[Withdrawn] Single Sided NBT Gateway on CCEDK (2 pairs: NBT - BTC/PPC)

Hi community!
My proposal here is to offer a sell side gateway for NBT/BTC and NBT/PPC in CCEDK.

I am not sure if more than one nubot can report liquidity using the same grant address. If not, i will need more than one grants for sure.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

CCEDK NBT Entry Gateway for NBT/BTC - NBT/PPC
@zoro - below called “the operator” - will run 2 single sided NuBots on CCEDK. The liquidity is being broadcast using a custodial address to allow tracking the liquidity situation of the bots. The operator promises to send all funds to FLOT multisig addresses upon request of a majority of the FLOT members or by a passed NSR holder motion.

Spread: 1%

Availability: The operator offers to check for NuBot’s operation on a daily bases. This translates in a response time of at least 24 hours worst case.

Begin of operation: Operation begins on the day NuBot puts the first NBT deposit of funds by FLOT on the CCEDK order book

End of operation: Operation is ceased by request of withdrawal of all funds or if operator sends all funds to FLOT multisig address(es). The remaining grant fees will be burned or send to a FLOT’s NBT address. If for any reason the operator has to stop NuBot for a period of time or permanently before the end of the contract, it will be communicated at least 7 days in advance.

Modes of withdrawal:

NSR holders can request withdrawal by motion.
FLOT members can request withdrawal to a FLOT multisig address for which they are signer by posting in the forum.The number of FLOT members to request a deposit to a FLOT multisig address equals the number of FLOT members to execute transactions from this address.
Once a week the operator may withdraw BTC,PPC to a FLOT multisig address by discretion.
Compensation: The operator charges 60 NBT for 30 days of operation. To be paid at the end of the period.

Reasoning for compensation
2 NuBots will be running on a private windows server. The compensation is mainly for the weekly manual withdrawals and general monitoring of operations.

Premature activation
If the FLOT deposits funds at the operator’s exchange account, they will be used by the operator as if this motion already passed.
=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=


Interesting to see this. I thought about this when I submitted my NuPool/Bittrex grant request. Given the low trading volumes, I would rather have dual-side bots on the NBT/BTC pair and end the ALP operation on NBT/BTC. That would be cheaper and given the low value/low trades comes only very limited risk assuming your proposed spread.

Re NBT/PPC, although I like to see it used, it has been dead for more than a year. Even less sure about the NBT/LTC pair. We’d better investigate we can get a ETH/NBT pair somewhere running and pegged even if it is on the decentralised Bitshares exchange.

Re the cost, when shareholders want this I can run this virtually for free assuming my Bittrex/Poloniex proposal passes. It would just be another few PyBots starting and providing only a NBT address to FLOT. That is not a lot of effort. 50 NBT/60 days for 3 bots would do nicely for me. Let’s see first if there is interest in this at all.

Will keep this on watch, but won’t vote for it as it stands now.

1 Like

Do we have wrappers and price feeds for ltc/nbt and ppc/nbt? We shouldn’t use btc-e usd markets as price feeds, 1 btc-e buck is not equal to $1.

1 Like

I am trying to test these 2 pairs in ccedk (ppc/nbt,ltc/nbt)
The ltc pair seems that isn’t supported in nubot yet. The ppc pair is supported and working just fine.
The only pricefeed that is working for ppc is http://coinmarketcap.northpole.ro (coinmarketcap_no).
Thus i will alter my proposal for the btc and ppc pairs.

Personally i would use btc as a pivot and use btc-e ppc/btc with bitfinex btc/usd, like i did with CNY. Does the CMC API update frequently? Because i know the website has some lag behind the actual trading pairs.

1 Like

I wish i knew how to do that in nubot.

The plan is simple to understand.
Crypto pairs on ccedk, rather than fiat probably less risky.
@Cybnate idea of having eth pair in ccek would attract more users, probably.

I think I will add the current draft in my feed, on its present status.

I won’t support any trading on CCEDK, but I would on other exchanges. It’s a high risk for insolvency.

I know we agree to disagree on this topic. Did you support Cryptsy (insolvent and down)? Do you support BTER(also potentially insolvent)? I believe they all have their risk profiles, some are higher some ar elower, and of course everyone can make their choices on what to support, but as far as I know is no one able to assess positions of any exchange other than the owners/operators themselves.

Just be careful trading on any centralised exchange and don’t risk more than you can afford to loose. We are all looking forward to B&C but until then I believe the risk of moving funds to an exchange is relatively high anywhere.


To be fair, we aren’t yet putting shareholder funds on Bter or Cryptsy (not since last year’s hackings).

Fair comment. This proposal would indeed change that. But it also suggests that Poloniex is safe for Shareholder funds. Is it?

Polo isn’t known to be insolvent like CCEDK, Bter, and Cryptsy.

Ok, going off-topic a bit:
Only because they are still trading high volumes, but we really don’t know. Due to the high volumes they can shift money around quickly enough. It is in the same position as BTER and Cryptsy were last year. All have been hacked before at least once, lost undisclosed amounts of funds and no one knows whether someone has topped this up or that they are running on a fractional reserve.

We absolutely can assess this with some degree of certainty. CCEDK has about $2500 in trading volume today. Most days its less. Paying multiple developers and owners with $20/day in operating profit is impossible to sustain over a long period of time. BTER and Cryptsy had much higher trading volumes prior to their collapse. If CCEDK had any degree of financial stability it would have paid back its debt to shareholders, rather than continuing to ignore us.

I agree that it doesn’t look it is sustainable. Not supporting it would not help.
We also advertise for a number of other exchanges which have similar, less or even no trading volume. Do you suggest we take those down together with CCEDK and do a clean up with every exchange which is not making the threshold of sustainability. Maybe I do agree with you this time :wink:

Perhaps we should make a black list of exchanges that NU should not risk any funds and let only ALP and MLP support. Let me try then:
only ALP,MLP


If we agree on above list, i will withdraw my grant :wink:

If you don’t want to risk Nu funds at those exchanges because of their profile, you shouldn’t support ALP or MLP either.
Long-term supporting ALP and MLP is more expensive than risking Nu funds directly - unless you can skin the ALP or MLP.
So if the potential cost (due to the risk) is too high to allow using Nu funds, it’s even more so for supporting ALP and MLP.

1 Like

Thanks for remind me. I always forget this.

1 Like

I bet a mathematician working for an insurance could explain that much more elaborately, but I think the view is valid nevertheless.
Basically ALP and MLP need to be compensated for several risks (e.g. loss of funds, hegdging) and they require a compensation of opportunity costs to have an incentive for providing liquidity instead of investing the money elsewhere.
That’s why using Nu funds might be cheaper.
Plus it introduces a new level of reliability for peg support. For an operator dealing with Nu funds there’s no incentive to pull walls in tines of high BTC volatility.
A lost peg costs Nu money as well (damaged brand image, reduced NSR price) and that risk can rather be faced with Nu funds than with ALP at the moment.
Future compensation schemes for ALP (CRFC) help reducing that cost by reducing the risk of ALP failure (due to financial incentives).


Yah, im not against gateways on bter and ccedk, i just think it’s certainly an important discussion.