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.
Can you please elaborate on the 150 NBT? Was that not included in the previous grant?
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 Like
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?
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).
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.
You might be right, is it more efficient than this?
Way faster than that. You chat on QQ with an exchange agent and finish fund transfer using your favorite online payment app, done in a few minutes. Quite often you don’t even need to chat.
1 Like
I can totally keep the server running with 0 rewards. I could reduce the pay drastically, but then what message are we sending by drastically reducing support mid term? I would much rather either end it or finish out the term.
You have to understand what happened with the fee thing. They charged everyone, including the people they owe money to, 1% on all money on exchange. This is unprecedented. What stops them from doing it again tomorrow? This is basically them just taking 1% from everyone on the exchange with no warning. That’s intense. (Not to mention that +1% on deposit and -1% on withdrawal actually amounts to a total of -0.01%).
Please, everyone keep conversing. I could do like Cybnate says and just end operation, taking whatever fees i feel im owed from the burned funds, then demolish the server.
no need to end the pool， just turn off fixed cost and back to fixed reward. all the risk is for LPs.
we have less exchange to used before b&c.
It’s just another day in cryptoland. They took 100% from customers once. What has just happened can be seen as a 1% default. We took the risk when we started.
Yes, it is a 1% default. Maybe we should just keep the cny pool up? We dont really have a good way of filling the cny buy side though…
I’d be down with going back to fixed reward or greatly reducing the cost (depending on whether shareholders are trying to keep a low volume peg or just a catch as catch can kind of hope someone shows up thing) however the operator cost would still be there.
So the way i would see that happening is that I would finish out term 7 and would switch to a low-cost operation for term 8. Id imagine i could do $1/side/pair and just have the entire grant be $120. (+300 nbt for term 7 operator, but that’s a technicality) I’d probably charge something like $50/month operator for just the continuation of these low-cost bter pools. That would give a total monthly grant of $170.
Or i could take MoD’s suggestion and put all the cost on sell side, so it would be $2/day/pair for the sell side and nothing on buy. I fear that the repurcussions of the switching problem on single sided ALPs has not been properly analyzed however.
And finally, i can combine NuPond with the Passive NuBot on Poloniex and thereby share the server cost between the two grants, such that we could reduce the monthly cost to $150/month.
Let’s see Fixed Cost do its work. I say $2/side/pair $290 / mo. We are paying 10,000/mo total. This is peanut.
You can do multiple grants and shareholders choose what they want. but this is a lot of work.
The CNY pair is useful for Chinese customers.
Nevertheless i think the point is not the 1% tax-reward but how trustful is bter.
Moreover i think that fixed cost did a little magic there since i see some LPs getting more than 1%/day as payment by risking a small amount of their funds.
your are right, the coming holiday always running time , you can see the coin at yuanbaohui.com up and down is for the big holiday
I don’t like bter, but I can agree to keep the cny pair running.
I think we could try reducing costs and increase liquidity.
Bter is not that important so we can risk experimenting but completely shutting down right away with no gradual decrease is probably not a good idea.