[bisq-network/proposals] Listing fee policy - step 1 (general) (#35)

[Chris Beams]

I am for the proposal except where noted below and have reacted to the description accordingly. There are only two reactions there so far. Please add yours if you haven't.

Specifically, I would like to see the following minimal set of changes happen first. I believe nothing more complicated than this is necessary for a start, and we don't need a 'second proposal' to 'get into technical details'.

1. Purge all un-traded assets per existing documented policy, and do it in the forthcoming v0.7.2 release.
1. Update the asset listing documentation to indicate that there is 1 BTC listing fee. Instruct the user to pay the fee at PR submission time and to include a the ID in a `Listing fee transaction ID` entry of the PR description.
1. Indicate that the fee is non-refundable.
1. Retroactively apply this policy to all current open asset listing PRs. i.e. add a comment to each PR letting the submitter know that if they get their fee paid before Aug X, their asset will make it into v0.7.2. And that if not, it can make the next release.

Note that I differ from the concerns of the proposal as written in the description above, in that for me, this has nothing to do with getting more engagement from asset promoters. I see plenty of promotion every day with asset teams mentioning Bisq on Twitter to let everyone in their circle know their asset is now listed. There is plenty of promotion going on out there, and even if there weren't, it wouldn't be a problem that needs fixing from my perspective. Bisq maintains a policy that anyone can list a coin if you follow certain instructions. What you do with that listing is on you afterward. Note also that we (Bisq) do not promote the assets we list other than mentioning them in release notes, and again, I wouldn't want to do anything more than this. As Manfred mentioned above, every asset we list is reputational damage waiting to happen. That's why we maintain total neutrality and don't 'promote' in any way. We officially have no interest in one coin over another. An notable exception to this is when a given asset is doing a lot of volume on the exchange. We do often mention this (and it's almost always / only XMR), because it is of broad interest to users, always gets positive engagement and is unlikely to incur the kind of reputational damage I'm talking about.

In the interest of executing this change quickly to align with the v0.7.2 release, please weigh in as to whether you're aligned with the minimal set of changes proposed above, and please consider volunteering to carry out the changes yourself. Thank you. (note: I believe @ManfredKarrer will need to do the purging step himself in any case). 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/35#issuecomment-414032049
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20180817/116820ed/attachment.html>