[bisq-network/bisq] Add 'low priority' payment account type to BSQ (#5153)

[chimp1984]

> > But maybe we have to admit that BSQ is more like equity. You don't buy Tesla shares for 8 USD.
> 
> How then is it best to encourage new users to buy a small amount of BSQ to fund their trades?

No good idea. But they can buy larger amounts (e.g. 100 BSQ instead of 10 BSQ) and keep them as equity or for future trades. In fact if the trader thinks that Bisq is growing that makes sense as price will be higher in future if there is more trade volume and therefor buying more now saves costs.

> 
> I think if BSQ is equity alone it decreases it's utility.

The equity part is a different facade. In many projects the equity part is much more important then the actual revenue part (all new tech companies are not profitable the first years but equity can still be very attractive).
Also for burning BSQ I think the large XMR 2 BTC trades make probably the biggest chunk, so for the DAO that is the main revenue stream (XMR had 80-90% on volume most of the time).

> 
> The more accessible BSQ is the more utility it has, this will make for a more healthy DAO.
> 

I agree. But as there is no trivial solution a complex solution will come with costs/risks and its they question if the balance is justified. E.g. If we find a payment solution for those and developing that costs us 50k USD but total sum of those small amount BSQ purchases is about 5000 USD per year, its not justified IMO. Tp pay in BTC the fee and use the burningman is already a potential solution in place. Not perfect but maybe good enough for now?

> Would enabling the BSQ wallet to send to multiple outputs work?
> 
> For example I could accept 6 trades in the week and then send the BSQ to all the addresses in one transaction with multiple outputs?

Yes, that could be done. But I guess the coordination problems with multi party payments is considerable. There is a reason why even 2of3 multisig never took off. To automate the coordination in software is quite some effort and comes with its own new risks. And doint it low-tech comes with UX complexity and potential security risks (e.g. is the person on keybase really the one you think?).

Don't misunderstand me: I am in favor that all user use BSQ and happy if a solution is found for low amount trades. But I fear that is a part of the larger problem that on-chain transactions will become more expensive with Bitcoin. So far the alternatives (LN, Liquid, RSK,...) are not very convincing as well or complex/limites/diff. trust model. But for sure something we need to spend more time on... 





-- 
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/5153#issuecomment-777137671
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210210/b873dc96/attachment.htm>