[bisq-network/proposals] Fee model for Asset listing (#42)

[sqrrm]

I think the fee for listing only make sense if there is a fee before a merge happens. That way no energy is spent on review and merge of assets that never get used.

To pay the fee it makes sense with a proof of burn of BSQ. That is the only way to pay to the project rather than to (a group of) individuals. To have proof of burn implemented as a concept in the DAO sounds good, it would then be a good way to pay the project as a whole for any kind of service.

I'm strongly against any kind of systematic voting on listing assets before the fact. It would clog up the voting and render the DAO a lot less useful. If anything it would always be possible to create de-list proposals before an asset is listed if it's a controversial asset.

-- 
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/42#issuecomment-429111330
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20181011/529f35f5/attachment.html>