[bisq-network/proposals] Change model for asset listing (#153)

chimp1984 notifications at github.com
Sun Dec 15 17:26:27 UTC 2019


> _This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the [submission and review process](https://docs.bisq.network/proposals.html)._

### Overview
We should review the cost/benefits of asset listing as it is currently in a bad state. 

Reviewing, discussing and merging assets is quite a bit of effort and we should verify if the benefit those assests add to Bisq justifies the costs.

### Details
>From 38 assets added since v1.0.0 only 15 paid the listing fee (39%), so that shows that the majority is not even interested to get traded, they probably just want to add Bisq as exchange to their webpage because it is so easy and cost free.
Total paid listing fee was 843 BSQ (FAIR stood out with 365 BSQ, all others are mostly around the min. required 30 BSQ - we should consider to increase that min. required fee by DAO voting). 
I did not collect exact trade volume data (und from that derived earned trade fees), but at a quick look it seems that only 1 asset (XZC) had considerable trade volume (abount 1.5 BTC which results in about 60 BSQ trade fee revenue).    

So roughly Bisq has earned 900 BSQ for doing the work to list 38 assets. This is 23 BSQ per asset. I doubt that the effort for review, discussion (including such unpleasant ones as at https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/3789, https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/3650) and merge is justified by that revenue return where as we saw 61 % are clearly not even interested to get traded.

I think we have to reconsider the way how we deal with assets. The listing fee does not solve the up-front costs for adding an asset. So we need to add the costs upfront to ensure a filter machanism to only get added coins which have serious intentions to use Bisq for trading.

### Solutions
I would recommend 2 possible solutions. 

#### Solution 1
Put all asset listing on hold until we have found a proper solution (we can make exceptions if a maintainer considers and asset as interesting). 
We added already way too much effort (this proposal included) and the "return" value of adding assets is close to zero. We should not waste too much time on a difficult to solve problem and the overall "asset community" has such a negative track record that they are not worth to get more attention. But we should stay open for upcoming interesting ones like Blockstream's Liquid assets.

#### Solution 2
Try to find a simple model which avoids discussions and keep dev effort to a minimum while ensuring that costs for adding an asset are covered by the issuer. 
One issue here is that we WANT to support interesting assets (like GRIN, BEAM, Blocksteam's Liquid asseets,..) which come rarely but then we do not want to put a financial burden on those as those often do not have deep pockets but are often pure OS projects. 

I would suggest following model:
We create a new Github repository where only Github issues are used for asset listing (repo only contains a reame with instructions/rules). We don't want to get polluted our Github issue and PR list anymore. Asset issuer need to fork Bisq and make a branch with the asset added according to our existing requirements and link that branch in the Github issue. 
Any asset issuer can partizipate in an auction where they make an upfront BSQ payment in form of burning BSQ and post the "Proof of Burn" in the issue (use asset name as pre-image for the burn tx, post burn tx id). 
Bisq maintainers (only maintainers as those have to do the merge) can pick at each release some of the assets if the upfront paid fee seems to justify the effort. Beside that they can pick an asset if they think it is an interesting one - and they do NOT need to justify that - we don't want to get into the discussion why GRIN is more interesting than Denarius. There is no guarantee to get ever listed independent of the paid fee. If a coin smells too much like a shitcoin no amount might be enough that a maintainer will pick it. But general rule will be that they pick some of the coins which have paid most for getting listed as those show to have some "skin in the game" and justify the cost for review/merge.  
The maintainer will make himself a PR using the code from the asset issuers fork (avoiding all that pain to educate asset devs to make a PR following our guidelines). If there are severe mistakes in the branch like asset tests fail, this coin will be dropped and has little chance to get picked up again. Maintainer pull the assets when they want to spend time on that. Asset issuer who start to push and advertise they asset to maintainers will get rejected. If there is enough paid fees maintainers will come by themself as they see it as a valuable income stream for Bisq.

The upfront paid fee does not mean that there is no listing fee. Once an asset is added the issuer need to pay the listing fee and show trade activity.

I hope that model would solve several problems:
- No pollution of our Github PR and issue list with asset listing requests
- No wasted time dealing with asset PRs or issues
- Generate upfront costs to avoid all those assets which are not interested to get traded on Bisq anyway
- Bring costs/benefit into some healthy balance
- Allow interesting coins to get added without a financial barrier
- Avoid annoying discussions with shitcoiners, avoid that their troll army pollutes Bisq's communication channels
- Limit number of added assets

### Statistics
Here are some statistics taken from the Bisq app trade statistics, asset listing screen and Github release page.

Assets listed:
v1.2.3 7 Nov
Added 1 new asset: LBRY Credits (LBC)

v1.2.2 1 Nov
Added 8 new assets: Animecoin (ANI), CTSCoin (CTSC), Donu (DONU), Faircoin (FAIR), Krypton (ZOD), ndau (XND), NoteBlockchain (NTBC), uPlexa (UPX)
Removed 2 assets: Byte (GBYTE), Neos (NEOS)

v1.2.0 29 Oct
Added 7 new assets: Animecoin (ANI), CTSCoin (CTSC), Donu (DONU), Faircoin (FAIR), ndau (XND), NoteBlockchain (NTBC), uPlexa (UPX)
Removed 2 assets: Byte (GBYTE), Neos (NEOS)

v1.1.7 23.Sep
Added 14 new asset: DarkPay (D4RK), Emercoin (EMC), Ergo (ERG), Know Your Developer (KYDC), Kore (KORE), Masari (MSR), Particl (PART), PENG Coin (PENG), SixEleven (SIL), Solo (XSL), VARIUS Coin (VARIUS), Vertcoin (VTC), WORX Coin (WORX)

v1.1.3 16 Jul
Added 4 new asset: Genesis (GENX), Know Your Developer (KYD), Myce (YCE), Starwels (USDH)

v1.1.2  4 Jun
Added 2 new asset: Burnt BlackCoin (BLK-BURNT), ZeroClassic (ZERC)

v1.1.1 6 May
Added 2 new asset: List Trust Eth reOrigin (TEO) and ParsiCoin (PARS)


Listing fee and trade activity:

Paid listing fee and actively traded:
PART (30 BSQ)  		4 trades
SIL (30 BSQ)  		10 trades

Actively traded:
SOLO (0 BSQ) 		1 trade with 0,1 BTC (probably dev trade to avoided to pay listing fee)

Paid listing fee and in trial period:
DAI (64 BSQ)  		11 trades
FAIR (365 BSQ) 		2 trades
GALI (30 BSQ) 		0 trades
VTC (30 BSQ) 		0 trades

Paid listing fee but delisted du trade inactivity and trial period over:
VEIL (75 BSQ)		0 trades
KORE (40 BSQ)		0 trades
XZC (35 BSQ)		14 trades  -> was quite a bit of volume but since august not traded anymore
BTM (30 BSQ)		3 trades
D4RK (30 BSQ)		2 trades
ERG (30 BSQ)		0 trades
LBC (30 BSQ)		3 trades	
PARS (30 BSQ)		1 trade
UPX (30 BSQ)		0 trades


Conclusion:
We added 38 assets since v1.0.0. 
15 of those (39%) paid the listing fee of 843 BSQ in total. 
4 assets are actively traded (one more has only 1 trade but did not pay listing fee, so that looks like a dev trade to avoid the listing fee).
Most trade volumes is very low, only exception was XZC but it was not traded anymore since August so it got delisted. Maybe we should adjust our delisting algorithm to reflect high past trade volume for delisting period.  


-- 
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/153
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20191215/ac52fd24/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the bisq-github mailing list