BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: clayop on October 22, 2015, 10:36:21 am
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
-
Make it 0, so that we can claim 0 trading fee which is good advertisement.
Setting orders don't need spam protection.
-
Make it 0, so that we can claim 0 trading fee which is good advertisement.
Setting orders don't need spam protection.
It shouldn't be 0. We still need spam protection. I would like to say 1 BTS (for non-lifetime members)
-
Make it 0, so that we can claim 0 trading fee which is good advertisement.
Setting orders don't need spam protection.
It shouldn't be 0. We still need spam protection. I would like to say 1 BTS (for non-lifetime members)
Why do you need spam protection if someone is putting up an order? The more orders being put up the better. Instead the client can enforce a min order amount.
I may need to set and cancel 10 times depending on market conditions before executing a trade, especially as there is no action there.
Big exchahges had started with 0 fees to get volume. Somehow BTS expects it will win by making it expensive and having no users.
-
Make it 0, so that we can claim 0 trading fee which is good advertisement.
Setting orders don't need spam protection.
It shouldn't be 0. We still need spam protection. I would like to say 1 BTS (for non-lifetime members)
Why do you need spam protection if someone is putting up an order? The more orders being put up the better. Instead the client can enforce a min order amount.
I may need to set and cancel 10 times depending on market conditions before executing a trade, especially as there is no action there.
Big exchahges had started with 0 fees to get volume. Somehow BTS expects it will win by making it expensive and having no users.
I can tell since I did spamming on the testnet with market order transactions. If we set it 0, some evil player intentionally do fake orders 1000 time a second to ruin the network.
-
The trading fe is about 5 US cents atm which NO trader cares about! Traders have 0.1 % upwards on the volume of their trades (roughly) on centralized exchanges. On the other side these fees can be a substantial income stream to fund development.
Plus there is the subjective perception that things only have value if the cost something.
So it is clear to me that lowering fees, especially trading fees, has more cons than pros.
-
The trading fe is about 5 US cents atm which NO trader cares about! Traders have 0.1 % upwards on the volume of their trades (roughly) on centralized exchanges. On the other side these fees can be a substantial income stream to fund development.
Plus there is the subjective perception that things only have value if the cost something.
So it is clear to me that lowering fees, especially trading fees, has more cons than pros.
5 cents for "filled order" is reasonable. But for "unfilled order" seems expensive. As a trader, I care about the fee...
-
The trading fe is about 5 US cents atm which NO trader cares about! Traders have 0.1 % upwards on the volume of their trades (roughly) on centralized exchanges. On the other side these fees can be a substantial income stream to fund development.
Do you pay the fee on centralised exchanges like BTC38/Polo even if your order isn't filled?
I haven't paid attention.
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
to make the market maker feel comfortable is important, as for an exchange, good liquidity is more important than lower fee for attracting users, we can see many proof, yunbi is free, btc38 charge 0.1%, poloniex charge more, but how about their volume?
IMO, for common member the trade fee can be 5BTS, it's OK, but for lifetime membership, the trading fee should be as low as possible. if all the orders will be charged, it would be better to keep the trading fee 0.1BTS, no higher than 1BTS anyway.
-
Transaction fees for the BTS native currency are the #1 main problem above all else. The fees should be done with the assumption that nobody pays membership fee since everyone not on this forum thinks it's an awful scammy idea and will just boycott the system unless referrals have no or little effect on how the platform operates. Going from 5 to 20 bts is a 400% markup to subsidize the referral system, therefore the referral system is holding the entire platform hostage. It's clinically insane to subsidize it that much. 5-30% maybe, 400% hell no. I do not want to ever pay a membership fee and nobody else does in the outside world either. All it does is bring negative feelings to the entire platform.
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
Developing world will be the first to adopt this technology . You need to be appealing to the unbanked for mass adoption . Start by replacing western union and trading will follow. Transfer fees should be minimal.
-
The trading fe is about 5 US cents atm which NO trader cares about! Traders have 0.1 % upwards on the volume of their trades (roughly) on centralized exchanges. On the other side these fees can be a substantial income stream to fund development.
Do you pay the fee on centralised exchanges like BTC38/Polo even if your order isn't filled?
I haven't paid attention.
no fee if the order is not filled for centralized exchanges, definitely.
-
Transaction fees for the BTS native currency are the #1 main problem above all else. The fees should be done with the assumption that nobody pays membership fee since everyone not on this forum thinks it's an awful scammy idea and will just boycott the system unless referrals have no or little effect on how the platform operates. Going from 5 to 20 bts is a 400% markup to subsidize the referral system, therefore the referral system is holding the entire platform hostage. It's clinically insane to subsidize it that much. 5-30% maybe, 400% hell no. I do not want to ever pay a membership fee and nobody else does in the outside world either. All it does is bring negative feelings to the entire platform.
you're aggressively trying to sell your opinion as majority. however, you need to proof it.
where are discussions about our "scammy membership" program?
ps. don't bother to answer if you get your education from trollboxes
-
Transaction fees for the BTS native currency are the #1 main problem above all else. The fees should be done with the assumption that nobody pays membership fee since everyone not on this forum thinks it's an awful scammy idea and will just boycott the system unless referrals have no or little effect on how the platform operates. Going from 5 to 20 bts is a 400% markup to subsidize the referral system, therefore the referral system is holding the entire platform hostage. It's clinically insane to subsidize it that much. 5-30% maybe, 400% hell no. I do not want to ever pay a membership fee and nobody else does in the outside world either. All it does is bring negative feelings to the entire platform.
This discussion is about trading fees for the internal exchange.
The trading fe is about 5 US cents atm which NO trader cares about! Traders have 0.1 % upwards on the volume of their trades (roughly) on centralized exchanges. On the other side these fees can be a substantial income stream to fund development.
