What is going on with Poloniex?

[MatthewLM]

My Nu client reports 11,913.1271 buy-side liquidity, but on poloniex there is only about 2,100 NBT on the buy side from the degraded $0.95 price. Where is the rest of this reported liquidity?

Is NuLagoon only trading on the NuLagoon Tube? Is that where all the liquidity is going? Surely Poloniex is a higher priority right now? That’s where people will mostly go to if they want to buy NuBits, no?

It seems mad to me that there is not any more liquidity being put on poloniex. Why is poloniex considered a low priority when in fact it has by far the highest trading volume and NuLagoon Tube has apparently had no trades since the 29th of June?

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but surely all liquidity efforts should be focused on poloniex right now and NuLagoon should be forgotten for the time being.

None of what is going on at the moment makes any sense to me whatsoever. Am I going mad?

[ttutdxh]

Funds reported are in T2, in exchange and off the order book.

[MatthewLM]

So some of the tier 2 funds are being erroneously reported as tier 1? The liquidity on the buy wall is painfully low. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be increased.

[MatthewLM]

It seems that the large tier 1 liquidity is being reported by @masterOfDisaster’s gateway. When doing getliquiditydetails B I see:

"1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1465224607305_580170" : {
"buy" : 9399.8589,
"sell" : 3000.0
}, 

This is under the address B9gXptkoqAApF3AFrQyhUbhSzvuEudxupt (https://discuss.nubits.com/t/passed-operator-fee-for-masterofdisaster-dual-side-nubot-at-poloniex). I assume that the “1:” refers to tier 1 liquidity?

Edit: I looked into the source code and indeed in the GetTier() method the number before the colon is the tier, so indeed the identifier “1:NBTBTC:poloniex:0.4.1_1465224607305_580170” is reporting tier 1 liquidity that is not on the order book.

@masterOfDisaster could you please comment on this?

[masterOfDisaster]

This wall is there at an offset of 90%.
You should find it, way down the list.
Like I announced to stop a bank run make NBT drop to 0 easily.
Let me check NuBot - maybe it crashed, but I don’t think so. In the last time I wasted too much time fighting for the peg we have left and didn’t care for NuBots as much as I normally do.

NuBot’s running fine:

14:11:16.853 [priceTriggerTask] WARN  - The balance is not enought to place the tier2 liquidity. (Balance is entirely on tier1 wall) 9348.3977909238 [c.n.n.t.L.LiquidityDistributionModel:241]
14:11:16.853 [priceTriggerTask] INFO  - The current balance equivalent 9348.3977909238 NBT is not enought to place the full BUY wall defined in the liquidity model (50000.0).
Resizing the size of the order [com.nubits.nubot.trading.LiquidityDistribution.LiquidityDistributionModel:153]
14:11:16.855 [priceTriggerTask] INFO  - BUY- OrderBook : ----- BUY-side order book :
0.099898,1.7185E-4,9348.3977909238
BUY wall volume : 9348.3977909238
BUY tier2 volume = 0.0 NBT
Total BUY volume = 9348.3977909238 NBT
Best price :1.7185E-4 (0.09989812349999999$)
BUY balance left = -3.799868864007294E-9 NBT

!The funds are not sufficient to satisfy current order books configuration!-----  [com.nubits.nubot.strategy.Secondary.StrategySecondaryPegUtils:228]
14:11:16.856 [priceTriggerTask] INFO  - Trying to place 1 orders... [com.nubits.nubot.strategy.Secondary.StrategySecondaryPegUtils:229]
14:11:17.093 [priceTriggerTask] INFO  - BUY wall order updated. ID : 2663885510 size: 9348.3977909238 [com.nubits.nubot.trading.TradeUtils:232]
14:11:17.094 [priceTriggerTask] WARN  - **BUY** orders re-initialized on  **poloniex** :  1/1 placed successfully
total amount placed : 9348.3977909238
Tier1 order size : 9348.3977909238
Tier2 cumulative order size : 0.0 (0 orders)
 [c.n.n.s.S.StrategySecondaryPegUtils:247]

If NuBot did calculate properly, the buy order would be sized 50,000 NBT, while being reported as $9,399 - hey, it’s at 90% offset!

