I can see where @monsterer is coming from and trying to move more activity into the DeX and he's right. If any exchanges considering moving their books onto the DeX then this will be a continuous stumbling block. Let me throw out a hypothetical question... Would it make sense to create an account id for exchanges only, that pays a higher account creation fee and once opened the exchange wallet then pays a fair, reoccurring fee (every 28 days or so) in lieu of DeX order fees?
Monsterer, do you think you'd consider this a fair trade off for Metaexchange and possibly any other interested exchanges? @devs, could this be easily implemented?
It might be good for that case, but it does not solve the problem which fees were designed to solve in the first place: spam. You need some way to prevent spam transactions, which is why I suggested users be forced to submit a PoW in lieu of a fee.
In regards to the spam;
Adding PoW in lieu of a fee may be an unnecessary approach, adding unneeded complexity and barrier to entry for future prospects?
Though I'm not a coder... adding PoW to the mix may be easy-peasy and a trivial task to implement, but I'm not a person in position to comment on that.
I'll say this... if an exchange is serious enough about integrating into BitShares, it may turn them off needing a PoW mechanism/element to offset a fee charge, just so they can go about doing business with Bitshares. Even if the PoW was simple enough, it may create a "mental" barrier and viewed as an extra step to implement on their end and may wane their interest and look elsewhere.
Since my last post, I was thinking more about an "Exchange" only account within Bitshares and think it could be an eloquent approach to this issue?
One way to look at this is if an Exchange wallet was to get implemented, then we could "shift" the responsibility of spamming concerns (more or less) to the integrated Exchanges and their users.
The Exchange would obviously be using their own Front End and thus, should have a more "intimate" relationship with their clients and their clients trading habits.
If one of their clients was abusing/spamming the network via their interface, then they (the exchange) has the right to either "charge" their clients account and/or boot them off the site and/or freeze their trading activity.
In my opinion there's a few ways to go about this (assuming the "exchange account" in BTS was implemented (also I'm just throwing out the idea, not specific numbers for this to work))...
1) Charge a much higher upfront "Lifetime" or "Account Creation" fee and have lower one price reoccurring "monthly" fee, but if they exceed... idk... 15k tx/mo (?) then their charged an overage fee
or
2) Still have a high (but much lower than option 1) account creation fee and then charge a tiered "data" plan that they select. Something to the effect of...
*tier one* up to 10k tx/mo (or 30.4 days) = 50,000 BTS/mo
*tier two* 10k up to 30k tx/mo (or 30.4 days) = 75,000 BTS/mo
*tier three* etc etc and so on
or
3) A combination of 1) and 2)
With this type of setup, exchanges will be more inclined to stay active and monitor for any client trading abuse on their end so they won't get charged overage fees by the BitShares system... because we make those overage fees VERY steep in cost!!!
We could also require (upon account creation) a deposit that gets locked and vested for 1yr and use that as back up collateral if an exchange goes over the TX limit's and their account doesn't have the balance needed to draw the fee from.
So again, IMO with this type of approach (in some fashion) would be an ideal solution to the DeX trading fee debate and allow "responsible" Exchanges to easily use BitShares as their back end trading engine.
Just a thought and trying to add to the conversation.
Show Posts
But I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