Do you pay the fee on centralised exchanges like BTC38/Polo even if your order isn't filled?
I haven't paid attention.
no fee if the order is not filled for centralized exchanges, definitely.
Ok. Then I agree with clayop we have to charge a lot less for orders that aren't filled.
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
The fee for using centralized exchanges is the risk of being goxxed. Bitshares isn't in competition with centralized exchanges and could get away with charging a higher fee because it's more secure.
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
Developing world will be the first to adopt this technology . You need to be appealing to the unbanked for mass adoption . Start by replacing western union and trading will follow. Transfer fees should be minimal.
The way to market to the developing world is to allow them to earn enough Bitshares to pay the fee. The goal should be to attract big whales and big money to bring in liquidity. The developing world doesn't have much liquidity so why would we want to focus on lowering fees to appeal to the poorest in the room who have the least money to provide liquidity?
Bring in people who have money first, then lower fees later on when liquidity is there. Even if there are fewer people, if the fewer participants have millions of dollars each, its more liquidity than if you have many millions in the developing world.
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
The fee for using centralized exchanges is the risk of being goxxed. Bitshares isn't in competition with centralized exchanges and could get away with charging a higher fee because it's more secure.
I disagree. We are in competition with centralised exchanges until we have comparable volume & liquidity.
At that point Goxxproof could become a differentiating factor that could justify higher fees.
-
How about a timely limited offer ... get in now and trade for a 80% discount for the next 6 months?
-
Trading fees are already cheapest.
-
How about a timely limited offer ... get in now and trade for a 80% discount for the next 6 months?
It's easier to lower fees in the future than to raise them.
Just let people earn enough BTS to pay the fees or is it somehow impossible to do that?
And people who have $20,000 to trade aren't going to care if the fee is 10 cents or $10.
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
The fee for using centralized exchanges is the risk of being goxxed. Bitshares isn't in competition with centralized exchanges and could get away with charging a higher fee because it's more secure.
I disagree. We are in competition with centralised exchanges until we have comparable volume & liquidity.
At that point Goxxproof could become a differentiating factor that could justify higher fees.
Prove it. Without an a/b test, without some data from our demographics, we have no way to know. It would seem to me that as centralized exchanges shut down, Bitshares will be marketed by bad news and disasters.
Also liquidity comes fast, real fast. I remember when Polo started as a place to buy BTS back when Cryptsy had the volume. To get the volume you just need to have exclusive assets on your exchange and nothing else. You don't need low fees, you just need assets which can only be accessed on Bitshares 2.0.
People wont have a choice but to make an account or they will not be in the crowdsale.
-
Make it 0, so that we can claim 0 trading fee which is good advertisement.
Setting orders don't need spam protection.
It shouldn't be 0. We still need spam protection. I would like to say 1 BTS (for non-lifetime members)
Why do you need spam protection if someone is putting up an order? The more orders being put up the better. Instead the client can enforce a min order amount.
I may need to set and cancel 10 times depending on market conditions before executing a trade, especially as there is no action there.
Big exchahges had started with 0 fees to get volume. Somehow BTS expects it will win by making it expensive and having no users.
I can tell since I did spamming on the testnet with market order transactions. If we set it 0, some evil player intentionally do fake orders 1000 time a second to ruin the network.
yup and/or HFTs have free reign to ghost the order book...at least a fee adds some constraint to make sure orders have some value.
-
How about a timely limited offer ... get in now and trade for a 80% discount for the next 6 months?
It's easier to lower fees in the future than to raise them.
Just let people earn enough BTS to pay the fees or is it somehow impossible to do that?
And people who have $20,000 to trade aren't going to care if the fee is 10 cents or $10.
Actually the universal convention is to start cheaper, attract business and raise later.
Though I'm a fan of the referral programme, which of course adds to fees, we need to do our best to find the right balance.
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
The fee for using centralized exchanges is the risk of being goxxed. Bitshares isn't in competition with centralized exchanges and could get away with charging a higher fee because it's more secure.
I disagree. We are in competition with centralised exchanges until we have comparable volume & liquidity.
At that point Goxxproof could become a differentiating factor that could justify higher fees.
Prove it. Without an a/b test, without some data from our demographics, we have no way to know. It would seem to me that as centralized exchanges shut down, Bitshares will be marketed by bad news and disasters.
Also liquidity comes fast, real fast. I remember when Polo started as a place to buy BTS back when Cryptsy had the volume. To get the volume you just need to have exclusive assets on your exchange and nothing else. You don't need low fees, you just need assets which can only be accessed on Bitshares 2.0.
People wont have a choice but to make an account or they will not be in the crowdsale.
BTS has been in operation with exclusive assets like BitGold for over a year and many exchanges have failed in that time, including bter which did a lot of BTS volume, how 'fast, real fast' did the liquidity come? BTS still doesn't rank in the top 50 exchanges on volume.
I think we'll get there very quick with 2.0 but we do need to listen to active traders and if possible fees for non filled trades should be less.
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
Developing world will be the first to adopt this technology . You need to be appealing to the unbanked for mass adoption . Start by replacing western union and trading will follow. Transfer fees should be minimal.
The way to market to the developing world is to allow them to earn enough Bitshares to pay the fee. The goal should be to attract big whales and big money to bring in liquidity. The developing world doesn't have much liquidity so why would we want to focus on lowering fees to appeal to the poorest in the room who have the least money to provide liquidity?
Bring in people who have money first, then lower fees later on when liquidity is there. Even if there are fewer people, if the fewer participants have millions of dollars each, its more liquidity than if you have many millions in the developing world.
Well big whales can always acquire their own blockchain , why do you think they will choose your platform. This is a race agains time , whoever appeals to the masses will grab a market share and more importantly brand recognition. Aspirin is a cheap and widely available product some even claim that better than some of the prescription drugs . It contributed Bayer to become what it is today . Utility will bring value .
