Author Topic: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market  (Read 2051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2015, 03:39:14 am »
I think you are talking about network fee for placing an order, while I'm talking about both network fee for placing order and market fee for a fill.

CCEDK OBITS/BTS Market
Centralized exchange will charge X% market fee from both the buyer and seller in the receiving asset. It looks like CCEDK has their market fee configured to 0.2%. So, if someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays 4 BTS to CCEDK, and buyer pays 0.2 OBITS to CCEDK. If someone sells 10000 OBITS, seller pays 400 BTS to CCEDK and buyer pays 20 OBITS to CCEDK.

Openledger OBITS/BTS Market
Let's say that issuer of OBITS configures 0.2% market fee on Openledger. Let's also say that core exchange rate is set to 20BTS/OBITS. If someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays "10BTS worth of OBITS" as network fee (that is 0.5 OBITS) when placing the order and no fee for a fill. Buyer pays "10BTS as network fee" when placing the order and on top of that, they will also pay 0.2 OBITS to the UIA issuer when order gets filled.

So, buyer of UIA pays two times, once when placing order and again when receiving the UIA.

Don't you think UIA seller should also pay two times, once when placing order and again when receiving BTS?

In the current system, the UIA issuer can only charge market fee to the buyer, but can only receive "10 BTS worth of OBITS" from the seller, and that is the limit.

On the centralized exchange, there is no limit because transaction fee is based on buyer's and seller's traded volume.

That means, centralized exchange has no incentives to do business with BitShares because they can collect more money if they use their own proprietary system.

I'm sorry, but I think you're pretty confused so your assessment is almost completely off base.  It seems the one legitimate point you have is that exchanges prefer a %-based fee whereas on OpenLedger they would get 80% of a flat network fee (at least in cases where the exchange is the registrar and referrer).  I would agree that's a problem and I hope it will change in the near future.   


Offline monsterer

Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2015, 08:38:38 am »
I'm sorry, but I think you're pretty confused so your assessment is almost completely off base.  It seems the one legitimate point you have is that exchanges prefer a %-based fee whereas on OpenLedger they would get 80% of a flat network fee (at least in cases where the exchange is the registrar and referrer).  I would agree that's a problem and I hope it will change in the near future.

Consider the biggest external exchange, okcoin. Currently, they collect fees in CNY and BTC. If they came to bitshares, and opened a BTS/OKCOIN.CNY market using their OKCOIN.CNY IOU token, the would only collect fees in OKCOIN.CNY, not BTS.

I suppose they could create OKCOIN.BTS, but that's kind messy.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2015, 08:53:14 am »
I'm sorry, but I think you're pretty confused so your assessment is almost completely off base.  It seems the one legitimate point you have is that exchanges prefer a %-based fee whereas on OpenLedger they would get 80% of a flat network fee (at least in cases where the exchange is the registrar and referrer).  I would agree that's a problem and I hope it will change in the near future.

Consider the biggest external exchange, okcoin. Currently, they collect fees in CNY and BTC. If they came to bitshares, and opened a BTS/OKCOIN.CNY market using their OKCOIN.CNY IOU token, the would only collect fees in OKCOIN.CNY, not BTS.

I suppose they could create OKCOIN.BTS, but that's kind messy.

In your example, OKCoin would get up to 80% of the BTS fees IF they are responsible for registering and referring the account that placed the trade which generated those BTS fees.  In the case of an account that OKCoin did not register or refer, why should they collect fees on both sides of the trade when someone else referred/registered the account that generated the BTS fees?  Am I missing something?

Offline monsterer

Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2015, 09:00:08 am »
In your example, OKCoin would get up to 80% of the BTS fees IF they are responsible for registering and referring the account that placed the trade which generated those BTS fees.  In the case of an account that OKCoin did not register or refer, why should they collect fees on both sides of the trade when someone else referred/registered the account that generated the BTS fees?  Am I missing something?

The only thing you are missing is why okcoin has no incentive to join the BTS network. If they join bitshares, they have more costs and less revenue than if they just opened their own BTS/CNY market.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2015, 09:32:58 am »
In your example, OKCoin would get up to 80% of the BTS fees IF they are responsible for registering and referring the account that placed the trade which generated those BTS fees.  In the case of an account that OKCoin did not register or refer, why should they collect fees on both sides of the trade when someone else referred/registered the account that generated the BTS fees?  Am I missing something?

The only thing you are missing is why okcoin has no incentive to join the BTS network. If they join bitshares, they have more costs and less revenue than if they just opened their own BTS/CNY market.

That's interesting.  You haven't demonstrated that the exchange would have higher costs and lower revenue if they joined OpenLedger.  You simply argued that they would not collect any of the BTS fees.  Which is false. 

Offline monsterer

Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2015, 10:05:11 am »
That's interesting.  You haven't demonstrated that the exchange would have higher costs and lower revenue if they joined OpenLedger.  You simply argued that they would not collect any of the BTS fees.  Which is false.

