I think we need to fix the fee structure for trading

[sittingduck]

You think.    Do the math. What was your volume?

[cb007]

If were saying we cant accept .5 BTS or .1 BTS etc as the trade opening fee because the price point is too low for such an order to then sit in memory for x amount of time - why not then add a secondary pricing policy that charges over time whilst an order is left open?

Not sure if thats a better or worse solution - but it at least doesnt turn bots away at the door and penalise you as heavily for simply moving a trade.

I have something like 50,000 trades on Polo either via bot or manually - i think additional charges over the duration of an open order would have impacted me far less than the higher fees for opening/closing unfilled orders.

[clayop]

The cost to opening an order is MEMORY allocation that stays around until the order is canceled (if ever). 
A "one time promotional" could allow an attacker to force full nodes to have GB of memory allocated for ever for almost no cost.

Quick question. How many open orders can we handle at once? And what can be the lowest fee rate for opening orders?

[luckybit]

so the point is "how to make the liquidity grow?"

the answer is to attract market maker.

market maker update orders frequently, robot trading is always used. so if placing orders cannot be free, it should be low enough, if market maker always need to calculate the fees before updating orders,  they would not like to trade.

maybe there can be a "market maker" membership for high trade,  low transfer demand users, an account can pay say 1000 BTS monthly, and then enjoy the counter spamming fee for each order updating.

These are some good ideas. I agree we need market makers. We need whales. The question is how would we change the fee structure without damaging other parts of the Bitshares economic machine?

[xiahui135]

Lets assume you are a trader on BitShares and plan on updating your order often, so become a lifetime member.  The cost to place an order is 2 BTS or $0.01.

20k BTS for lifetime member is also a cost. Why don't we think about a normal user who is not a lifetime member?

I have paid more than $100 in fees to BitStamp and am a "normal" user.  Paying a lifetime membership fee makes sense and is still cheaper than paying regular exchange fees.   If I were an active trader on BitStamp my regular fees would be an order of magnitude higher than a lifetime member.   So I think it is safe to assume that anyone who will trade so much that the fees matter it is worth it to become lifetime members.  Everyone else it is still cheaper at the full rate.

It is all psychological.

I feel 1 usd fee not expensive if the order filled.

0.01 bts fee is expensive when it not.

[xiahui135]

Agree

[clayop]

Lets assume you are a trader on BitShares and plan on updating your order often, so become a lifetime member.  The cost to place an order is 2 BTS or $0.01.

20k BTS for lifetime member is also a cost. Why don't we think about a normal user who is not a lifetime member?

I have paid more than $100 in fees to BitStamp and am a "normal" user.  Paying a lifetime membership fee makes sense and is still cheaper than paying regular exchange fees.   If I were an active trader on BitStamp my regular fees would be an order of magnitude higher than a lifetime member.   So I think it is safe to assume that anyone who will trade so much that the fees matter it is worth it to become lifetime members.  Everyone else it is still cheaper at the full rate.

It is all psychological.

Probably 95% of users don't pay $100 a month for trading fee. They only pay 0.1~0.2% of their order when it filled.

We have a high level of capacity (100 TPW atm). We don't have to be parsimonious. Why don't we sell our network resources at a lower price (with lower trading fees)? IMHO, trading fee at the initial stage of ecosystem expansion, in which attracting new users is the most priority, should be as low as to prevent spammy transactions. In BTS 1.0 with 0.1 fee, there were no spamming attacks. So I would suggest 2.5 BTS trading fee for non-lifetime members (and 0.5 for lifetime members as like a default setting of BTS 1.0).

agree 0.5 BTS trading fee for lifetime member.

the method to get money from customers' pocket really matters.
a good method can make the customers pay much with happiness.
a bad method always make the customers feel unhappy, and always decide not to buy.

now Bitshares looks like a restaurant that few people sit inside and enjoy food, but the manager keep on shouting "go out, poor guys, don't sit here without buying food!"

yunbi is free, btc38 charges 0.1%, polo charges 0.2%, bitstamp may charge more.

but why more users trade BTS in polo and btc38, not yunbi? yes, liquidity.

now the liquidity in DEX is low, either high or low fees, few trading chance here.

so the point is "how to make the liquidity grow?"

the answer is to attract market maker.

market maker update orders frequently, robot trading is always used. so if placing orders cannot be free, it should be low enough, if market maker always need to calculate the fees before updating orders,  they would not like to trade.

or maybe there can be a "market maker" membership for high trade,  low transfer demand users, an account can pay say 1000 BTS monthly, and then enjoy the counter spamming fee for each order updating.

 

[mike623317]

Also, they're used to doing it a certain way already. Going against the grain is never good for adoption.

^^^ I think this is the real takeaway.

[bitcrab]

Lets assume you are a trader on BitShares and plan on updating your order often, so become a lifetime member.  The cost to place an order is 2 BTS or $0.01.

20k BTS for lifetime member is also a cost. Why don't we think about a normal user who is not a lifetime member?

I have paid more than $100 in fees to BitStamp and am a "normal" user.  Paying a lifetime membership fee makes sense and is still cheaper than paying regular exchange fees.   If I were an active trader on BitStamp my regular fees would be an order of magnitude higher than a lifetime member.   So I think it is safe to assume that anyone who will trade so much that the fees matter it is worth it to become lifetime members.  Everyone else it is still cheaper at the full rate.

It is all psychological.

Probably 95% of users don't pay $100 a month for trading fee. They only pay 0.1~0.2% of their order when it filled.