-
The trading fe is about 5 US cents atm which NO trader cares about! Traders have 0.1 % upwards on the volume of their trades (roughly) on centralized exchanges. On the other side these fees can be a substantial income stream to fund development.
Do you pay the fee on centralised exchanges like BTC38/Polo even if your order isn't filled?
I haven't paid attention.
I didnt know that.
Then the question is whether some fee is necessary for any operation to prevent spam.
In total traders still pay a lot less than on centralized exchanges, especially the big volume traders which are most valuable to attract.
-
The trading fe is about 5 US cents atm which NO trader cares about! Traders have 0.1 % upwards on the volume of their trades (roughly) on centralized exchanges. On the other side these fees can be a substantial income stream to fund development.
Plus there is the subjective perception that things only have value if the cost something.
So it is clear to me that lowering fees, especially trading fees, has more cons than pros.
5 cents for "filled order" is reasonable. But for "unfilled order" seems expensive. As a trader, I care about the fee...
1 USD fee is not expensive if the order is filled. And 5 cent fee is expensive if the order is not filled.
-
BTS has been in operation with exclusive assets like BitGold for over a year and many exchanges have failed in that time, including bter which did a lot of BTS volume, how 'fast, real fast' did the liquidity come? BTS still doesn't rank in the top 50 exchanges on volume.
The decentralized exchange which is the feature exclusive to Bitshares wasn't really availabel until Bitshares 2.0.. Yes you had Bitassets and stuff but you didn't have gateways. People required centralized exchanges because you didn't have gateways and other features plus the web wallet didn't look like this back then.
At this point as centralized exchanges get shut down or hacked the Bitshares web exchange network will keep gaining steam. I would say you're not going to attract users with lower fees. I've never chosen an exchange based on the fees. I choose exchanges based on whatever assets are on the exchange and for example in the case of MAID or Mastercoin you only had MasterXChange, you only have one exchange to choose from for certain assets so the way to bring people to your exchange is to offer Bitshares exchange exclusive assets.
We simply don't need to compete on fees. The technology is so superior to everything else and due to first mover advantage, the competition is on marketing not fees, and marketing is about exclusive profit making opportunities, not fees. Have the right assets which pay a nice dividend or ROI and you'll see whales on the exchange.
I think we'll get there very quick with 2.0 but we do need to listen to active traders and if possible fees for non filled trades should be less.
Listen to data, not propaganda, not politics. Data requires you to have some evidence. There is no evidence right now that the fees are too high. Give it a few months with the fees at current levels, gather evidence, and then find out how well the referral program is working.
But right now the main issue is UX and UI. UX and UI is the only thing missing for me, the fact that I cannot import my keys, or other little issues. But I do not think Bitshares 2.0 should market itself with "lowest fees of any exchange". The way to market it is an easy to use powerful exchange which has many Bitshares exclusive assets which you simply can't trade anywhere else.
It's like video game consoles. Those other consoles don't have the ability to create new assets within them, and cannot have exclusives. Cryptsy is just an exchange and nothing else while Bitshares is more than just an exchange. The fact is you can launch private assets, and there will sooner or later be profit opportunities where people can do loans, bonds, so they can get their 10% or 5% interest, and once that happens there will be nothing the centralized exchanges can do.
Focus on bringing exchanges in through unique, exclusive, Bitshares specific assets. Create assets which cannot be done on any other technology. If some other team wants to try to do it for cheaper, they wont be able to get the developers to do it, and a centralized exchange can't do it by design.
-
Currently trading fee is 10 BTS for each order and 0 for cancellation. It is obviously lower than transfer fee, only 1/4 of it. However, I want to argue for lowering trading fee for several reasons.
First, we can attract more users from centralized exchanges. "Almost zero fee" can be a good catch phrase. Our most important product is the exchange platform and we need to advertise it. Luring new users with lower fees first, considering a profit then (Just curious, how many BTS are reduced from trading?)
Second, lowering trading fees can lead to much frequent orders. Unlike transfer, people are more likely to do order when the fee is low. That is, lowering trading
Third, most importantly, we need market makers. In the centralized exchanges, they place orders several thousands times a day or even more, because the exchanges do not charge for "unfilled" orders (but we do). 10 BTS per filled order is not that bad. But for every unfilled order is horrible.
Lowering trading fees can be a temporary option, like only 3 months. When we have enough user base, then we can calculate the real numbers.
Developing world will be the first to adopt this technology . You need to be appealing to the unbanked for mass adoption . Start by replacing western union and trading will follow. Transfer fees should be minimal.
The way to market to the developing world is to allow them to earn enough Bitshares to pay the fee. The goal should be to attract big whales and big money to bring in liquidity. The developing world doesn't have much liquidity so why would we want to focus on lowering fees to appeal to the poorest in the room who have the least money to provide liquidity?
Bring in people who have money first, then lower fees later on when liquidity is there. Even if there are fewer people, if the fewer participants have millions of dollars each, its more liquidity than if you have many millions in the developing world.
Well big whales can always acquire their own blockchain , why do you think they will choose your platform. This is a race agains time , whoever appeals to the masses will grab a market share and more importantly brand recognition. Aspirin is a cheap and widely available product some even claim that better than some of the prescription drugs . It contributed Bayer to become what it is today . Utility will bring value .
Yeah ? How? They have to pay programmers, and they'd have no community. Their marketing would cost just as much or even more. Their programmers wouldn't be as talented. Their community wouldn't understand the technology.
Short of hiring people from this community I don't see anyone else being able to duplicate Bitshares 2.0. Even if they tried, they'd be so far behind that they'd probably never be able to catch up. It's ours to lose right now.