Higher costs:

* maintaining the UIAs (core exchange rate and so on)
* managing support requests for bitshares related systems (requiring specialists)

Lower revenue:

* no / lower than 100% trade fee collected for BTS side of each trade
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2015, 12:48:03 pm »
For every seller there is a buyer which means you get your fee.

Well, central exchange gets to charge market fee from "both counterparty per trade", but what you are saying is that BitShares exchange will only allow to charge market fee from the buyer, which is only one side. So, yes. You will get your fee on a sell too, but it only adds up to half compared to centralized exchanges.

...except you charge "double" the price compared to the centralized exchange...   8)

Offline gn1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2015, 12:57:50 pm »
Please listen to this week's BeyondBitcoin hangout, bytemaster's comment from 14:21 to 17:55, because it's really really important.

https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-hangout-12-04-2015-s3

Some people might not see it, but I believe [member=5]bytemaster[/member] is talking about something really important here. The topic changed to another subject after bytemaster asked for feedback, but I think we need to keep coming back to this topic over and over again.

I'm a trader myself and also a market maker of my own UIA, so I exactly know what bytemaster is stating here.

As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.

UIA issuer has to jumpstart their own asset by performing market making themselves in the beginning even at a loss, but if market makers cannot earn any percentage fee from both buy and a sell, you will not be calling that "incentivizing market makers." In fact, it's the exact opposite. Eventually, a small-sized UIA issuer will have a hard time keeping up with creating a buy wall if they cannot receive any percentage-based market fees in BTS.

Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.

BTS is owned by the null-account, so UIA issuer can't do anything about it, even when the community makes a mistake. Have you thought from an UIA issuer's point of view? What if the community comes up with a "stupid" market fee value? That will affect the UIA issuer's game and UIA issuer has no control over it.

I think BTS should be detached from the null-account, and market fee for BTS should be configurable per UIA level by the UIA issuer, and it should allow percentage based market fee that flows directly (no vesting) into the UIA issuer's Fee pool. That's what it means to promote an asset individually and incentivize the market makers.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 01:39:56 pm by funnybear »
I'm a BitShares enthusiast in Japan, spreading BitShares daily to the Japanese people through https://genxnotes.com. Help us grow bitJPY together, so that bitUSD/bitJPY market pair will become the most popular market worldwide! Imagine what kind of world it will become when we execute this.

Offline Chris4210

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Keep Building!
    • View Profile
    • www.payger.com
  • BitShares: chris4210
Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2015, 04:00:41 pm »
Please listen to this week's BeyondBitcoin hangout, bytemaster's comment from 14:21 to 17:55, because it's really really important.

https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-hangout-12-04-2015-s3

Some people might not see it, but I believe [member=5]bytemaster[/member] is talking about something really important here. The topic changed to another subject after bytemaster asked for feedback, but I think we need to keep coming back to this topic over and over again.

I'm a trader myself and also a market maker of my own UIA, so I exactly know what bytemaster is stating here.

As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.

UIA issuer has to jumpstart their own asset by performing market making themselves in the beginning even at a loss, but if market makers cannot earn any percentage fee from both buy and a sell, you will not be calling that "incentivizing market makers." In fact, it's the exact opposite. Eventually, a small-sized UIA issuer will have a hard time keeping up with creating a buy wall if they cannot receive any percentage-based market fees in BTS.

Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.

BTS is owned by the null-account, so UIA issuer can't do anything about it, even when the community makes a mistake. Have you thought from an UIA issuer's point of view? What if the community comes up with a "stupid" market fee value? That will affect the UIA issuer's game and UIA issuer has no control over it.

I think BTS should be detached from the null-account, and market fee for BTS should be configurable per UIA level by the UIA issuer, and it should allow percentage based market fee that flows directly (no vesting) into the UIA issuer's Fee pool. That's what it means to promote an asset individually and incentivize the market makers.

 +5% Good point.
Vote Chris4210 for Committee Member http://bit.ly/1WKC03B! | www.Payger.com - Payments + Messenger | www.BitShareshub.io - Community based fanpage for the BitShares Blockchain

jakub

  • Guest
Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2015, 05:47:41 pm »
As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.
Agreed, what was said in the last mumble was extremely important and I wish BM had a chance to talk about it a bit more extensively.

Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.
But I don't understand what makes you think that worker proposal #446 can be a threat to businesses based on UIAs.
IMO #446 redistributes trading fees earned on bit-assets from the committee account to the Referral Program. How does this affect UIAs?

Offline bytemaster

Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2015, 07:30:58 pm »
As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.
Agreed, what was said in the last mumble was extremely important and I wish BM had a chance to talk about it a bit more extensively.

Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.
But I don't understand what makes you think that worker proposal #446 can be a threat to businesses based on UIAs.
IMO #446 redistributes trading fees earned on bit-assets from the committee account to the Referral Program. How does this affect UIAs?

