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

[Carsen Klock]

> Please keep any references to specific assets and people away from this thread as we're discussing the generic process of listing new assets. Could we move those comments to their own relevant issues?
> 
> I agree that it's a wasted effort to list all these assets that are mostly never traded. I like the idea of a proof of burn to list an asset. Possibly to be refunded if the asset generates enough trade volume within the first three months, but that's also not necessary. That would at least balance the cost to the DAO to list the asset. I would still leave it open to the maintainer or other contributor to review and merge the PR.

The comments above will remain and are entirely relevant to this discussion.

I do agree with your proof of burn to list an asset and a possible refunding if the asset provides trading volume. I do also agree that it should be left open to anyone not just contributors or maintainers to submit/suggest new assets for listing.

-- 
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#issuecomment-566154686
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20191216/9572ae98/attachment.html>