-
I think we'll get there very quick with 2.0 but we do need to listen to active traders and if possible fees for non filled trades should be less.
Listen to data, not propaganda, not politics. Data requires you to have some evidence. There is no evidence right now that the fees are too high. Give it a few months with the fees at current levels, gather evidence, and then find out how well the referral program is working.
I think the data apparently shows that the 49 exchanges ahead of us don't charge for non filled orders apparently?
Presumably there's a reason they all the follow the same formula & also charge a percentage for trades that are matched. (Which I know is complicated for BTS to do short term)
& the feedback has been coming from active traders who are also shareholders in BTS and want to see it succeed. So I don't class that as propaganda/politics.
Either way it's a challenging task, charging enough somewhere to make the referral programme lucrative which I believe is needed & making fees competitive with centralised exchanges which I believe are presently our competition. (Though I know you don't think they are. Which is fine, we agree to disagree.)
-
Luckybit is on fire this week ;)
-
Centralized exchanges don't charge fees for placing orders. Fees are taken when the order executes. Also, some exchanges such as coinbase use a maker-taker model where limit orders are free and fees are only charged for market orders. However, this alone hasn't given coinbase an exceptionally large share of USD volume, and sys admins can prevent spamming, which is not possible in a censorship-resistant system.
Perhaps users could get 24 order entries per day (1 per hour) for free followed by a charge of $.05 (or more) for each additional trade. Just a thought.
-
I think we'll get there very quick with 2.0 but we do need to listen to active traders and if possible fees for non filled trades should be less.
Listen to data, not propaganda, not politics. Data requires you to have some evidence. There is no evidence right now that the fees are too high. Give it a few months with the fees at current levels, gather evidence, and then find out how well the referral program is working.
I think the data apparently shows that the 49 exchanges ahead of us don't charge for non filled orders apparently?
Presumably there's a reason they all the follow the same formula & also charge a percentage for trades that are matched. (Which I know is complicated for BTS to do short term)
& the feedback has been coming from active traders who are also shareholders in BTS and want to see it succeed. So I don't class that as propaganda/politics.
Either way it's a challenging task, charging enough somewhere to make the referral programme lucrative which I believe is needed & making fees competitive with centralised exchanges which I believe are presently our competition. (Though I know you don't think they are. Which is fine, we agree to disagree.)
Yeah, the only problem with the referral programs current setup is when traders are charged high fees when orders are not filled. This also hinders market making bots which will be imperative to BTS success. Members should be charged 0.5 BTS per order and something much higher when the order is filled (percentage).
-
Why fear of user trading high frequency ?
We need user trading high frequency to provide trading depth.
The door open to all trading user.
User the more the better.
-
I think the data apparently shows that the 49 exchanges ahead of us don't charge for non filled orders apparently?
Apple launched an iPhone during a time when no one wanted a smart phone. Their phone was more expensive than other phones. Why did people buy their phone?
Their hardware was more expensive than other hardware yet cheaper to make. Why do people buy Macs?
What matters is not what others are doing, but what you can do. Sometimes you can do things others can't because you're doing it different or because you're not those others.
The data we need is data which tracks metrics. A/B testing can reveal a lot. For example if you offer optional ads as the alternative to high fees and most people choose the ads, and or the marketing is not effective, then I would agree. At the moment we have no data because marketing has not even started yet people want to defund it. Shouldn't you first let it run for a few months before determining something needs to be changed?
People are complaining about fees the same month Bitshares 2.0 launched, before the referral program is set up, before marketing has become active. Let it become active and then complain otherwise it looks like a political complaint. If you launch and we find that marketing isn't working very well, or isn't effective, then we would know maybe the cost isn't worth it but what if marketing is very successful and the cost is worth it?
With no metrics to show anything you have a campaign which isn't data driven. So what is driving the desire for lower fees?
Presumably there's a reason they all the follow the same formula & also charge a percentage for trades that are matched. (Which I know is complicated for BTS to do short term)
There is no reason. People who want to trade will trade on any exchange which lets them trade. As long as the fees are reasonable for the demographic and not higher than the highest exchange out there which can compete to do the same thing.
Unlike an ordinary crpyto-exchange, Bitshares does things no other exchange can do. Fees in my opinion should start out high and be slowly reduced over time if referral marketing shows it is not effective but if you don't even have a chance to try it out then you're asking for a reduction in marketing prior to launch which could diminish the chances of success of Bitshares for no gain.
I don't see it as a loss if Bitshare starts out marketed to people who can afford the fees. It works for Apple. Many people in China cannot afford the iPhone 6 even though they make it.
& the feedback has been coming from active traders who are also shareholders in BTS and want to see it succeed. So I don't class that as propaganda/politics.
Their opinions matter, but their opinions aren't based on any evidence, statistics, or data. It's not a data driven opinion. We all have opinions but if we don't test referral marketing how do we know the fees are too high?
Also if you lower the fees in one place you have to raise them in another, yet I see people saying we should make Bitshares 2.0 completely free or to compete on fees. I'd like micropayments too, I'd like developing countries to use the currency features too, but I recognize you need liquidity or none of that will work.
The way to get liquidity is to have marketing appeal to people who can afford to pay the fee. If you can't afford 20 cents per trade then honestly Bitshares isn't going to have what you're looking for. If you want to trade with no fees you can go use Robin Hood and trade real stocks. If you are a high net worth or sophisticated investor I highly doubt you care about 20 cents. If you're going to trade a significant amount of money, as in thousands of dollars, I doubt you care about 20 cents.
Bots care about this but if you look at Chinese exchanges, with lots of bots trading, then maybe you have an explanation for why the fees are seen as too high? But if you use bot appropriately you should be able to hold the peg or make money in Bitshares with the high fees.
