@masterOfDisaster chanted that line in many posts. No one acted on it.
1 Like
I’m late to the thread and it was quite a read. My first thought is that it wasn’t the actions of @masterOfDisaster that caused the broken peg. From memory, the larger spread operations were an experiment to explore the validity of the idea. They were to be a very last bastion of defence to prevent the peg going into free fall. They were intended to work alongside the other liquidity operations to provide multi-ranked liquidity in tier 1, akin to what is achieved through the parametric order book of NuBot.
The use of the larger spread gateways to defend the peg directly was set only because I allowed the funds of NuPool to run out and had to cease operations. That was not a unique situation either as the funds have run out a few times in the 9 operations of NuPool. I also recently found that I had not taken exchange fees into account when setting parameters for the NuPool operation.
I would count myself among the incompetent liquidity providers and it surprises me that I haven’t been mentioned in the thread so far. Please do consider me for the chop if this motion does pass as I would consider my (in)actions to be more detrimental to the peg than the defensive use of a wider spread by @masterOfDisaster.
On the subject of liquidity provision my concerns are technical. NuBot has been developed over quite some time and has operational features designed to remedy the issues in liquidity provision as they arose. These issues would affect any decentralised bot and aren’t unique to NuBot.
- if we lower the minimum spread when multiple bots are used on a pair (as in ALP) we risk the bots consumming each other’s orders. Could be a double edged sword as reported volume would go up but LPs would likely need additional compensation to cover the addition fees incurred.
- Use of the parametric order book means that there should be a tight spread most of the time. NuBots original design had all funds very close to the peg but was open to abuse from the dumping of large trades. Parametric order book means that the funds are still available on order but a large dump will incur a price penalty. Alternatively a dumper can wait for the peg to replenish in ~60 seconds. The price penalty translates to profit for the LP. This could be directly to Nu when Nu funds are used or to a private LP when operating under ALP. This potential profit from dumping is an important factor in making liquidity provisioning an attractive opportunity with a real chance to turn a profit. @Jordan Lee, in your opinion, is the use of a parametric order book still valid?
Regarding future developemnt:
- there is an update to ALP which can adjust the reward for each side to make the less supported side more attractive to LPs. That will be released soon. For the next operation I would like to introduce more ranks. These will allow for the reward to be tapered away from the peg meaning that the incentive to have orders in a very small spread is higher.
- there needs to be some sort of feedback in NuBot to take any unbalance in reward into account and target funds to take advantage (effectively automatic reblanacingbof of sides where possible)
- there are requests for additional NuBot exchange wrappers which needs investigation.
- I’d like to attempt the Fiat gateway website as I think onboarding and offboarding to Nu should be made easier.
- that website could also host the ‘burn’ service which could help drive demand for NuBits. I will create a proposal when I have some ideas around the size of the tasks.
6 Likes
Please review the facts before you blame. There are no actions I have done against any passed motion regarding liquidity.
Please let me know if you want to get rid of me for other reasons, than I will leave the forum or just stop this silly blame game.
Some time line:
Nov 15 - Jan 16, '16: The high spread “last line od defence” concept was posted and experimented.
Jan, '16: During liquidity crisis @masterOfDisaster increased spread to 1.8% and 3%, saving the peg from catastrophic faileur single handedly. No one helped. No one said no.
March, '16: It was suggested to put into active gateways as a norm. A community member (@Cybnate) had reserves. A few supported. Most, including @JordanLee , had no comment.
May 15, '16: @JordanLee posted Lack of commitment to liquidity is our biggest threat now
May 21, 16: @JordanLee posted the 1% motion.
May 27, '16: BTC price jumped. T4 went dry. NuSafe was to be used. moD claimed increased spread. Courteous dicussion ensued.
Jun 4, '16: @JordanLee posted questioned T5, T6 partial utilization, no connection with large spread made.
Jun 6, `16: JL made Firing post
Did I miss anything important?
edit: maybe need park rate changes and sentiment against NSR sales.
3 Likes
no mention of any spread concrete figure?
Just the reality of the moment maybe?
