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

[Aleksej Jocic]

I personally never saw much use of most altcoins and never cared much about them, but I will have to say that I can imagine this proposal going pretty bad.

I personally think that when it comes to the effort of merging and reviewing altcoins, DAO should have a budget like we might need for other things such as support.
Ultimately that would probably look something like the auction idea that Manfred had, but there would be no need for the set number, just for as much as the asked compensation for it seemed reasonable.
I think this is the most elegant solution that would be a good way in sorting out all kinds of problems with might have in the future.

I don't see much of a reason for a listing fee policy and sending any BTC to a centrally controlled address seems unsafe to me. If we would really go with something like this and I don't see a real reason to, we could have a sort of BSQ bonding required to stay listed. That would still benefit the DAO in the same way as it would create a significant demand for BSQ, benefits of which would be automatically decentralized. But of course, there is no reason for it if we setup a budget for the efforts of adding these coins.

Only in case of huge demand that people want more altcoins listed then we would be willing to set out a budget for, would it make sense to introduce some kind of a compensation for it and BSQ bonding seems most elegant and effortless to me.

So even though I don't really feel passionate about altcoins and listings of unused altcoins, I would still technically have to disagree with this proposal.

-- 
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-418882851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20180905/6b369d9b/attachment.html>