So why not just keep the fees high? I don't see what demographic is going to care about the difference between 0.05 and 0.2 usd when trading $50,000 worth of assets a day.
Either way it's a challenging task, charging enough somewhere to make the referral programme lucrative which I believe is needed & making fees competitive with centralised exchanges which I believe are presently our competition. (Though I know you don't think they are. Which is fine, we agree to disagree.)
I don't think Bitshares 2.0 should compete on fees with centralized exchanges. Let them have the cheaper fees and let people make a risk assessment on whether the risk of getting hacked is worth it. After all, they can just trade on centralized exchanges even if Bitshares somehow had zero fees, and there is no evidence that traders choose an exchange based on the fees and not based on security.
I've never once chosen an exchange based on the fees. I care more about the security. After security I care about what assets are on the exchange. After that then I care about fees.
Bitshares can have the sort of exotic assets where it wont even matter to people what the fees are. In fact it might even be a good idea to hide the fees so its not in their face as too high, and just charge for it in the background.
-
I think we'll get there very quick with 2.0 but we do need to listen to active traders and if possible fees for non filled trades should be less.
Listen to data, not propaganda, not politics. Data requires you to have some evidence. There is no evidence right now that the fees are too high. Give it a few months with the fees at current levels, gather evidence, and then find out how well the referral program is working.
I think the data apparently shows that the 49 exchanges ahead of us don't charge for non filled orders apparently?
Presumably there's a reason they all the follow the same formula & also charge a percentage for trades that are matched. (Which I know is complicated for BTS to do short term)
& the feedback has been coming from active traders who are also shareholders in BTS and want to see it succeed. So I don't class that as propaganda/politics.
Either way it's a challenging task, charging enough somewhere to make the referral programme lucrative which I believe is needed & making fees competitive with centralised exchanges which I believe are presently our competition. (Though I know you don't think they are. Which is fine, we agree to disagree.)
Yeah, the only problem with the referral programs current setup is when traders are charged high fees when orders are not filled. This also hinders market making bots which will be imperative to BTS success. Members should be charged 0.5 BTS per order and something much higher when the order is filled (percentage).
Here is my opinion. I'm against reducing the fee revenue total amount. I'm for restructuring for smarter fees.
Basically make the fees as high as you can without it feeling high, make the fee structures as smart as you can. Look at Robinhood for example.
But also it might be time to actually look for some real academic information from Google scholar. We need information on fee structures and comparison.
One person here said maybe its good to change the fee structure and I support that but its not the case that I would support lowering fees. Lowering fees is not the same as restructuring.
-
1. Trading fees should be as high as blocking spamming
2. Trading fees should be as low as attracting market maker bots
3. Trading fees should be as high as producing enough profit
4. Trading fees should be as low as attracting users
We should find an optimal point that meets four criteria above. But I think current fee is quite high. Xeroc's suggestion (6 month low fee) can be great. And when BTS price goes up, we can increase fee by 'not' reducing its amount (e.g. still 1 BTS when BTS is $0.01)
-
It can be debated what should be and that this should be used over centralised exchanges but in the end it is not working. The markets are dead and the price keeps falling. Very soon it will break down catastrophically (barely 100 BTC buy support at Polo) and the internal markets will be destroyed.
I don't know whether it is possible but maybe offer 5-10 free trades a day per account. It will allow for all those who want to try it out.
-
1. Trading fees should be as high as blocking spamming
2. Trading fees should be as low as attracting market maker bots
3. Trading fees should be as high as producing enough profit
4. Trading fees should be as low as attracting users
We should find an optimal point that meets four criteria above. But I think current fee is quite high. Xeroc's suggestion (6 month low fee) can be great. And when BTS price goes up, we can increase fee by 'not' reducing its amount (e.g. still 1 BTS when BTS is $0.01)
Why would you increase fees instead of lower them? I'm confused by this. If the marketing plan is effective, if you lower the fees for a greater amount of people you might get the same revenue.
Here is an idea. Why not track the amount of revenue being generated per day by the fees and have the fees be somewhat dynamic based on the profitability and revenue of the DAC?
Bytemaster alluded to this, and I think maybe that is an option. When revenue meets some minimum threshold then it meets a certain criteria and it becomes optional to lower fees. If it doesn't then fees can't be lowered.
Think of it like eating. Bitshares has to eat one way or another to live. Either it can eat the fees or it can hibernate through burning. Burning might work somewhat but you cannot burn enough to raise the BTS price enough to make a big difference like the fees do.
-
It can be debated what should be and that this should be used over centralised exchanges but in the end it is not working. The markets are dead and the price keeps falling. Very soon it will break down catastrophically (barely 100 BTC buy support at Polo) and the internal markets will be destroyed.
I don't know whether it is possible but maybe offer 5-10 free trades a day per account. It will allow for all those who want to try it out.
The market isn't going to come back with zero fees. It's not going to be a market until you actually do some marketing. I don't see any marketing, no banner ads, nothing. Of course the market is going to be dead if people cannot import their keys. I can't even import my keys so it's not my fault that the market is dead and if hundreds of others are in my position it's not their fault.
That doesn't mean there are less participants in the market it simply means the exchange itself isn't offering a UX/UI to allow people to take advantage of it yet. At the same time the referral program in my opinion is one of the most critical components.
If someone thinks there should be zero fees why don't you start a fund, collect the money to pay for lifetime memberships for x amount of people, and then see if you can refer more people by offering a certain amount of lifetime memberships.
-
It can be debated what should be and that this should be used over centralised exchanges but in the end it is not working. The markets are dead and the price keeps falling. Very soon it will break down catastrophically (barely 100 BTC buy support at Polo) and the internal markets will be destroyed.
I don't know whether it is possible but maybe offer 5-10 free trades a day per account. It will allow for all those who want to try it out.
