[bisq-network/proposals] Simplify trade fee model (#64)

[Manfred Karrer]

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

There has been already a proposal in the past (#31) discussing that topic but it did not reach clear support and was rejected. I want to start to discuss that topic again as we got repeated feedback from users [1] that the current model is hard to understand and as we observed over the last months it seems that the 0,4% target on total fees is not reached with the current model. 

There are a few main arguments for a change to a percentage fee for the maker (the taker has already a fixed 0,2% fee).

- Easier to understand and calculate
- The penalty for a higher fee with higher price distance at a thin markets is counter-productive. Thin markets need market makers and high fees prevent that to happen.
- There is a natural tendency that with more liquidity spreads get lower. The fee model based on distance to the market price is not a required and probably not a positive factor to achieve that.
- The edit-offer feature makes cheating with maker fee payment possible.
- For December 2018 the current fee model results in about 4,5 BTC on fees at 1600 BTC trade volume, that is about 0,28% in total. Target would be 0,4% (0,2% for both maker and taker). 

I suggest that we remove the distance to the market price factor and use a purely percentage based model with 0,2% for maker. The min. fee of 0,00005 BTC will remain as it is required to avoid dust amounts. For taker fee there are no changes.

[1] https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/31#issuecomment-435624243

-- 
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/64
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190104/1b70ae5b/attachment.html>