1
General Discussion / Maker Taker Incentive/Fee parameter for Assets
« on: September 13, 2018, 03:44:50 am »
I see that something like this was written up as Bsip-3 and deferred and I feel that this is worth bringing up again for discussion. In general I would like to see an option for asset owners to specify maker and taker fees separately. One thought is to allow these values to be positive or negative as long as the sum is greater than 0. Thus an exchange could set the maker fee to 0 or even offer a rebate by making it negative, essentially paying from the taker fee. Some possible benefits are listed below.
I think the ecosystem is making big strides in increasing liquidity with the combination of exchange and community efforts, and I think something like this would only enhance those efforts. Any thoughts?
- Reduces the minimum profitible spread, allowing makers to reduce spread further. With many assets at 0.2, the minimum profitable spread would be 0.4 percent. With a structure like this, it could be reduced to 0.
- With more and more gatways/exchangesit could be beneficial to have an easy on chain market maker incentive option. Looking at cryptobridge, the market maker incentive program appears to be a success however it requires additional work from the exchange and ultimately will not be as transparent as an on chain feature. You might say a feature like this could be an additaional selling point for new exchanges deciding on using bitshares.
- Could be an interesting experiment for committee assets to incentivize additional market making activity and potentially increase the supply of bitassets. On of the current challenges for the creation of bitassets is how to incentives shorters. With the advancement of the dexbot software, market making is a potential source of return for these users. If there was an additional maker rebate involved this could increase the return on such a setup.
I think the ecosystem is making big strides in increasing liquidity with the combination of exchange and community efforts, and I think something like this would only enhance those efforts. Any thoughts?