). In return, please seek shareholder funding for external activities to strict liquidity operations such as NuLagoonTube. We can subsidize your operations and pay for dev and so on, but I really think we need to reduce the mandatory periodic cost. Ideally to something like $2500/month.
I will vote today for this custodial grant since it is the shareholder s obligation to pass it.
Sorry for the delay.
However as Nu is still an early stage startup, we need to constantly improve operations, leave things that do not work well, come up with new ideas, pivot etcā¦and it should be regarding any part or aspect of the DAO.
Liquidity operations and NuLagoon are no exception.
On the one hand I think Tube (NuLagoon)is a very nice service. And I would like to thank @henry for that. You did a great job creating it from scratch.
On the other hand, as pointed out, Nu has some difficulties getting traction. And that is ok as long as we are able to pivot rapidly and find other ways to create demand for NuBits. This is what we should be doing now and I think we are doing it.
I think the Tube (and NuLagoon) is so far probably the easiest way to get nubits from bitcoins. So I think Nu should make sure it is maintained. But right now we need to reduce liquidity operations costs to focus and fund other areas that could help us create demand. Once we have a much higher demand, i suggest we should increase back the subsidies to Tube (and NuLagoon).
So I would support a motion to halve the max monthly reward to NuLagoon as suggested by @Nagalim .
Henry,
what are you going to do if this is not passed?
You understand that recently it is more and more difficult to pass your grants.
It is obvious that apart from the tube, the rest of your services are almost ānot thereā.
Nu is changing rapidly, MLPs are not needed any more (too costly for NU and much risk for operators).
Gateways and ALPs are holding the peg in Poloniex now and in smaller pools the peg cannot be lost anyway.
I am afraid you are becoming slowly a āprivate parkā mechanism which i am not sure NU needs right now.
But it is not your fault, just your terms and most of your services are getting too āoldā. 
I prefer to vote for an n-month contract every now and then with updated terms
and you can get your montly fee directly from FLOT 
If this doesnāt pass, Iām going to initiate a transfer from FLOT funds.
Nu is still bound to the contract that was once formed between Nu and NuLagoon.
I see a lot of reasons to rework that contract.
But as long as itās valid, it needs to be respected.
Yah, please pass this. If @henry doesnt make a contract update soon Ill propose my own motion. But pay for whatās been done please.
I would suggest you consider putting one forward. No service provider is going to voluntarily cut their profit.
I have some backlog here, e.g. āthe upper tier model discussionā, but will happily chip in with ideas.
Basically I think we should split āThe Tubeā from the NuLagoon pools, because the Tube can create profit and for NuLagoon and might require just some support until it gets traction.
The pools can be reduced in targeted size, because with FLOT thereās a T4 reserve and the T3-T4 MLP function of NuLagoon is no longer as important as it once was.
The NuLagoon pools should primarily serve T1-T2 and for that only a few thousand USD value are necessary once the gateway operations are at full speed.
I guess the final fee reduction will be beyond 50%, but it needs to be done in steps. NuLagoon invented and created much just for the purpose of supporting Nu.
Nu must include that in the considerations.
voted
Will add this to my voting data feed
This passed. Thank Nushareholders for keeping to the promises.
NuLagoon Pools will focus more on improving the quality of the services from now on. We will provide more info in one or two weeks.
Thank you.
