[Withdrawn] Single Sided NBT Gateway on CCEDK (2 pairs: NBT - BTC/PPC)

Cybnate 2016-02-16 08:37:21 UTC #2

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.

Nagalim 2016-02-16 12:56:08 UTC #3

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.

zoro 2016-02-19 14:31:59 UTC #4

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.

Nagalim 2016-02-19 15:30:35 UTC #5

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.

zoro 2016-02-19 16:14:25 UTC #6

I wish i knew how to do that in nubot.

crypto_coiner 2016-02-19 23:39:32 UTC #7

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.

tomjoad 2016-02-20 00:58:53 UTC #8

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

Cybnate 2016-02-20 02:10:53 UTC #9

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.

Nagalim 2016-02-20 02:22:04 UTC #10

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

Cybnate 2016-02-20 02:23:54 UTC #11

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

Nagalim 2016-02-20 02:26:08 UTC #12

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

Cybnate 2016-02-20 02:30:39 UTC #13

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.

tomjoad 2016-02-20 02:36:35 UTC #14

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.

Cybnate 2016-02-20 02:40:58 UTC #15

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

zoro 2016-02-20 07:34:07 UTC #16

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:
BTER
CCEDK
only ALP,MLP

Poloniex
Bittrex
SouthX
Hitbtc
gateways,ALP,MLP

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

masterOfDisaster 2016-02-20 08:01:24 UTC #17

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.

zoro 2016-02-20 08:32:47 UTC #18

Thanks for remind me. I always forget this.

masterOfDisaster 2016-02-20 08:57:03 UTC #19

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).

Nagalim 2016-02-20 12:56:33 UTC #20

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

masterOfDisaster 2016-02-20 13:15:29 UTC #21

I agree it is.
On some exchanges the risks seem to be more obvious than on other ones.
But any operation (with Nu funds, ALP, MLP) is more expensive for Nu if the risk is considered higher than on other exchanges.
That’s the thing that needs to be realized although it tends to be forgotten from time to time: liquidity operations cost money. The more risky the operation, the more Nu has to pay for liquidity.