Is the referral program up and running yet? If not, I agree with luckybit and we should hold off on modifying the fee structure until we get some results of the program in.
Also, don't judge success of a project based on a bunch of crypto speculators on polo trading with margin... They don't care what the long term vision of a project is. They only care about short term market gyrations.
-
The market isn't going to come back with zero fees. It's not going to be a market until you actually do some marketing. I don't see any marketing, no banner ads, nothing. Of course the market is going to be dead if people cannot import their keys. I can't even import my keys so it's not my fault that the market is dead and if hundreds of others are in my position it's not their fault.
+5%
Also.. a nice thing about a public blockchain with tunable parameters is that anyone can perform analytics and create compelling data-backed arguments for optimal price points. What this means is that in the long run we *will* have very optimized and competitive pricing. But until people can import their keys and the rest of the exchanges upgrade to 2.0, we're not going to see any activity or actionable data.
I've spent 35,000 BTS in fees since launch just between upgrading accounts and witness reg. Maybe I'm just getting desensitized :)
-
Here is an idea. Why not track the amount of revenue being generated per day by the fees and have the fees be somewhat dynamic based on the profitability and revenue of the DAC?
Good idea. But we should talk about the starting point. Remember that the current trading fee is based on the dev teams arbitrary decision. We should listen to many traders and bot makers as well.
I basically agree with you that we must have profitability. My approach is to attract more users first with lower fee and make profit later.
Our service is obviously superior that centralized exchanges. But what traders really care is money (profit surely), which is a function of liquidity and trading costs.
-
My approach is to attract more users first with lower fee and make profit later.
Like Microsoft... they intentionally leaved their product "unprotected" from piracy, the majority of user's had windows for free... And look them now!
-
My approach is to attract more users first with lower fee and make profit later.
Like Microsoft... they intentionally leaved their product "unprotected" from piracy, the majority of user's had windows for free... And look them now!
Yes.... Be evil LOL
-
Here is an idea. Why not track the amount of revenue being generated per day by the fees and have the fees be somewhat dynamic based on the profitability and revenue of the DAC?
Good idea. But we should talk about the starting point. Remember that the current trading fee is based on the dev teams arbitrary decision. We should listen to many traders and bot makers as well.
I basically agree with you that we must have profitability. My approach is to attract more users first with lower fee and make profit later.
Our service is obviously superior that centralized exchanges. But what traders really care is money (profit surely), which is a function of liquidity and trading costs.
1) There might not be a later. The DAC should take profit whenever profit is available and should not wait until a later which might not come.
We need to determine a metric or set of metrics which can track. We can track profitability from these metrics. For example the daily burn rate would tell us something, top 10 most popular transaction types would tell us something, the most popular asset of the day with the amount of revenue it generated for the network would tell us something. Without these statistics we don't have quality data from which to make decisions and are literally shooting in the dark. So if you want the most effective possible fee structure you need the highest quality data possible so as to produce and over time optimize the fee structure.
2) Traders should be able to profit but should not profit at the expense of the Bitshares DAC. The relationship between traders and the DAC has to be mutually beneficial, symbiotic. The DAC also has to profit and maybe the DAC can attract people by giving people ways to make money by doing stuff other than trading. The referral program is a critical example of this and many of the people making money from referrals will be the people who will now have money to trade with, and I doubt they'd complain about the fees.
Professional crypto-traders aren't the heart of an economy. They simply make money through trading money they already have. Make ways for people to earn fee vouchers, rewards, points, credits, etc. Let the exchanges have token lotteries, be creative about how people can make a profit other than trading, and the fees no longer are an issue. The fees only are an issue to people who want to make bots but who don't want to do anything other than trade, which is kind of strange because if they have a lot of money to start with then the fees aren't a big deal and lifetime membership is cheap, but if they don't then they must want to trade fractions of a penny?
The fee should adjust dynamically. For example it may be possible to use a genetic algorithm to have the fees adapt to the usage patterns of the participants. The dynamic fee structure could then be trained from the statistics and evolve to fit the demographics without violating any privacy. As long as the statistics are anonymous, you could overlay this on top of Bitshares eventually to all who choose to participate in providing the statistics, which would be information like how many of a certain kind of trades are being done, or which kind of transactions generate the most or least revenue for the DAC.
Features which are valued a lot by participants could train the genetic algorithm but of course this would take a bit of effort to implement. There are simpler ways to create the dynamically adjusting smart fee mechanism.
An easier version would be to simply use a metric, and to adjust the fee on a daily basis. On hours where profitability is high for the DAC the fees could dynamically adjust. Bytemaster may be onto something with that but in general if the fee difficulty adjusts according to the actual usage patterns of Bitshares then you'd have real time adjustable fees. During the times of great profitability the bots could jump in on the low fee hours, but during times of low profitability, the fees should increase just as the difficulty in Bitcoin increases when a lot of people mine it.
The concept of difficulty applied to fees might be a way to make a sort of dynamic smart fee mechanism so that fees adjust themselves according to usage. Usage statistics could be added later so that in the backend the Bitshares DAC could know exactly how we like to use it, and then evolve.
-
Opinions from our trader (Ander). I support him.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19394.msg248989.html#msg248989
-
My approach is to attract more users first with lower fee and make profit later.
Like Microsoft... they intentionally leaved their product "unprotected" from piracy, the majority of user's had windows for free... And look them now!
Maybe we should copy Microsoft and put ads into the interface. I'm all for it.
http://betanews.com/2015/10/16/advertisements-in-the-windows-10-start-menu-are-a-good-thing/
-
Bitshares is a very complicated product. the more places you can be exactly like what people are used to the better.
Merchants are used to pay 35 cents + a % then charge them a touch less and their mind can handle it.
Traders are used to placing orders for free and paying big on filled trades, then approximate that closely.
