[Withdraw] Ending NuPond Operations on Bter

[Nagalim]

–Begin–
Nxxxxx 250 NBT

Upon passage of this grant, @Nagalim will burn all remaining NuPond funds and end operation on Bter. The granted funds will settle all shareholder debt to NuPond and will enable the operator to continue hosting NuPond on a large server for several months. In this time, the NuPond server may be used for other Nu projects at the discression of the operator.

It is to be understood that the intent of this grant is to withdraw liquidity operations from Bter, rather than to shutdown NuPond. As new software and wrappers for liquidity provision are created, it is the hope that NuPond will begin operation on a more trustworthy Nubit pair. In the event that no such pair can be found, the NuPond server will not be demolished for at least 90 days after the passage of this grant.

–end–

[willy]

all shareholder debt to NuPond

What debt is there besides the operator fee?

[Nagalim]

That’s all. I was using the ‘debt’ language at the start of NuPond. Also, the technical operator fee for term 7 was 300 nbt, so I wanted to be clear the 250 covers everything.

[dysconnect]

I think it’s a good time to set it up on other current supported exchanges to test a high-spread low-payout pool. Something like 1.5% spread and 0.15% daily payout, giving people more choice without having to configure the ALP software too much.

[zoro]

Please be aware that due to Pybot’s bugs the daily payout percentage is lower than we advertise!
For example, the 0.24% in Poloniex is between 0-15%-0.20% (hard estimation)

[Nagalim]

Like which exchange? We shouldn’t run 2 alp instances on a single pair. Also have wrappers to worry about, so no hitBTC.

[dysconnect]

Interesting, didn’t consider that. Do you mean an LP can submit the proof of order placement to two separate instances? You might be able to solve that by giving LPs a nonce, but then the server will need to be rewritten. On the other hand, if the spreads are large enough then you might not have to worry too much.

[Nagalim]

Basically, the client would need to be rewritten to take advantage and the servers would have to communicate with each other to prevent being taken advantage. The basic issue is that we would be rewarding only those who manipulate the system into getting paid twice. If we don’t really care or think no one is going to mod the client for like a month long operation, then it’s fine.

[dysconnect]

It’s not a very elegant solution but you can require the client to place orders according to a random number generated by the server. If you can put 10 bits of entropy in there then it will be exploited 0.1% of the time.

An additional layer of defense will be the spread. If Eve sets a 2.0% offset for NuPond then NuPool won’t accept it. When the price drifts down to 1.1% before Eve resubmits liquidity there’s a small chance that NuPool will accept the order, but that probably happens, say 1/3 of the time. Overall the chance for a user to game the system is may be below 0.01%. The probability isn’t negligible, but the money-loss is.

Another way, of course, is to set up a PPC/NBT pool to prepare for the upcoming transition to PPC reserves.

[Nagalim]

An additional layer of defense will be the spread.

So then if you use a small spread you’lol be accepted by both pools. You can’t control the client’side spread, just the server tolerance. We’d need to add a minimum tolerance to the code to make this work.

[Cybnate]

t is to be understood that the intent of this grant is to withdraw liquidity operations from Bter, rather than to shutdown NuPond. As new software and wrappers for liquidity provision are created, it is the hope that NuPond will begin operation on a more trustworthy Nubit pair. In the event that no such pair can be found, the NuPond server will not be demolished for at least 90 days after the passage of this grant.

Not sure what the value is to keep a server running for Shareholders costing 250 NBT. You could make a backup and apply for a grant when another grant to provide liquidity on an exchange has been approved. You could compete e.g. with my grant on LiquidBits or with NuPool
I’m not supporting a grant just to keep a server running.

[Nagalim]

Well Nu owes me at least 150, and another 150 if i just don’t end my operation, so im actually giving some of my operator fee back. Anyway, you’re free to not vote this in and i just make another for 300 nbt in a month that shareholders will be forced to pay or break contract.

[Cybnate]

Can you please elaborate on the 150 NBT? Was that not included in the previous grant?

[Nagalim]

My current fee for term 7 is 300 nbt, 150/month. Ive operated for january, im owed at least 150. Like i said, i can just wait and let the funds run out then demand 300 nbt, but id rather save shareholders a few bucks.

No, i have always been paid my operator fee in future grants, since term 1.

[Cybnate]

Ok, got the operator fee. So there are no roll-over funds left because you had fixed reward on both pairs?
Sorry for being a bit cheeky, but you know my position regarding fixed rewards.
Why not just charge the remaining 150 NBT and end operations? I would definitely support that.

[Nagalim]

Well, rollover gets burned, not sure what the question is there, thats the whole point of ending operations early. If i charge just 150 nbt id have to end literally now, before this is put to vote. So charging like 50 bucks to keep nupond, a $40/month server, operational for 3 months. In reality im probably going to find anothe liquidity operation in a month and this will cover my server costs pretty perfectly.

[Cybnate]

Well, rollover gets burned, not sure what the question is there, thats the whole point of ending operations early. If i charge just 150 nbt id have to end literally now, before this is put to vote.

We could just have a motion to end operation when you take your fee from the amount to be burned. Also have no Idea why you need an expensive server for the ALP software. LiquidBits is running on a $20/month VPS without issues, just need to make sure the logs are moved once in a 30d period.

Anyway, it appears to me that we have no realistic choice than to vote for your proposal and fund a server in the process as fast as possible to prevent attracting further costs.

[mhps]

As much as I don’t like bter’s 1% “tax” bter still is the only exchange that presents Nu to the CNY world. Since LPs take exchange risks themselves, can you keep the pools running on a “least effort basis” and cut the fee and shareholders cost, say, in half?

[Cybnate]

There is a NBT/CNY pair on CCEDK: https://www.ccedk.com/nbt-cny. I like MHPS’ idea, at least we have a NBT/CNY pool available with some liquidity on a smaller scale. The question is whether LPs are still interested. With a fixed cost model that shouldn’t cost the shareholders much.

When Nagalim is not interested I’m fine to add the pair to LiquidBits on fix reward at the same cost as the NBT/EUR pair (see my LiquidBits term 7 proposal for the fees/rewards).

[mhps]

There is a NBT/CNY pair on CCEDK

It’s not the same. People in China can deposit/withdraw CNY tofrom a Chinese exchange in a few minutes using China’s highly efficient payment network.