[bisq-network/proposals] Filtering inactive assets (#41)

[Manfred Karrer]

@HarryMacfinned 

> 1/ maintain free listing...

Ah sorry that was not clear from my side. I am not decided on that yet and basically did not consider that we should skip a fee. But your arguments have some value.

> 3/ as for the delays...

Release dates are not so reliable, so I would prefer to not use them.

> 4/ I found also..
Ranking is hard for them to get a clear metrics as it changes dynamically. I think its more predictable with fixes metrics like nr. of trades and volume.

Another idea might be to have the warmup phase and the BSQ fee connected. E.g. For each BSQ you pay in fee you get a day of warmup phase. So the argument from coin issuers who are doing a valuable coin but have not much funds for paying a high fee is solved as anyone can pay a relative low fee and if there is no trade activity there is no reason why they need an exchange.

Requiring a BSQ fee at listing time also adds friction/mental costs which helps to filter out "spam". 

I need to figure out the technical implementation for the fees. Basic idea is to have a special tx with a n opReturn where the hash of the tickerSymbol is in the data. So we can look up when the tx happened and check the hash. Anyone can do the fee payment.
That scheme could be more generally used or proof of burn. One can keep a pre-image of the hash and proof that he was the one who did the burning (e.g. for reputation). With signing a nonce from the input for that tx he can proof that he is was the originator of the tx.
@sqrrm What do you think?



-- 
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/41#issuecomment-427447685
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20181005/09cc0b28/attachment.html>