It’s time to start the voting on the next NuPool operation.
After bit of a flaky start (flakier than I had hoped) the ALPv2 software came into use and after a few adjustments is now in a very stable position. I’ve not had to touch the software for ~15 days so I am happy that it is in a good place for running the liquidity pool.
For this next operation we would like to keep the parameters the same as for the last operation. Thanks to Muchgusto we not only easily made target but also have a view on the profitability of liquidity operations. I would hope that by continuing with the same parameters, we can attract a similar level of support. As the software is stable we would like to extend the operation period to 60 days.
The one problem that we are still experiencing is with the Bittrex connection in NuBot. I have found it difficult to diagnose the issue as all my attempts to replicate the issue have failed. There is definitely at least one other user who is using Bittrex successfully so I’m not sure if it’s a wrapper issue or an issue with their API. Either way, I would like to explore that a little more to try and get liquidity flowing there too.
My other aim for this period is to explore automatic updates to the pool configuration. The pool config is reloaded before each credit round which provides an opportunity to assess the condition of the liquidity on the exchange and adjust the parameters accordingly. This could be used to tune the rewards so that unsupported sides become more attractive to providers and give initiative to balance the sides. I would be very interested in the thoughts of Shareholders on this. What triggers should the pool watch for and what action should it take? I have a few ideas but feel that it is a good opportunity for shareholders to agree a set of rules around liquidity.
The parameters for the next operation are as follows:
I think you should reduce the target on polo 4 fold and the cost 2 fold. Cut the bittrex target in half, keep the reward.
Attaining target on CRFC should be almost a given. We want pools operating in the FC regime, the CR part is just to keep people from trying to abuse the system at low participation rates. It’s basically not important for NuPool so you may as well lower it, but it will be for NuPond. What I’m trying to say is that when you increase costs on a CRFC pool you don’t need to increase target. So you should pick a similar target on NuPool that I would pick on NuPond, something like 1000 NBT. That may sound extreme, but It’s really not in my opinion because the cost is fixed.
Remember that NuPond is effectively running CRFC with a target of 0 NBT.
I believe the targets are too high given the cheaper backup we have with Nu funded bots.
I would at least half the target on Poloniex.[quote=“zoro, post:6, topic:3883, full:true”]
Why you didn’t make a draft first? Luck of time?
[/quote]
Agree, we had a lot of discussion the last time about the targets and the cost.
I won’t add this to my datafeed in this state.
Valid points all. I went straight for voting on this as I had thought my assessment would match that of other shareholders. That obviously hasn’t been the case. @zoro was correct with the assessment of lack of time too. I’ve made no secret of the fact that the amount of time I have available for Nu related activities has been dwindling (see the Assistant bot, broken for a while now, for example). There are members of the Nu community with a much closer eye on the state of the liquidity than I can possibly hope to achieve currently. As such I’m happy to change the parameters. The pool is run primarily for the benefit of Nu after all. I’m on my phone at the moment but will alter the OP when I’m on my laptop later today.
Cost is the most important thing here, the targets are somewhat arbitrary (as long as they’re low enough). Please dont reduce the bittrex cost, but we need to reduce polo cost by like half.
I would prefer to see the target (and cost) doubled to 30,000 while the tolerance is reduced to 0.005, which would result in a 1% spread. Please be aware I will be proposing a motion that requires all shareholder funded liquidity to stay within a 1% spread. The motion wouldn’t invalidate previous contracts that weren’t in compliance, but it would prohibit new ones that weren’t in compliance.
I would also like to see the Bittrex target doubled.
The cost is what matters, the target is essentially meaningless for this operation.
@JordanLee i hope you reference the current spread motion in the new one and don’t just steamroll the current legislation.
We are currently paying 35 nbt/day for nupool on poloniex. We pay 150 nbt/day for nulagoon. We pay 8 nbt/day for nupond. What is our budget? How much bigger is nupool than nupond? I’d suggest we can spend between 200 and 300 nbt/day on liquidity. In that case, we can probably increase nupool cost on polo to something like 50 nbt/day.
I don’t think that is wise. We should keep the target more or less the same imo.
The benefits of increasing targets are too limited.
Let’s start with that and see whether the trading will be increasing as assumed.
More trading makes money for the LPs, so the focus should be here in the first place.
Since Bittrex is often not at target, lowering target while keeping the ‘cost’ the same will have the effect of increasing provision by withholding a smaller portion of the funds than with a higher target.
Morning everyone, a busy weekend meant no chance for some computer time to update the proposal. Given the last few comments though that’s perhaps no bad thing.
I would agree with Jordan in this thread. LArge amounts of liquidity are the headline for NuBits. It may be that depleted walls are regularly topped up so that liquidity is kept to an average level in the long term but it is only those who are familiar with the inner workings of Nu that will understand this. The general trader on an exchange will only see transient walls. @Nagalim has a point about the target in a CRFC system being fairly arbitrary, there is still an incentive on liquidity providers to provide as much as they can to get a larger percentage of the reward. However I think it does serve a useful purpose. It broadcasts a figure that we would expect to see on the exchange at most times. I’m still not totally sure about what to do with targets. traditionally the pool fee for NuPool has been 1% of the target so I’m not convinced that I have a completely impartial view.
@Nagalim is also correct in his assessment of the Tiers. In the last operation, NuPool operated with just 2 tiers. Tier1 was everything within the 1.05% tolerance. Tier 2, everything outside of that. The design of the ALPv2 software allows for any number of tiers, each with their own tolerance and allowing for a specific reward for each. The figures associated with the tiers can be updated dynamically during the operation instead of being set in stone during the proposal phase. This could allow for a tightening or relaxing of the peg as required, we as shareholder just need to decide which triggers cause which actions. There is some work needed on the feedback mechanism in NuBot so that it can react to changes in targets and rewards and place funds in a way that corresponds with the LPs appetite for risk vs reward.
In light of the discussions around liquidity I am altering the OP.
The target will be less of a factor in deciding the reward and fee. The rewards will reflect the support targeted to the different exchnages rather than being a function of the target.
The targets will be reduced to make it easier for the full reward to be shared between participants.
The tolerance will be reduced to 1%.
The operational period will be reduced to 30 days as I expect there to be more discussion around these issues over the coming weeks and being able to respond to the outcomes in 30 days makes more sense than waiting 60.
The effect of the changes mentioned will be to reduce the cost to Nu of this operation. They also make more sense in a CRFC system. The lowering of the targets should make it easier for LPs to make the full reward available.
I will leave the Daft tag on the proposal so that further conversation can take place around these changes.
