BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: clayop on October 25, 2015, 11:14:38 pm
-
According to the BM's proposal, we are going to have cheaper cancellation fee and relatively expensive filling order fee.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/393
Summary:
Filled order
- Lifetime members: $0.05 (15 BTS)
- Annual member: $0.125 (35 BTS)
- Basic member: $0.25 (70 BTS)
Unfulfilled order
- Lifetime member: $0.0002 (0.1 BTS)
- Annual member: $0.0755 (20 BTS)
- Basic member: $0.20 (55 BTS)
It's desirable to have negligible amount of fee for non-filled order for lifetime member. But it is too expensive (especially psychologically) to charge over 50 BTS for non-filled order to basic members.
Now, we have 10 BTS fee for both filled/non-filled order. I would suggest to keep the fee at the current level (10 BTS or 9.9 BTS, as many merchants do).
The reasons are as follows
1. Higher fee can drive out common users. They first want to taste our product, but too high fee can barrier them
2. This fee can be additional. Many UIA, such as TRADE.BTC, already have market fee of 0.2% (same level as other exchanges). So we may have more expensive fee system than centralized exchanges.
3. 800% increase can be seen as too arbitrary. We'd rather keep the current fee system until the committee is decentralized. (now 10 of 11 is under control of BM)
-
I agree with clayop, we went low fees
-
for the filled orders - annual/life members get their usual cash back. So:
Filled order
Lifetime/Annual/Basic member
0.05./ x.xx/ 0.25
Ah you're right. I will edit it. Thanks for the input!
-
Actually the proposal is pretty good. We can even go with much higher (2-3-5x) fill order fees, imho, if we can implement at least semi-intelligent rules what constitutes a filled (partially filled) order.
-
Actually the proposal is pretty good. We can even go with much higher (2-3-5x) fill order fees, imho, if we can implement at least semi-intelligent rules what constitutes a filled (partially filled) order.
I wish we can have the same level of fee for non-filled order for basic users. 55 BTS for non-filled order is dumb...
-
Actually the proposal is pretty good. We can even go with much higher (2-3-5x) fill order fees, imho, if we can implement at least semi-intelligent rules what constitutes a filled (partially filled) order.
I wish we can have the same level of fee for non-filled order for basic users. 55 BTS for non-filled order is dumb...
well, I guess this explains why everyone else is using % based fees.
-
Unfilled orders for annual and basic members should also be much lower.
-
Actually the proposal is pretty good. We can even go with much higher (2-3-5x) fill order fees, imho, if we can implement at least semi-intelligent rules what constitutes a filled (partially filled) order.
I wish we can have the same level of fee for non-filled order for basic users. 55 BTS for non-filled order is dumb...
well, I guess this explains why everyone else is using % based fees.
Which brings the question.
why cant we have % fee and flat fee? And we charge the smaller one!
If the % fee can not be calculated (aka one of the assets has no known to the blockchain value => has a value of +infinity)
we charge the flat fee, else we charge the % fee + 0.005 BTS.( or + 0.000x BTS fee that prevents the spamming)
PS
contributions...cornerstones...fuzzy
fuzzy's fuzzy take on matters...
and matters that are not just blah blah blah, registering in one's mind...
-
I think the fee structure for filled orders is reasonable, and can be even higher like 2-5 times.
The fee structure for unfilled order seems too high for nomal users. Placing orders should be extremely cheap, the only limit is the system capacity. The fee structure should be like:
Life-time 0.1 bts
Annu 0.25 bts
Nomal 0.5 bts.
-
+5%
this is a game, the fact is not that you set a high fee rate then will get high revenues, as the basic users can select trade here or not to trade here.
it will be better to keep the 10 BTS fee and make the trade volume high enough first.
-
Actually the proposal is pretty good. We can even go with much higher (2-3-5x) fill order fees, imho, if we can implement at least semi-intelligent rules what constitutes a filled (partially filled) order.
Is there a way of setting up a vote on it tony? This would be a good way to gain traction for this idea.
-
Actually the proposal is pretty good. We can even go with much higher (2-3-5x) fill order fees, imho, if we can implement at least semi-intelligent rules what constitutes a filled (partially filled) order.