I asked that question to @desrever, but haven’t received a reply so far:

[Passed] NBT EXIT gateway on Poloniex provided by @masterOfDisaster

@desrever, I’ve found a behaviour of NuBot, which I consider a bug. I tried to prepare the future use of this gateway account: place orders at the book at a huuuuge offset 90% and beyond. It doesn’t work like I wanted it to work. I wanted to have a 50,000 NBT order at $0.10. It did only place much less. NuBot calculates the total amount of NBT that can be placed on the buy side of the order book based on the current BTC exchange rate. It doesn’t consider the offset. So I can only place 10,000 …

[zoro]

offset of 90%

OMG! you will make JL more furious than ever

[masterOfDisaster]

Maybe.
But that’s only because he lacks some economical knowledge, if he doesn’t understand the purpose of that buy order…

[mhps]

Oh, that one. I suggested it. After informing rest of the FLOT @masterOfDisaster implemented it and made it clear that if the FLOT want any other way mOD will comply.

[MatthewLM]

I feared that this might be the case. I strongly disagree with doing this for four reasons:

1. It’s holding back liquidity at more reasonable rates.
2. It leaves a huge gap between more reasonable rates and this useless 10 cent rate.
3. If NuBits went down to $0.10 it might as well be considered dead regardless, so there is no point. It’s bad enopugh at $0.95.
4. Regarding $0.10 as liquidity is misleading and silly in my opinion. Are there no motions that require reported liquidity to be within a certain offset? There ought to be rules on that.

Ultimately the true liquidity of poloniex right now is zero.

At least the mystery is solved and I now understand.

[mhps]

Thanks for letting your opinion known. We need more shareholders like you.

about the idea itself. It was supposed to be another T2. Do you have opinion on the 10+ btc in T2 sitting idling? How about the 37 btc sitting in T4? Wouldn’t they be a even bigger waste, ignoring exchange default risk for this rough time (1 month?) I really want to know.

[nmei]

If there is no BTC buy side. There should be no T+ idling.

[mhps]

If there is no BTC buy side. There should be no T+ idling.

If your definition of buyside is buyside within 1% spred, so you are suggesting putting all fund at < 1% . At average rate they will all disappear in 3 days. Do we want that?

[MatthewLM]

I should note I am only a very small shareholder, my biggest interest in Nu is with NuDroid development and some parked NuBits at the moment. I did have an interest in liquidity pools also but I’ve withdrawn from those at this time. With that in mind my thoughts are:

1. I think liquidity should be moved from T2 to T1 as much as possible as the total lack of liquidity on the buy wall does not look good, and I do think utilising as much liquidity as possible is important. Even if at a degraded peg, there should be more T1 liquidity.
2. Trying to draw things out as long as possible at $0.95 might keep things hanging on, but I agree that it damages confidence and trust in Nu. I can see how it would lead to more and more people selling NuShares and NuBits out of fear and dismay. I personally have lost confidence. I’m likely going to sell my NuBits as soon as I can assuming Nu is still around, and I will terminate the current NuDroid contract after release 1 if things are not resolved, meaning I will not develop or be paid for release 2.
3. There should only be sensible orders. Orders at $0.10 are not sensible in my opinion. And to suggest that the price might go down to $0.10 will only scare people further. If the peg devalues much further than it is now I cannot see Nu surviving.
4. Tier 1 liquidity should be reported for reasonable offsets. If we assume a $1 peg with a tight spread then we can see that there is zero buy side liquidity right now.

[mhps]

I think liquidity should be moved from T2 to T1 as much as possible as the total lack of liquidity on the buy wall does not look good, and I do think utilising as much liquidity as possible is important. Even if at a degraded peg, there should be more T1 liquidity.

T2 is there because learned from past experiences we don’t want to put all liquidity in one wall and give traders strong incentives to front-run the wall. It was obvious a problem when we had a lot of liquidities. It’s better to only put part of available liquidity up. In that light the $0.1 buy is just utilizing the idling fund.