Users are not used to seeing fees, but merchants are, display the fees to the receiver and not the sender.
All of these step and many others reduce the barriers to entry for new people. and not just by a little but by a lot. When these things are not as the user expected, they begin asking questions... It is a rabbit hole that sucks balls for the sales rep trying to sell it.
As a sales person all i want to be able to say is to a merchant.
So you hate banks and credit cards Mr Merchant?
Yes.
Would you like to be able to cut them and keep the money you used to pay them?
Yes.
What if told you that not only could you keep the merchant fees you used to pay at this store, but if you introduce this to your customers and they use this technology at other stores you would get the merchant fees that merchant used to pay for the life of that customer forever and ever. In effect you become Visa, would that be exciting?
Yes.
Well here is what I need you to do. I need you to invest about 20 minutes learning how this works. Then we can go ahead and get you an account and you will be set up to receive payments can we do that now?
Yes.
In the next 20 minutes I explain the more I have to explain the more chance I lose the sale. Make everything exactly what he is used to. And where it is different make it simpler.
To a trader.
Who do you trade with now?
XYZ.
I know a lot of traders and they many are doing quite well. However I know many of them never quite feel safe after MtGox.
That is a risk we take, but its working out for now.
IF I could show you a new trading technology that looked, felt, and was similar to what you are using except it had no counterparty risk would you be interested?
Yes.
As it is a new technology the liquidity is still growing, but on the upside an experienced trader can fleece a lot of rookies there too. but on the upside. they have a very cool Referal system and you can earn about $100 for every person you introduce to the platform, so I suspect it will grow pretty quick. Do you want to take a look.
For sure.
Do either of these conversation sound remotely similar to anything any of us has experienced when selling bitshares? I bet the answer is no. And the reason why is it is so complicated. Forget the crypto world. Lets look at the masses. Give them what they are used to but a bit better an we will crush it.
-
Bitshares is a very complicated product. the more places you can be exactly like what people are used to the better.
Merchants are used to pay 35 cents + a % then charge them a touch less and their mind can handle it.
Traders are used to placing orders for free and paying big on filled trades, then approximate that closely.
Users are not used to seeing fees, but merchants are, display the fees to the receiver and not the sender.
All of these step and many others reduce the barriers to entry for new people. and not just by a little but by a lot. When these things are not as the user expected, they begin asking questions... It is a rabbit hole that sucks balls for the sales rep trying to sell it.
As a sales person all i want to be able to say is to a merchant.
So you hate banks and credit cards Mr Merchant?
Yes.
Would you like to be able to cut them and keep the money you used to pay them?
Yes.
What if told you that not only could you keep the merchant fees you used to pay at this store, but if you introduce this to your customers and they use this technology at other stores you would get the merchant fees that merchant used to pay for the life of that customer forever and ever. In effect you become Visa, would that be exciting?
Yes.
Well here is what I need you to do. I need you to invest about 20 minutes learning how this works. Then we can go ahead and get you an account and you will be set up to receive payments can we do that now?
Yes.
In the next 20 minutes I explain the more I have to explain the more chance I lose the sale. Make everything exactly what he is used to. And where it is different make it simpler.
To a trader.
Who do you trade with now?
XYZ.
I know a lot of traders and they many are doing quite well. However I know many of them never quite feel safe after MtGox.
That is a risk we take, but its working out for now.
IF I could show you a new trading technology that looked, felt, and was similar to what you are using except it had no counterparty risk would you be interested?
Yes.
As it is a new technology the liquidity is still growing, but on the upside an experienced trader can fleece a lot of rookies there too. but on the upside. they have a very cool Referal system and you can earn about $100 for every person you introduce to the platform, so I suspect it will grow pretty quick. Do you want to take a look.
For sure.
Do either of these conversation sound remotely similar to anything any of us has experienced when selling bitshares? I bet the answer is no. And the reason why is it is so complicated. Forget the crypto world. Lets look at the masses. Give them what they are used to but a bit better an we will crush it.
Time to put in a worker proposal with bitmarket as Project Manager to get the necessary changes made?
-
Good point max.
-
Opinions from our trader (Ander). I support him.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19394.msg248989.html#msg248989
Opinion frpm Bytemaster: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19394.msg249000.html#msg249000
By the way Max makes good sense on psychology but Bytemaster makes a strong case on resource scarcity. We have multiple constraints to consider in our design.
Max, a recent EU court ruling just said that crypto traders can trade tax free. No VAT tax. This would mean traders in the EU might be willing to pay higher fees and have the incentive to trade because it's tax free. If they can trade virtual stocks tax free that is a very strong selling point.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115447/breaking-eu-court-rules-bitcoin-exchange-is-tax-free
-
I think BM's solution proposed in today's mumble session is satisfying both sides.
Keep or increase current trading fee ($0.03~0.05) but refund them when the order is cancelled. I think we should charge a small amount of fee for cancellation (1~5%) to prevent spam.
-
Merchants are used to pay 35 cents + a % then charge them a touch less and their mind can handle it.
Traders are used to placing orders for free and paying big on filled trades, then approximate that closely.
Users are not used to seeing fees, but merchants are, display the fees to the receiver and not the sender.
+5% Attempting to understand the needs & expectations of different users and adjusting the fee structure accordingly is a great improvement over this...
This is mind blowing. You can't judge the fees without the referral system working for several months. No other coin has a mechanism to pay merchants to go to the trouble of educating their user base to pay them in crypto. We do. That is unique and it is a chance (not a guarantee) that it we succeed where all other alts have failed.
Geo-pricing is just another level of confusion to add to the worlds most complicated product. Lets not shall we.
Glad to see it.
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/393
-
I think BM's solution proposed in today's mumble session is satisfying both sides.
