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

[Manfred Karrer]

Regarding maker/taker fee:
- Please consider that the taker pays 3 times the miner fee (taker fee tx, deposit tx, payout tx) and the maker only one time (maker fee tx). Miner fees are rather low luckily but that can change again some day. 
- Beside that I am open for a assymmetric fee. E.g. Maker fee 0,1% taker fee 0,3%.

- General on fees:
We need to get to a sustainable economic model. Currently we had about 4,5 BTC revenue in December (about 20 000 USD) and issue about 60 000 BSQ (60 000 USD) per month (that number is growing more to 80-100k). So we have about 30% of what we need to be sustainable. If we would have the 0,4% of the targeted fee revenue we would be about 50% which is not so bad. In a few months with current growth trends we should reach break even. 
Reducing fees would risk that the eonomic model is not sustainable. Losing contributors because of a low BSQ value is a higher risk as to lose some traders because of fees. 

Once the DAO is out the fee can be changed anyway in the DAO by voting. But still there we need to think carefully to make the right strategic decisions as a community. Traders and contributors have different incentives and interests but they are dependent on each other. Traders without contributors fixing issues and improving the software will not be happy. And of course without traders Bisq would be pointless.

I also think that our core users don't see the fee as the fundamental aspect for the reason why they use Bisq or not. Those who don't care about privacy and decentralization have no reason to use Bisq - we cannot and never will be able to compete with Coinbase and the like.

I am aware that for several reasons Bisq is not adequade for certain regions in the world and for certain types of users (who don't care about privacy). We will get better over time to be more accessible for more mainstream type of users but that is not our priority and would risk to derail Bisq's vision if it would become a strong priority - at some points getting too mainstream would conflict with the privacy and decentralization properties.
 
Regarding option trading:
The maker can set the buyer deposit so there is a way to manually regulate that risk. We don't have much issues as far I know from arbitrators but at high volatility there are bit more issues. But so far it does not seem to be any major problem. An improvement can be to make the deposit % based on the trade amount. Another would be to have some volatility indicators which are used for determine that value. 

-- 
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#issuecomment-451559997
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190104/56ba5c8b/attachment-0001.html>