@bytemaster - you mentioned during yesterday's mumble that the upcoming hard fork would include an option for UIA issuers to specify whether they would like to implement maker/taker for their UIA. As I contemplate that, a few questions come to mind.
1. Are you planning with this hard fork to implement the maker/taker flag for BitAssets as well? If so, I assume it will be a parameter controlled by the committee via worker proposal, initially set to OFF? I'm a fan of the maker/taker model, but the final decision to use it should be in the hands of stakeholders.
2. I think most that have expressed their opinions regarding trading fees have favored a %-based fee in general. But specifically with regard to the maker/taker model, it seems that a %-based fee would be far more effective since the maker would then be rewarded for total liquidity provided as opposed to total number of trades. Where do we stand with %-based fees?
3. There's been some discussion on another thread today regarding how fees are allocated e.g. the issuer of a UIA would collect their fee from the buyer whereas the network would collect a fee if the seller was cashing out to BTS or a BitAsset, etc. To what extent is this model complicated by the introduction of the maker/taker setting?
On a separate note (but while talking about the hard fork), I don't think I've seen anyone disagree with the notion that the committee (not witnesses) should be setting SQP. Is this something we can fix with the upcoming hard fork? Should the committee be voting on that change to the code?
Topic: Upcoming hard fork (adding maker/taker flag, etc) (Read 1022 times)
