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

[Manfred Karrer]

@blur-network There is not a single gatekeeper that's why we discuss it here, but fact is that most work is done by a relative small group of people and following our principle of meritocracy they have a higher weight in making decisions. Anyone welcome to join the forces. Lots of work waiting for helping hands... Talk is easy, work is hard...

I understand that your case might require extra treatment if we have already merged the other 2 PRs.
An open question just our of curiosity: Are there other exchanges where BLUR is listed? If so what will you do to bring volume to Bisq to make BLUR different to the 120 of 130 altcoins which never have been traded in the last 4 months? I don't know BLUR so please apologize if I compare you with any other altcoins, I know that not all are the same, but unfortunately 90% seem to bring zero value (or at least zero volume) to Bisq and we don't have time to invest time to validate a given coin - too many out there.

@cbeams 
I would prefer to not rush it into that release as it is just not such an important issue IMO. We can leave the pending PRs for the next release (or until we have a clear decision) and then write down the new rules and get to some wider consensus what exactly we will apply. I personally would prefer if we postpone it to the DAO release and the payment will be done by burning BSQ, I think that has  lower legal risks and it will give more time to prepare, and it would be done anyway once the DAO is out.
My current preferred model would be:
There is a fee of x BSQ to be burned before a PR gets reviewed. There is no guarantee that if review does not pass that the coin will get listed. Review has max. 2 back and forth cycles. If people are not able to follow very clear instructions they have to hire a better developer for doing the listing. The fee is for reviewing a coin and if it passes the review to get listed and to stay listed for 4 months. After that 4 months the coin will get removed automatically in the application by checking trade volume. Which metric we use here is open for discussion. I would suggest we require 10 BTC in trade volume.

People have to understand that relations are not one sided and if they are they should not be surprised if those relations are considered worthless and get terminated. It was always a part in the initial listing policy that synergistic effects should be triggered, so that the coins bring new users and volume as well to spread the word about Bisq. We did not had time to verify that assumptions due lack of time so we only applied a cleaning once at the latest big update at v0.5 where not traded coins got removed. But to look back of 2 years experience I think it is valid to say that > 90% of the altcoins did never match our initial listing criteria.

To not add extra work load to @cbeams as maintainer, I would suggest we just make a freeze until we have a clear decision. So no reviews from @blabno and merges (exceptions might happen if they are well reasoned).

-- 
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-414090996
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20180818/6364578a/attachment.html>