Jun 8 Looking at CMC and Poloniex orderbooks, I believe NBT is now officially free floating exceeding the 5% threshold (0.93) and having less than 4 BTC on Poloniex buy side. NSR selling for 0.0011US$. FLOT appears to be dissolved or dysfunctional. It is a bad day for NuBits holders and NSR holders.
4 Likes
Yes - there is an official run on the bank and red in the streets.
So the question is - what do we do?
We are working on injecting liquidity to gateways at FLOT BTC Operations (buy side) but getting 5 members to sign hasn’'t been successful.
Sorry - I did see that. I know work is being done.
I have an idea, but it may be wildly unpopular. I thought I’d mention it though just in case. BlockShares are currently trading around $7.50 per share. If enough NuShareholders owned BlockShares, we could possibly have enough voting power to print more BlockShares and hold an auction or sell them for a little under market value (to make it quicker) to those who found out about B&C too late and weren’t able to participate and get some for themselves.
The funds gained could then be placed on the buy wall. Of course this would have to be approved by BlockShareholders though, which may not have a chance of passing. You never know though. Nu is holding their development funds, so they have an incentive to see NuBits maintain their value, at least until the exchange is finished being built and the development funds are no longer needed.
4 Likes
I am withdrawing this motion.
To be honest, I didn’t realise how many people would be suspended by the motion.
We are the fourth most active crypto community. That is where our greatest value lies. Above all, we need to find a way to maintain and grow our community of active contributors.
This was more divisive than I thought it would be.
I knew the network needed to restore the peg as quickly as possible. I calculated that this approach was probably the fastest way to convince everyone to do it, including @masterOfDisaster. I expected the result would be that we could convince our liquidity providers to restore the peg and convince shareholders to fully utilise tier 4, 5 and 6. With the offenders having changed their ways and a restored peg, there would be no compelling reason to pass the motion. I thought the objective of the motion (restoring the peg) could be achieved without it even passing.
Let’s end the divisiveness in view of the fact that our greatest asset is the enthusiasm and participation of so many very capable and intelligent people.
12 Likes
@JordanLee, did you see my suggestion right above your post? Basically, BlockShareholders would be bailing us out using their market cap in order to protect their development funds.
Why wouldnt B&C just cut all losses, fire all devs, hold a crowdsale and raise enough funds to hire devs that arent incompetent? Completely cut ties with Nu.
Why are the devs incompetent? Reserve mismanagement was the problem with Nu, not the devs who built the network. Besides, it was hard enough just finding Eleven to help us.
1 Like
Before we put any BTC on the Poloniex buyside, we should first invest some of the left money into the hardest medication against schizophrenia as quickly as possible.
1 Like
The damage you caused with your personal attacks is huge. I can tell you that I trusted you blindly for a long time with a lot of funds. I even advertised your name @JordanLee as probably one of the few characters with full integrity throughout the whole crypto space. Unfortunately, this time is over. Whatever you will do in the future, I will thoroughly think through all your possible motives for any action and I would never ever recommend anyone to invest in your projects without incredibly extensive due diligence (if at all).
If you are interested in restoring some of the trust, you should start being fully transparent about every single dollar that you are entrusted with from the shareholders. At this point in time, I cannot consider you trustworthy at all anymore. I am sure you won’t care about people requesting transparency, but that will even further increase doubts about your (left) integrity.
Gotta say, i think @JordanLee was / is right overall. (The peg must be kept at all costs as it’s all that matters here.)
However, i echo your sentiment here… really bad way of doing things. I think people that might have been inclined to help (myself included) are really wondering wtf is up over here…
1 Like
I agree with that. But what he did is just insane. I don’t care about apologies or whatever. He produced an irreparable damage within the community and even outside of it. Anyone reading this thread will laugh at us if we ever claim again to be a place for tough but reasonable discussions. We aren’t. We have an incalculable architect who is capable of pretty much anything and ignores people asking for more transparency. Seriously, this is not the DAO I’d like to be part of.
1 Like
Please, let this topic forgotten. Don’t continue it further!
1 Like