[bisq-network/proposals] Increase trading fee (#99)

initCCG notifications at github.com
Tue Jul 2 05:26:36 UTC 2019

Let’s assume that Binance and BNB should not even be considered as indirect competitors to Bisq and BSQ.

Neither should XMR volume on Bisq be considered “trading” that is not shady for comparison purposes. The way it is steadily being poured back and forth in such amounts, suggests Bisq is being used as some kind of a Bitcoin mixer, perhaps by the free (aka dark) markets.

If it were actual trading, there would be other altcoins with similar volume...

If not Binance, then the main competition to match becomes the altcoin DEX’s, such as IDEX, Etherdelta, …


We’re back to 0.1 – 0.3% for altcoins. The apparent leader's - IDEX - maker/taker fee ratio is 1:2.
Put a BSQ discount fee on that. 

On the fiat side still match or beat HH, and also have a BSQ discount.

In Bisq, we as makers take more risk and do more work, but 1:3 ratio seems excessive.

Furthermore,  the line of reasoning that:

> As > 90% of volume is generated on the altcoin side (XMR) I think that would not work to make Bisq sustainable. Goal should be that revenue from the fees is equal or higher than BSQ spent for contributors.
> ...
> Bisq biggest problem is that there are not enough developers to improve and fix issues (see long list in Github and open proposals). To attract new developers the BSQ payment need to be sustainable and not represent a high risk that the contributor need very long to sell some BSQ to the expected price. To achieve that fee revenue needs to match or outperform the issuance of BSQ.

suggests the elephant in the room – that the current contributor compensation system is unsustainable.

If the biggest problem with Bisq is not enough devs, and the only way to fix that is to make contributor compensation the top priority, then even Bitcoin itself was unsustainable from the start.

By this line of logic, the more contributors show up, the higher the fees will have to be.

Perhaps, instead of the customers being forced to accept the highest fees among their choices, it’s the contributors that should accept that the Bisq DAO can’t afford to pay us on a FOSS project at the same rate as we get paid in our IRL, LTV centralized economy? 

Our view is that no business can survive by putting competitive compensation for its principles and employees ahead of competitive pricing for its customers.

> Beside that the currently high miner fee is for many smaller trades higher than the trade fee. As that cannot be changes anyway soon, I think trying to get new users with a low trade fee is a wrong approach.

30%+ of the Bisq fee problem is that it doesn’t have Segwit. Is that not going to change soon? 

If off-chain exchanges such as Binance can’t be compared to on-chain exchange Bisq trades in terms of fees, then neither should they be compared in terms of trade size.

The days when small on-chain trades on Bitcoin/Bisq made sense are over. Only LN integration seems likely to make small trades worthwhile on Bisq again, and that for sure cannot happen any time soon. 

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190701/e3fe6594/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the bisq-github mailing list