[bisq-network/bisq] Adopt fee model to de-incentivize offers with huge market price distance (#4630)

[gordonel]

My 2 sats:
- By the very definition, Bisq is a marketplace that's somewhat isolated from the regular crypto market on centralise exchanges. You will always wind up paying extra for the privacy and the p2p non-regulatory nature of Bisq.
- Sometimes, bigger distances from the market price are justified. Singers often add a "signer's premium", but that premium is needed because by signing a new account an entire Bisq community for that particular crypto/fiat market gets exposed to a risk. Also, signers often have to educate new Bisq users and it's reasonable to have a markup for it.

Overall, de-incentivising is not the correct approach IMO. Punishments **never** work. If you want to make assets cheaper on Bisq, lower the fees for offers with minimum distances for the market price and incentivise traders using negative distance because they might be trading at a loss anyway.

First, I think we must decide if this is a policy worth implementing and then figure out the economics. Unless there is a sound economical decision behind intruding into the free market that is Bisq, I will vote against any proposal that adds what effectively a progressive "pay as you earn" tax.

-- 
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/bisq/issues/4630#issuecomment-707298827
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201012/5644f89d/attachment.html>