Let's Lower Trading Fee

[luckybit]

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.

[luckybit]

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.

[xiahui135]

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.

[santaclause102]

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.

[bitacer]

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 .

[Empirical1.2]

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.

[cylonmaker2053]

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.

[luckybit]

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.

[luckybit]

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.

[sittingduck]

Trading fees are already cheapest.   

[xeroc]

How about a timely limited offer ... get in now and trade for a 80% discount for the next 6 months?

[Empirical1.2]

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.

[luckybit]

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.

[luckybit]

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.

[Empirical1.2]

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.