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

[Chris Beams]

> I may be wrong, but I heard that Manfred targeted v0.7.2 released for this monday august 20th. (Has it changed ?)

Introducing a listing fee is something Manfred and Christoph and I discussed and basically agreed on a week or two ago. It's helpful that you added this proposal, but we planned to do it in any case. @ManfredKarrer, I leave it to you whether 0.7.2 is too tight a timeline. Again, it's going to be you doing the purging of untraded coins, so it's mostly your time here.

> ... if this is the case, this will let today + tomorrow for open PR submitters to read the comment in their asset PR (... if they do it) and to react. This is very short notice (and maybe a bit rude).

The worst case scenario is that existing PRs don't get listed until v0.7.3. We have dozens of requests coming in now, and we want to do something about this as soon as possible.

> Maybe it will be more diplomatic not to appear to put them back to the wall and simply tell them that their PR will not be treated for v0.7.2 (too late), and also that rules have changed.

I'm sure it would, but it's also all more work for us to merge them, add them to release notes, etc.

> Due also to the v0.7.2 release being due very shortly, some contributors/small+big stakeholders being probably quite busy, have even not told their opinions about this proposal. I'm not even sure they know this proposal is running. Can something be decided so fast without their opinion/vote being known ?

The major stakeholders are agreed on this change. I understand this seems abrupt, but there's not a lot of sense in waiting otherwise, unless it's just too much a hassle for us to get this in for 0.7.2.


> What is '1 BTC listing fee' ? it's 1 BTC forever, for one release, for 2018, for one year ?

One-time fee. Has to be repaid if you get de-listed due to inactivity.


> ok for mentionning the fees are not refundable. But maybe the fees should also be, for a period of time, and modifiable (for the next period)

Acknowledged. No change from my side on this.


> as @ManfredKarrer mentionned
> 
> There might be legal implications, which should be thought out well.
> 
> Have we fully taken the possible legal implications in consideration ? (If yes, fine).
> 
> Which BTC address will be used ? the donation address as suggested by Manfred ? Or better not to mix donations and charges ?

Probably a good idea to to use a different address, @ManfredKarrer I leave that to you. On the legal front, none of us are lawyers, and we're not going to hire any for this decision. It's just a requirement for getting listed. Follow the instructions to create a correct PR, list your block explorer, send 1 BTC to this address. If we're paranoid about it, then don't ever spend the bitcoin until somebody talks to a lawyer. None of us plan to spend it on anything any time soon anyway. This is just to reduce spam and workload.


> I will browse thru the asset list to point which assets have not been traded in the past 4 months. And pass the list to @ManfredKarrer .If it's not necessary please tell me.
> (I didn't make the count yet, but there will be probably some altcoins with trades in the past 4 months, but although not profitable for Bisq.)

Again, I think this will be on Manfred. He's the one that's purged un-traded assets before, probably makes the most sense to do it again.


> I had in mind that of course we may charge BTCs, but maybe we could also propose alternatives means.

There are no other means, e.g. fiat bank account.


> I submitted this proposal on august 14th, after a 5 lines discussion with Manfred on slack on august 11th.
> In my mind I didn't imagine we would apply it for v0.7.2 which was targeted for mid-en august.
> 
> I fully agree that there is a need to change the actual listing fee policy, but imo we should take the time necessary for that.
> Listing fee policy was unchanged for months/years, if it takes us some days now, this wouldn't hurt.

Yeah, again, it's all a bit of a coincidence. We had discussed this at some length more than a week before, and debated whether to do a proposal at all because we were already pretty clear about it.

@ManfredKarrer, with all the above said, please just nix this if you don't want to do it for v0.7.2. I'm in "just get it done mode", but it's mostly an ask on your time to actually execute it. If we wait, we wait, and that's fine with me too.

-- 
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-414056420
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20180818/8dddaf5d/attachment-0001.html>