We have a high level of capacity (100 TPW atm). We don't have to be parsimonious. Why don't we sell our network resources at a lower price (with lower trading fees)? IMHO, trading fee at the initial stage of ecosystem expansion, in which attracting new users is the most priority, should be as low as to prevent spammy transactions. In BTS 1.0 with 0.1 fee, there were no spamming attacks. So I would suggest 2.5 BTS trading fee for non-lifetime members (and 0.5 for lifetime members as like a default setting of BTS 1.0).

agree 0.5 BTS trading fee for lifetime member.

the method to get money from customers' pocket really matters.
a good method can make the customers pay much with happiness.
a bad method always make the customers feel unhappy, and always decide not to buy.

now Bitshares looks like a restaurant that few people sit inside and enjoy food, but the manager keep on shouting "go out, poor guys, don't sit here without buying food!"

yunbi is free, btc38 charges 0.1%, polo charges 0.2%, bitstamp may charge more.

but why more users trade BTS in polo and btc38, not yunbi? yes, liquidity.

now the liquidity in DEX is low, either high or low fees, few trading chance here.

so the point is "how to make the liquidity grow?"

the answer is to attract market maker.

market maker update orders frequently, robot trading is always used. so if placing orders cannot be free, it should be low enough, if market maker always need to calculate the fees before updating orders,  they would not like to trade.

or maybe there can be a "market maker" membership for high trade,  low transfer demand users, an account can pay say 1000 BTS monthly, and then enjoy the counter spamming fee for each order updating.

[clayop]

The market may be perceiving this high trading fee as a unfavorable factor. We would rather take marketers perspective, not purely engineering one. Let's listen to the market first, then find the optimal point.

[yvv]

It is not only the amount of fee which matters, what are you paying for matters too. It is ok if fancy restaurant charges more then fast food eatery, but I don't know anybody in good mind who would agree to pay anything just for sitting in a restaurant having no food. It is ok to pay $1 fee for a trade which brings you $5 profit, but paying for an offer which was not even filled is ridiculous. It is not physiological, this is common sense.

Paying for an order which is not filled is not ridiculous. Placing an order has costs associated with it and the cost is significant in every trading system. Some systems just have chosen to subsidize this cost by increasing other fees.

And while you don't necessarily profit from an order that isn't filled (you can, by the way, if you're using it as part of some trading methods), you certainly had the opportunity to profit from it.

Taking care of restroom in a fast food place has also associated costs with it, but if they will start charging fees for using their restroom, then good luck in attracting customers.

[dannotestein]

It is not only the amount of fee which matters, what are you paying for matters too. It is ok if fancy restaurant charges more then fast food eatery, but I don't know anybody in good mind who would agree to pay anything just for sitting in a restaurant having no food. It is ok to pay $1 fee for a trade which brings you $5 profit, but paying for an offer which was not even filled is ridiculous. It is not physiological, this is common sense.

Paying for an order which is not filled is not ridiculous. Placing an order has costs associated with it and the cost is significant in every trading system. Some systems just have chosen to subsidize this cost by increasing other fees.

Why are we supposed to keep 3 cents? Are there any specific reasons? If lowering trading fee lead to maximization of profit (by inducing more demands), we should do.

If it leads to maximization of profit, you would of course be correct.

But I find your argument far from compelling that it will lead to maximum profit, however. The fee is adjustable: we can always change it if it proves to be a true barrier to adoption. Deciding already that it's a barrier to adoption at the current time is unreasonable, IMO. It's just too early. We have other much more significant barriers to adoption that we should be focusing on: documentation, marketing, web wallet capabilities and usability, etc. The list is really endless of serious enhancements we need to make, and this just doesn't register for me by comparison.

[clayop]

It is not only the amount of fee which matters, what are you paying for matters too. It is ok if fancy restaurant charges more then fast food eatery, but I don't know anybody in good mind who would agree to pay anything just for sitting in a restaurant having no food. It is ok to pay $1 fee for a trade which brings you $5 profit, but paying for an offer which was not even filled is ridiculous. It is not physiological, this is common sense.

Paying for an order which is not filled is not ridiculous. Placing an order has costs associated with it and the cost is significant in every trading system. Some systems just have chosen to subsidize this cost by increasing other fees.

Why are we supposed to keep 3 cents? Are there any specific reasons? If lowering trading fee lead to maximization of profit (by inducing more demands), we should do.

[dannotestein]

It is not only the amount of fee which matters, what are you paying for matters too. It is ok if fancy restaurant charges more then fast food eatery, but I don't know anybody in good mind who would agree to pay anything just for sitting in a restaurant having no food. It is ok to pay $1 fee for a trade which brings you $5 profit, but paying for an offer which was not even filled is ridiculous. It is not physiological, this is common sense.

Paying for an order which is not filled is not ridiculous. Placing an order has costs associated with it and the cost is significant in every trading system. Some systems just have chosen to subsidize this cost by increasing other fees.

And while you don't necessarily profit from an order that isn't filled (you can, by the way, if you're using it as part of some trading methods), you certainly had the opportunity to profit from it.

[yvv]

It is not only the amount of fee which matters, what are you paying for matters too. It is ok if fancy restaurant charges more then fast food eatery, but I don't know anybody in good mind who would agree to pay anything just for sitting in a restaurant having no food. It is ok to pay $1 fee for a trade which brings you $5 profit, but paying for an offer which was not even filled is ridiculous. It is not physiological, this is common sense.