Is there a way of setting up a vote on it tony? This would be a good way to gain traction for this idea.
Vote on what, fuzz? On "If it technically possible or feasible to determine what is a partially filled orders"?
Reading my posts to about the half of them.... is as annoying as you trying to censorship me 'because I am expressing personal opinions and or attacks on you, when I am just stating my disapproval of the ideas presented.'
-
what about transfer fee ?
-
what about transfer fee ?
I'm neutral because we don't know high transaction fee actually significantly discourage people to transfer fund. (IMO, the elasticity of transfer is low)
-
I'm fine with anything that makes traders happy and prevents spam.
don't touch tx fees for now though.
-
it is too complicated ,
we should use simple rule.
my suggestion is adjust fee according to average transaction per second (TPS)
we can select a term , such as 15 days as one months , adjust the fee according to TPS value
1. if TPS<=5. fee=2bts or $0.01
2. if 5<TPS<=10 , fee=4bts or $0.02
3. if 10<TPS<=20, fee=6bts or $0.03
4. if 20<TPS<=40 fee=8bts or $0.04
5. if 40<TPS<=80 fee=10 bts or $0.05
6. if 80<TPS<=160 fee=12bts or $0.06
7. if 160 <TPS<320 fee=14bts or $0.07
8. if 320<TPS<=640 fee=16bts or $0.08
9.if 640 <TPS<=1280 fee=18bts or $0.09
10. if 1280<TPS<=2560 fee=20bts or $0.10
11. if TPS>2560 fee=40bts or $0.20
-
instead of restricting it just per TPS, assuming it's feasible, do it per account also.
that way the only way to spam would be to create thousands of accounts, but creating thousands of accounts already means paying many fees.
-
one question, how is the fee for partially filled order?
-
one question, how is the fee for partially filled order?
Extracted from BM comments on https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/393
...
There is a potential attack vector of someone crafting orders that fill 99% and then canceling them to avoid the minimum fill order fee. This will require adding a field to the order that tracks whether or not it has been partially filled. A partially filled order does not qualify for a refund.
...
-
one question, how is the fee for partially filled order?
Extracted from BM comments on https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/393
...
There is a potential attack vector of someone crafting orders that fill 99% and then canceling them to avoid the minimum fill order fee. This will require adding a field to the order that tracks whether or not it has been partially filled. A partially filled order does not qualify for a refund.
...
"partially filled order does not qualify for a refund", then another trouble will come, suppose an order is filled 1% and then is cancelled, then the user need to pay as the whole order is filled
-
one question, how is the fee for partially filled order?
Extracted from BM comments on https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/393
...
There is a potential attack vector of someone crafting orders that fill 99% and then canceling them to avoid the minimum fill order fee. This will require adding a field to the order that tracks whether or not it has been partially filled. A partially filled order does not qualify for a refund.
...
"partially filled order does not qualify for a refund", then another trouble will come, suppose an order is filled 1% and then is cancelled, then the user need to pay as the whole order is filled
But it is a safety net for the network. Losing a small fee is better than destroying the whole network.
-
I support the idea for making the cancellation fee cheaper, however in issue#393 the fee is still too expensive for basic member (even more expensive than before?) .
in my idea, we need not to force each user to become lifetime member, basic member should have acceptable fee, and if they become a big user, lifetime member will be better choice.
let me reason what a fee for filled order for basic member is acceptable.
comparing to central exchange, suppose the fee rate for filled order is 0.2%.
suppose the expected volume for 1 order is 20000 BTS(from my intuition), then the fee is 40 BTS.
for basic member, the fee for unfulfilled order should also be much cheaper than filled order.
also considered that a partially filled order is charged as a totally filled order, here is my suggestion for the fee setting under this framework:
Filled order
- Lifetime members: $0.02(5 BTS)
- Annual member: $0.06(15 BTS)
- Basic member: $0.12 (30 BTS)
Unfulfilled order
- Lifetime member: $0.0004 (0.1 BTS)
- Annual member: $0.008 (2 BTS)
- Basic member: $0.02 (5 BTS)