[bisq-network/proposals] Double trading fees (#208)

MwithM notifications at github.com
Mon Apr 13 14:53:17 UTC 2020

I'm clearly against this proposal:

1. I don't think that current fees are that cheap. If it were, Bisq would have a lot of volume, and it doesn't. Centralized exchanges are cheaper and faster. Other so-so decentralized exchanges have more or less the same fees as us, but we're better than them so it's fine.
2. It's a very abrupt change. Even if 1.6% BTC and 0.8% BSQ trading fees would be a good trading fee, raising it so rapidly would annoy users. Normally, traders don't get to vote if they like it or not, but if fees are too high for the service provided, they will go somewhere else, and might not come back.
3. After the attack, Bisq must be perceived as less secure than other options. Bisq needs to get back the confidence, and raising trading fees is not the way.
4. With bigger trading fees, a discount becomes more attractive: if, [as it seems](https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/205#issuecomment-612824408), Bisq follows the path of paying victims using BTC fees only, it needs to encourage the use of BTC to pay trading fees, or at least not make it less attractive. 

The only thing I would modify about trading fees after the attack would be to reduce the BSQ trading fee discount from the current 50% to somewhere like 30-40%, but that just in case it was needed. The #205 proposal has been estimated using current BTC trading fee revenue, so I don't really feel there's a need to rush into reducing that discount either.

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/20200413/dc1c3498/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the bisq-github mailing list