Keep or increase current trading fee ($0.03~0.05) but refund them when the order is cancelled. I think we should charge a small amount of fee for cancellation (1~5%) to prevent spam.
+1 +1 +1
-
I think sharing this comment is good for discussion.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/393
Market participants expect placing / moving orders to be cheap and filling orders to be expensive.
To prevent spam, all transactions require some kind of fee.
Placing orders consumes memory and cannot be trivially cheap so needs a high fee.
Canceling orders frees memory and has historically been free.
We can make placing orders free, filling orders (relatively) expensive, and canceling orders cheap with the following change.
User pays $0.25 to place an order
User pays $0.001 to cancel an order, and gets a refund of $0.25 * NETWORK_FEE_PERCENT
If the order fills then there is no refund of the $0.25
Under this plan the cost to place / update an order is $0.001 while the cost of having an order filled is $0.25.
The only remaining issue with the above is that part of the original fee ($0.20) goes to the referrer who may have withdrawn their cashback. To keep things simple, the only fee that gets refunded is the network fee.
If the user is a lifetime member then it looks like this:
User pays $0.25 to place an order and receives $0.20 cash back
User pays $0.001 to cancel an order, and gets a refund of $0.05 and $0.0008 cash back. (total cost $0.0002)
If the order is actually filled the user paid $0.05
If the user is an annual subscriber then it looks like this:
User pays $0.25 to place an order and receives $0.125 cash back
User pays $0.001 to cancel an order and receives $0.0005 cash back and a refund of $0.05 (total cost $0.0755)
If the order is actually filled the user paid $0.125
If the user is a basic member then it looks like this:
User pays $0.25 to place an order
User pays $0.001 to cancel an order and gets $0.05 back (total cost $0.20)
If the order is actually filled the user pays $0.25
The break even point for deciding whether to upgrade to a lifetime member is if the user would end up canceling 500 orders. If they end up canceling 10000 orders because they are a market maker then the average cost would be ($100 + 50000*.0002)/50000 => 0.0022 and the total spent would have been $110 dollars.
As long as the average order size is greater than $25 dollars, the market fees on the filled orders will be less than other exchanges that charge (0.2%) of volume. Anyone who does $55,000 of volume will pay over $110 in fees on centralized exchanges. If you are placing and canceling thousands of orders with a bot and doing less than $55,000 of volume then chances are your bot is not effective and is spamming the network.
I totally agree with bytemaster, but think the baseline (opening order costs $0.20 for basic member) is somewhat expensive. I would suggest $0.10 instead of $0.25 as a total trading fee. This increase the break-even point from 500 orders to 1250 orders, but will have less barriers against new users.
-
I think sharing this comment is good for discussion.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/393
Market participants expect placing / moving orders to be cheap and filling orders to be expensive.
To prevent spam, all transactions require some kind of fee.
Placing orders consumes memory and cannot be trivially cheap so needs a high fee.
Canceling orders frees memory and has historically been free.
We can make placing orders free, filling orders (relatively) expensive, and canceling orders cheap with the following change.
User pays $0.25 to place an order
User pays $0.001 to cancel an order, and gets a refund of $0.25 * NETWORK_FEE_PERCENT
If the order fills then there is no refund of the $0.25
Under this plan the cost to place / update an order is $0.001 while the cost of having an order filled is $0.25.
The only remaining issue with the above is that part of the original fee ($0.20) goes to the referrer who may have withdrawn their cashback. To keep things simple, the only fee that gets refunded is the network fee.
If the user is a lifetime member then it looks like this:
User pays $0.25 to place an order and receives $0.20 cash back
User pays $0.001 to cancel an order, and gets a refund of $0.05 and $0.0008 cash back. (total cost $0.0002)
If the order is actually filled the user paid $0.05
If the user is an annual subscriber then it looks like this:
User pays $0.25 to place an order and receives $0.125 cash back
User pays $0.001 to cancel an order and receives $0.0005 cash back and a refund of $0.05 (total cost $0.0755)
If the order is actually filled the user paid $0.125
If the user is a basic member then it looks like this:
User pays $0.25 to place an order
User pays $0.001 to cancel an order and gets $0.05 back (total cost $0.20)
If the order is actually filled the user pays $0.25
The break even point for deciding whether to upgrade to a lifetime member is if the user would end up canceling 500 orders. If they end up canceling 10000 orders because they are a market maker then the average cost would be ($100 + 50000*.0002)/50000 => 0.0022 and the total spent would have been $110 dollars.
As long as the average order size is greater than $25 dollars, the market fees on the filled orders will be less than other exchanges that charge (0.2%) of volume. Anyone who does $55,000 of volume will pay over $110 in fees on centralized exchanges. If you are placing and canceling thousands of orders with a bot and doing less than $55,000 of volume then chances are your bot is not effective and is spamming the network.
I totally agree with bytemaster, but think the baseline (opening order costs $0.20 for basic member) is somewhat expensive. I would suggest $0.10 instead of $0.25 as a total trading fee. This increase the break-even point from 500 orders to 1250 orders, but will have less barriers against new users.
Yeah it looked good but still pretty expensive for a basic member. Unless their individual trade is > $250 it's cheaper to use a 0.1% exchange and if they might cancel their order once or twice like most of us then it's probably more like BTS is only cheaper if you're trade size is > $500. So it would be nice if it could be made still cheaper for a basic member.
Also most trading sites reward people for high volume without charging upfront. Poker sites use it too. So if possible I would suggest automatically upgrading accounts to annual and lifetime once the network has earned say double from them than what the memberships costs.
So it's still cheaper to buy the memberships but if you don't and end up doing enough business we'll reward you with those cheaper rates as a thank you and to encourage your future business.
-
You better think over the partially filled order rules...
partially filled 1BTS worth of an order and 0.10 usd fee does not seem right.