#446 redistributes all trading fees from BTS to the referral program.  However, we have a new metric of referral (UIA creator).  I think my preferred solution is to create a parameter that determines the percent of BTS market fees that go to the issuer of the asset it is traded against, and the remaining can go to the referral program.   This way future committee members can balance between UIA issuers and the referral program.  Both systems need rewards to grow and prosper and we should do an ALL or NOTHING with them.  The exact balance is something that can be tweaked over time.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline GaltReport

Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2015, 08:56:56 pm »
Please listen to this week's BeyondBitcoin hangout, bytemaster's comment from 14:21 to 17:55, because it's really really important.

https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-hangout-12-04-2015-s3

Some people might not see it, but I believe [member=5]bytemaster[/member] is talking about something really important here. The topic changed to another subject after bytemaster asked for feedback, but I think we need to keep coming back to this topic over and over again.

I'm a trader myself and also a market maker of my own UIA, so I exactly know what bytemaster is stating here.

As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.

UIA issuer has to jumpstart their own asset by performing market making themselves in the beginning even at a loss, but if market makers cannot earn any percentage fee from both buy and a sell, you will not be calling that "incentivizing market makers." In fact, it's the exact opposite. Eventually, a small-sized UIA issuer will have a hard time keeping up with creating a buy wall if they cannot receive any percentage-based market fees in BTS.

Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.

BTS is owned by the null-account, so UIA issuer can't do anything about it, even when the community makes a mistake. Have you thought from an UIA issuer's point of view? What if the community comes up with a "stupid" market fee value? That will affect the UIA issuer's game and UIA issuer has no control over it.

I think BTS should be detached from the null-account, and market fee for BTS should be configurable per UIA level by the UIA issuer, and it should allow percentage based market fee that flows directly (no vesting) into the UIA issuer's Fee pool. That's what it means to promote an asset individually and incentivize the market makers.

 +5% and agree with BM's suggestion on splitting fee between referral program and UIA creator.

Offline gn1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2015, 04:22:17 am »
Quote
#446 redistributes all trading fees from BTS to the referral program.

In my opinion, redistributing percentage-based BTS fees to the referral program should only be done for SmartCoin/BTS pairs but not for UIA/BTS pairs. For SmartCoin/BTS pairs, the committee account should have control over the market fee rate of BTS, and should be able to alter it when the consensus changes. For UIA/BTS pairs, the UIA issuer should have control over the market fee rate of BTS from the update assets page, not the commitee account. It should be designed so that the market fee made in BTS will flow directly into the UIA issuer's fee pool.

Quote
However, we have a new metric of referral (UIA creator).  I think my preferred solution is to create a parameter that determines the percent of BTS market fees that go to the issuer of the asset it is traded against, and the remaining can go to the referral program.

I think you need to consider who takes the most risk in the equation. I believe the biggest risk taker is the UIA issuer (who is also the market maker), so the percentage-based fee in BTS should not be split between the referral program and the UIA issuer. The BTS fee one makes in the UIA/BTS market should fully belong to the UIA issuer. Each market should be seen as its own mini business, right? Then, why split profit with the referral program? Do that with SmartCoin, not UIA. Network is already charging 10BTS from the fee pool anyways, so BitShares as a DAC should already be sustainable. Don't let the community become more greedy by milking profit from the UIA issuer.

Quote
This way future committee members can balance between UIA issuers and the referral program.

If you let the committee decide on the market fee, UIA issuer cannot do business as they desire. Let me give you an example.

What if you want to set 0.2% market fee but the consensus says 0.4%? What if you want to hold a "no market fee campaign" for the next two month but the consensus says 0.2% market fee? Then, UIA issuer cannot do business here in BitShares!

Letting the committee have control over BTS market fee on "global level" is not feasible for business.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 04:47:26 am by funnybear »
I'm a BitShares enthusiast in Japan, spreading BitShares daily to the Japanese people through https://genxnotes.com. Help us grow bitJPY together, so that bitUSD/bitJPY market pair will become the most popular market worldwide! Imagine what kind of world it will become when we execute this.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2015, 07:24:44 pm »
I really like crediting the fee pool of the issuer with the BTS market fees.  That is like giving "store credit", they can only cash it out by spending it with the blockchain. 

I also like the idea of allowing BTS to yield to UIA fee settings. 

The primary issue I have is that putting in "special cases" for BTS asset that don't apply to all assets makes the code more error prone and the system more complex to explain in general.  Currently most of the code is written in a manner that it doesn't care what the asset types involved are, they are treated equally.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline monsterer

Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2015, 07:44:19 pm »
The primary issue I have is that putting in "special cases" for BTS asset that don't apply to all assets makes the code more error prone and the system more complex to explain in general.  Currently most of the code is written in a manner that it doesn't care what the asset types involved are, they are treated equally.

On the flip side, no one wants to see, for example OKCOIN.BTS in order to get around the fee problem...
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads