Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Strategy improvements #9

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Oct 18, 2016
Merged

Strategy improvements #9

merged 4 commits into from Oct 18, 2016

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Sep 13, 2016

See commit comments. Still needs more testing but I believe the idea is good. We may want new options for these and/or create a new strategy file?

scrawl added 4 commits September 13, 2016 21:39
Because most "lazy" lenders place their bids at the FRR, ignoring these may yield significantly better loan rates. The bids are still likely to get filled by traders that un-check the "Include variable rates" check-box.
- Instead of placing the offer ON the rate that exceeded our gapbottom/gaptop thresholds, place it just under that rate, thus ensuring that the volume leading up to our offer really is less than the requested threshold.
- Better implementation of minDailyLendRate (ignore orders under the minDailyLendRate)
@eAndrius eAndrius merged commit 1621c6e into eAndrius:master Oct 18, 2016
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Oct 18, 2016

Oops, I forgot to update with test findings. Should probably revert this PR. The ignoreFRR feature doesn't work that well in practice, at one point I did have great success with it but most of the time offers never get filled. Also, the 'place 1 point below competing offer' logic will probably cause bots to out-compete each other and race to a very low rate, if this bot is adopted by many users. I am no longer working on this bot at the moment as the rates are so low anyway.

The commit "Change loanOffers to a map so that multiple offers at the same rate are consolidated into one offer" should be uncontroversial, but there may be an easier way of achieving the same (this is literally my first time writing Go code, as you can probably tell). It's not a very important feature either, so probably the best thing to do is reverting the whole merge.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant