Fees are a real problem for the DEX

[clayop]

If an attack happens, you first can decrease CER to discourage the attacker. But if the attack lasts or you cannot detect the attack early, your fee pool will be 0, and users cannot make transaction unless they have BTS. So my point is (1) fee pool balance = maximum damage you potentially get. (2) You can stop the attack by decreasing CER. (3) If attack lasts you can suspend your service by maintaining fee pool 0.

The problem is DDOSing the exchange then becomes completely trivial;  abuse the system for spam, forcing the CER to adjust to freeze the service.

AFAIK, there's no way to restrict attacker's access in DEX. So you have to charge some fees (0.5~1 BTS) to customers to prevent spam.
My suggestion is make it free when it's normal, and make it charged when exploiter comes. It can be automated and I believe you are talented to do this.

FYI, https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/proposals/blob/master/160119_Proposed_Trading_Fees
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/proposals/blob/master/160119_Proposed_Trading_Fees.md

[monsterer]

If an attack happens, you first can decrease CER to discourage the attacker. But if the attack lasts or you cannot detect the attack early, your fee pool will be 0, and users cannot make transaction unless they have BTS. So my point is (1) fee pool balance = maximum damage you potentially get. (2) You can stop the attack by decreasing CER. (3) If attack lasts you can suspend your service by maintaining fee pool 0.

The problem is DDOSing the exchange then becomes completely trivial;  abuse the system for spam, forcing the CER to adjust to freeze the service.

[clayop]

@monsterer

I think you can handle the attacking problem by changing CER. You may want to set CER very high so users don't pay any UIAs as a fee, while you pay the fee via fee pool.
If an exploiter begins attack, you can decrease the CER and he/she will has to pay fees for the attack. And you can limit your damage by not putting enormous amount of BTS in the fee pool (if fee pool is 0, people have to pay fees in BTS)

How can users possibly send a transaction without using the fee pool? They won't have any BTS, since they are totally unaware that they are using bitshares at all - to them, it just appears like a centralised exchange.

If an attack happens, you first can decrease CER to discourage the attacker. But if the attack lasts or you cannot detect the attack early, your fee pool will be 0, and users cannot make transaction unless they have BTS. So my point is (1) fee pool balance = maximum damage you potentially get. (2) You can stop the attack by decreasing CER. (3) If attack lasts you can suspend your service by maintaining fee pool 0.

[monsterer]

@monsterer

I think you can handle the attacking problem by changing CER. You may want to set CER very high so users don't pay any UIAs as a fee, while you pay the fee via fee pool.
If an exploiter begins attack, you can decrease the CER and he/she will has to pay fees for the attack. And you can limit your damage by not putting enormous amount of BTS in the fee pool (if fee pool is 0, people have to pay fees in BTS)

How can users possibly send a transaction without using the fee pool? They won't have any BTS, since they are totally unaware that they are using bitshares at all - to them, it just appears like a centralised exchange.

[clayop]

@monsterer

I think you can handle the attacking problem by changing CER. You may want to set CER very high so users don't pay any UIAs as a fee, while you pay the fee via fee pool.
If an exploiter begins attack, you can decrease the CER and he/she will has to pay fees for the attack. And you can limit your damage by not putting enormous amount of BTS in the fee pool (if fee pool is 0, people have to pay fees in BTS)

[clayop]

is it even possible to pay for it? if i place an order with my account how would you pay with your account?

Fee pool.

So you are going to set CER very high that asset owners don't pay fees, correct?

[monsterer]

is it even possible to pay for it? if i place an order with my account how would you pay with your account?

Fee pool.

[Shentist]

I'm really confused by your response.. these are the current fees related to the markets:

http://cryptofresh.com/fees

Limit order create   10 BTS   2 BTS
Limit order cancel   FREE   FREE
Call order update   1 BTS   0.2 BTS
Fill order   FREE   FREE

What is it exactly you are swallowing costs in? Everything is sub-pennies.

I can't charge users for creating an order, or updating their orders, so that cost I will have to swallow... I thought it was cancels that cost a small fee and refunded creates, my bad.

is it even possible to pay for it? if i place an order with my account how would you pay with your account?

[clayop]

I'm really confused by your response.. these are the current fees related to the markets:

http://cryptofresh.com/fees

Limit order create   10 BTS   2 BTS
Limit order cancel   FREE   FREE
Call order update   1 BTS   0.2 BTS
Fill order   FREE   FREE

What is it exactly you are swallowing costs in? Everything is sub-pennies.

I can't charge users for creating an order, or updating their orders, so that cost I will have to swallow... I thought it was cancels that cost a small fee and refunded creates, my bad.

If so, you can set minimum amount or order to cover the order creation fee. I'm still insisting 0.5~1 BTS. What do you think about this number?

[monsterer]

I'm really confused by your response.. these are the current fees related to the markets:

http://cryptofresh.com/fees

Limit order create   10 BTS   2 BTS
Limit order cancel   FREE   FREE
Call order update   1 BTS   0.2 BTS
Fill order   FREE   FREE

What is it exactly you are swallowing costs in? Everything is sub-pennies.

I can't charge users for creating an order, or updating their orders, so that cost I will have to swallow... I thought it was cancels that cost a small fee and refunded creates, my bad.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

@monsterer I haven't seen you respond to the prospect of 1bts or 0.5bts fee. Can you explain why this would be unworkable?

It's not unworkable, no - it would just mean we'd need to move the cost into the order fill percentage, maintain our fee pools for our assets and swallow the cost of the cancels.

I'm really confused by your response.. these are the current fees related to the markets:

http://cryptofresh.com/fees

Limit order create   10 BTS   2 BTS
Limit order cancel   FREE   FREE
Call order update   1 BTS   0.2 BTS
Fill order   FREE   FREE

What is it exactly you are swallowing costs in? Everything is sub-pennies.

[clayop]

@monsterer I haven't seen you respond to the prospect of 1bts or 0.5bts fee. Can you explain why this would be unworkable?

It's not unworkable, no - it would just mean we'd need to move the cost into the order fill percentage, maintain our fee pools for our assets and swallow the cost of the cancels.

I assume that you are going to pay order creation fees for your customers, correct? And then fee refund is yours too, so cancellation fee does not matter IMO.
Will 0.5 BTS per filled order makes big difference in your trading fee level?

[monsterer]

@monsterer I haven't seen you respond to the prospect of 1bts or 0.5bts fee. Can you explain why this would be unworkable?

It's not unworkable, no - it would just mean we'd need to move the cost into the order fill percentage, maintain our fee pools for our assets and swallow the cost of the cancels.

[Xeldal]

[brainstorm] issue network asset 'FEE'  ;  You lockup BTS for FEE;  Use FEE to pay network fees on opening orders; 10x to 100x discount, 100% returned on cancel; pay normal BTS fee on filling orders;  The largest FEE owners(or voted with FEE stake), as a committee, have the ability to confiscate the FEE asset of offending spam accounts.   And distribute as a dividend to FEE owners.

free opening orders are only a problem if they are abused.   If not abused there's no reason to charge for them.   For posting a bond you are assured you won't have to pay for opening orders. You have the incentive to not piss off the network  and abuse this because you want your money back;  You're also not at all obligated to pay any attention to this FEE asset at all if you don't want, and just pay in BTS like you do now.

That's a pretty creative way.  .. The only issue I see though is them being able to send those FEE assets from another account to recharge it. I think it would mean we have to maintain whitelists.. that could be cumbersome.

FEE asset could be non-transferable.   Though I'm not sure an attacker would benefit from sending in new FEE anyway  , because any FEE sent to the account could also be confiscated.  And if the attacker had another account with FEE, that means he's also locked up BTS on this account, which could also be confiscated.  And there's no reason he couldn't just launch the same attack from this other account. For non-attackers transferring FEE wouldn't be an issue.   I may not understand the scenario your alluding to though.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

[brainstorm] issue network asset 'FEE'  ;  You lockup BTS for FEE;  Use FEE to pay network fees on opening orders; 10x to 100x discount, 100% returned on cancel; pay normal BTS fee on filling orders;  The largest FEE owners(or voted with FEE stake), as a committee, have the ability to confiscate the FEE asset of offending spam accounts.   And distribute as a dividend to FEE owners.

free opening orders are only a problem if they are abused.   If not abused there's no reason to charge for them.   For posting a bond you are assured you won't have to pay for opening orders. You have the incentive to not piss off the network  and abuse this because you want your money back;  You're also not at all obligated to pay any attention to this FEE asset at all if you don't want, and just pay in BTS like you do now.

That's a pretty creative way.  .. The only issue I see though is them being able to send those FEE assets from another account to recharge it. I think it would mean we have to maintain whitelists.. that could be cumbersome.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Many good suggestions  But I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
@monsterer is it impossible to charge 0.5~1 BTS for users per filled order?

I agree 

Let's consider what we can do 'now'.

@monsterer I haven't seen you respond to the prospect of 1bts or 0.5bts fee. Can you explain why this would be unworkable?

[Akado]

On another thread

So .. another idea came up to reduce the create/cancel order to the spare minimum to prevent spam and instead raise the market fee (at least for bitassets) from 0% to something higher than 0% (capped by some number) .. Committee is currently evaluating the options and tries to come up with reasonable numbers ..

[monsterer]

Many good suggestions  But I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
@monsterer is it impossible to charge 0.5~1 BTS for users per filled order?

@clayop afik it's not the the fee being charged on filled orders.  It's the fee to place the initial order is what's the issue,  hence severely limiting the functions that Monsterer (or any potential integrating exchange) is up against.  @monsterer feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That's correct.

[Xeldal]

[brainstorm] issue network asset 'FEE'  ;  You lockup BTS for FEE;  Use FEE to pay network fees on opening orders; 10x to 100x discount, 100% returned on cancel; pay normal BTS fee on filling orders;  The largest FEE owners(or voted with FEE stake), as a committee, have the ability to confiscate the FEE asset of offending spam accounts.   And distribute as a dividend to FEE owners.

free opening orders are only a problem if they are abused.   If not abused there's no reason to charge for them.   For posting a bond you are assured you won't have to pay for opening orders. You have the incentive to not piss off the network  and abuse this because you want your money back;  You're also not at all obligated to pay any attention to this FEE asset at all if you don't want, and just pay in BTS like you do now.

[clayop]

I think users must pay small amount of order creation fee (hopefully 0.5~1 BTS worth). If not, metaexchange will get exploited easily.

Why the centralized exchanges haven't got exploited?

In my guess, they can easily identify exploiters (we can do this too) and restrict them (this is hard for us).

[abit]

I think users must pay small amount of order creation fee (hopefully 0.5~1 BTS worth). If not, metaexchange will get exploited easily.

Why the centralized exchanges haven't got exploited?

[clayop]

Many good suggestions  But I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
@monsterer is it impossible to charge 0.5~1 BTS for users per filled order?

@clayop afik it's not the the fee being charged on filled orders.  It's the fee to place the initial order is what's the issue,  hence severely limiting the functions that Monsterer (or any potential integrating exchange) is up against.  @monsterer feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The "order creation fee" (currently 10 BTS) will be refunded when it's cancelled without any partial fill.

True, but that's a big "buffer/cushion" of BTS required for the exchange to hold and account/anticipate for.  I'm "pretty sure" I know what Monsterer may be up to from him alluding to this "small" problem,  but it's a big problem if your an exchange operator willing to mount on top of BTS and expecting (potentially) thousands of Tx's within a short time frame.  I don't know what the "cancel" before filled frequency is of an exchange, but out of my ass I would think it's around 20-30% with active daily traders. 
Plus you must keep in mind... this isn't just BTS:whatever market. We're talking about any/every market that that exchange decides to open up to their clients. 
That Tx volume scales up very quickly when you're talking about hosting multiple markets to your clients.

This is a road we must go down IMHO and try to find alternate routes/ways to satisfy the fee:spam issues Monsterer is bringing up.
Otherwise, we won't get any serious outside exchanges to integrate BTS with this "global" fee in place.
 

I think users must pay small amount of order creation fee (hopefully 0.5~1 BTS worth). If not, metaexchange will get exploited easily.

[emailtooaj]

Many good suggestions  But I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
@monsterer is it impossible to charge 0.5~1 BTS for users per filled order?

@clayop afik it's not the the fee being charged on filled orders.  It's the fee to place the initial order is what's the issue,  hence severely limiting the functions that Monsterer (or any potential integrating exchange) is up against.  @monsterer feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The "order creation fee" (currently 10 BTS) will be refunded when it's cancelled without any partial fill.

True, but that's a big "buffer/cushion" of BTS required for the exchange to hold and account/anticipate for.  I'm "pretty sure" I know what Monsterer may be up to from him alluding to this "small" problem,  but it's a big problem if your an exchange operator willing to mount on top of BTS and expecting (potentially) thousands of Tx's within a short time frame.  I don't know what the "cancel" before filled frequency is of an exchange, but out of my ass I would think it's around 20-30% with active daily traders. 
Plus you must keep in mind... this isn't just BTS:whatever market. We're talking about any/every market that that exchange decides to open up to their clients. 
That Tx volume scales up very quickly when you're talking about hosting multiple markets to your clients.

This is a road we must go down IMHO and try to find alternate routes/ways to satisfy the fee:spam issues Monsterer is bringing up.
Otherwise, we won't get any serious outside exchanges to integrate BTS with this "global" fee in place.
 

[clayop]

Many good suggestions  But I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
@monsterer is it impossible to charge 0.5~1 BTS for users per filled order?

@clayop afik it's not the the fee being charged on filled orders.  It's the fee to place the initial order is what's the issue,  hence severely limiting the functions that Monsterer (or any potential integrating exchange) is up against.  @monsterer feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The "order creation fee" (currently 10 BTS) will be refunded when it's cancelled without any partial fill.

[emailtooaj]

Many good suggestions  But I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
@monsterer is it impossible to charge 0.5~1 BTS for users per filled order?

@clayop afik it's not the the fee being charged on filled orders.  It's the fee to place the initial order is what's the issue,  hence severely limiting the functions that Monsterer (or any potential integrating exchange) is up against.  @monsterer feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[clayop]

Many good suggestions  But I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
@monsterer is it impossible to charge 0.5~1 BTS for users per filled order?

[emailtooaj]

2) if the exchange has their users registered on Dex directly (imo this is the correct way), the exchange is unable to control the users' actions/behaviors. In this case, it's not practicable to rely on the exchange when spam attack occurs, the capping should be done on the Dex side and limit/charge the user directly.

Yes, registering the users directly would be the correct way to do this.  But,  if the Exchange is considered the "parent" account and sets up it's users tied to a "child" account under their wallet,  then I'd assume we could give the "exchange account" the option and ability to limit (or tier) a tx threshold of the child accounts... yes/no?
This could give some control of the spam situation while still allowing their users to connect directly to the DeX.  As a side effect it could quite possibly open another revenue source for the exchanges to charge their users,  based on individual tx volumes,  if they wish to do this.  Obviously that'll be at their discretion to do so.

[abit]

Isn't there a way to pass those fees onto users instead of metaexchange? Why dont you just charge the fee on top of whatever amount they transfer

This is my thought

They want to move out from the "transfer" mode to an "exchange" mode, so no transfers anymore, so unable to charge that fee.

Then peg their assets to asset_price - fee? Of course this will be useless for orders sitting on the order book. Assuming metaexchange becomes the frontend to BitShares, what's the problem here then? For a user, he usually has to pay fees. So whatever he pays for it would be the usual process. Of course Metaexchange would then have to adjust their fee rate for themselves. Either decrease it or maintain it but then the fee increases more.

Edit: I think I still didn't get it. So they're moving from "bridge" to "exchange" and want to operate on BitShares then?

If I have understood right, they are operating both "bridge" and "exchange" services.
We're talking about moving the "exchange" service to on top of Dex.
The "bridge" service will be unchanged and unaffected.

[abit]

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.

This is like what I said at the bottom of page 2: implement some kind of rate capping.

How to do the capping depends on how the exchange operates.

1) if the exchange maintain a database and map the user/trading data to Dex, users can only trade with a client program provided by the exchange, then the exchange can monitor and control the users' behavior, implement some capping in their client as @emailtooaj suggested.

2) if the exchange has their users registered on Dex directly (imo this is the correct way), the exchange is unable to control the users' actions/behaviors. In this case, it's not practicable to rely on the exchange when spam attack occurs, the capping should be done on the Dex side and limit/charge the user directly.

[Akado]

Isn't there a way to pass those fees onto users instead of metaexchange? Why dont you just charge the fee on top of whatever amount they transfer

This is my thought

They want to move out from the "transfer" mode to an "exchange" mode, so no transfers anymore, so unable to charge that fee.

Then peg their assets to asset_price - fee? Of course this will be useless for orders sitting on the order book. Assuming metaexchange becomes the frontend to BitShares, what's the problem here then? For a user, he usually has to pay fees. So whatever he pays for it would be the usual process. Of course Metaexchange would then have to adjust their fee rate for themselves. Either decrease it or maintain it but then the fee increases more.

Edit: I think I still didn't get it. So they're moving from "bridge" to "exchange" and want to operate on BitShares then?

[abit]

Isn't there a way to pass those fees onto users instead of metaexchange? Why dont you just charge the fee on top of whatever amount they transfer

This is my thought

They want to move out from the "transfer" mode to an "exchange" mode, so no transfers anymore, so unable to charge that fee.

[emailtooaj]

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.






 


 

[clayop]

Isn't there a way to pass those fees onto users instead of metaexchange? Why dont you just charge the fee on top of whatever amount they transfer

This is my thought

[Akado]

Isn't there a way to pass those fees onto users instead of metaexchange? Why dont you just charge the fee on top of whatever amount they transfer

[monsterer]

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.

[emailtooaj]

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?

[monsterer]

Even if no changes in the trading fee, metaexchange will have got benefits already if migrate to DEX, won't it?
With current mode, user send fund to metaexchange, then metaexchange send fund back to user, total cost is 30BTS*2.
If migrated to DEX, user place an order and get it filled with a cost of 10BTS*2. If metaexchange pays it, the cost is still lower than current one. If metaexchange doesn't pay it, the cost on user is also less.

This is true, but I was considering what it would need to take it to the next level - full centralised exchange performance, rapid order placement and fill, basically all the advances of a centralised exchange but transparently using the bitshares blockchain, such that the user would see what looked like a normal, centralised exchange and be completely unaware it was running on bitshares.

[Shentist]

Metaexchange is mostly used as a bridge right? If so then get users to pay those fees. An extra 30bts or whatever the fee is in a transaction from time to time isn't much.

monsterer is talking to transfer most of our stuff to bitshares directly. So fees matter, and this should be considered, if we want more exchanges join our network.

[Akado]

Metaexchange is mostly used as a bridge right? If so then get users to pay those fees. An extra 30bts or whatever the fee is in a transaction from time to time isn't much.

[abit]

Proposal from @clayop:

Anyway I want to listen your opinions on lowering order creation fee and charging fees on MPAs

My comments:
I think it makes a lot of sense .. keep the constant fee to prevent spam and get fee from filles orders as percentage ..
Then .. after maker we have the option to redirect a percentage of those profits to those that provide liqudity ..
And the percentage could be kept below that of other exchanges .. new selling point wouls then be .. cheapest exchange .. and safest .. and decentralized
Could be good for liquidity ..

@monsterer: would that be fine foe you?

In order to decentralise metaexchange on the bitshares chain, I would need 0 fees (except for order fill). That's the only real way, otherwise I would have to pay all the transaction fees from metaexchange's profits, which could be exploited quite easily.

Even if no changes in the trading fee, metaexchange will have got benefits already if migrate to DEX, won't it?
With current mode, user send fund to metaexchange, then metaexchange send fund back to user, total cost is 30BTS*2.
If migrated to DEX, user place an order and get it filled with a cost of 10BTS*2. If metaexchange pays it, the cost is still lower than current one. If metaexchange doesn't pay it, the cost on user is also less.

[bitacer]

Can you create assets or can you do multi sig with dash?

[yvv]

Proposal from @clayop:

Anyway I want to listen your opinions on lowering order creation fee and charging fees on MPAs

My comments:
I think it makes a lot of sense .. keep the constant fee to prevent spam and get fee from filles orders as percentage ..
Then .. after maker we have the option to redirect a percentage of those profits to those that provide liqudity ..
And the percentage could be kept below that of other exchanges .. new selling point wouls then be .. cheapest exchange .. and safest .. and decentralized
Could be good for liquidity ..

@monsterer: would that be fine foe you?

In order to decentralise metaexchange on the bitshares chain, I would need 0 fees (except for order fill). That's the only real way, otherwise I would have to pay all the transaction fees from metaexchange's profits, which could be exploited quite easily.

If you don't want to pay anti-spam fee from your profit, you have to provide some other anti-spam solution.

[monsterer]

Proposal from @clayop:

Anyway I want to listen your opinions on lowering order creation fee and charging fees on MPAs

My comments:
I think it makes a lot of sense .. keep the constant fee to prevent spam and get fee from filles orders as percentage ..
Then .. after maker we have the option to redirect a percentage of those profits to those that provide liqudity ..
And the percentage could be kept below that of other exchanges .. new selling point wouls then be .. cheapest exchange .. and safest .. and decentralized
Could be good for liquidity ..

@monsterer: would that be fine foe you?

In order to decentralise metaexchange on the bitshares chain, I would need 0 fees (except for order fill). That's the only real way, otherwise I would have to pay all the transaction fees from metaexchange's profits, which could be exploited quite easily.

[xeroc]

Proposal from @clayop:

Anyway I want to listen your opinions on lowering order creation fee and charging fees on MPAs

My comments:
I think it makes a lot of sense .. keep the constant fee to prevent spam and get fee from filles orders as percentage ..
Then .. after maker we have the option to redirect a percentage of those profits to those that provide liqudity ..
And the percentage could be kept below that of other exchanges .. new selling point wouls then be .. cheapest exchange .. and safest .. and decentralized
Could be good for liquidity ..

@monsterer: would that be fine foe you?

[abit]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

Basically I agree with this idea.
The system needs fees. If the fees don't come from users, then it should come from the business partners.
Instead of increasing UIA creation fee, I'd rather like to add some kind of fees for using the UIA if possible. For example, an issuer pay 10000 BTS in advance, so the users can make transfers of that UIA for free for a month or so.

//Edit:
Business partners want their users to have better experience of their product, but it's not free, they need to pay for it. Imo it's a win-win.

the point is, this would not prefent spaming, so how does we prefent this?

if we find a solution for this, we can lower the placing fees and just redirect some fees from the UIA fees to the bitshares network.

Use some kind of rate capping. For example, every account is free to do 20 transactions per day. A "premium" user of that UIA is able to do more free transactions per day.
True it will be complicated somehow. So we need developers.

[Xeldal]

Allow user defined fees.  Incentivize paying higher fee with a fee token.

hypothetical:
paying zero fee, requires POW upto minimum 1 BTS, no fee token issued.
paying minimum 1 BTS fee, no POW required, no Fee token issued.
paying more then 1 BTS fee upto maximum 100BTS fee, no POW required, Issues user a fee token.

The fee token could be used for various things like reputation, discounts, sharedrop, dividends, referral bonus, lottery etc?   What other incentives could there be for voluntarily paying higher fees?

Maybe the fee token gradually degrades over time, but can be used instead of BTS to pay fees at a discount.  So initially you elect to pay 100 BTS fee and receive 200 fee tokens which can then be used to pay fees for some amount of time at a discount. 

just some random thoughts.

 

[clayop]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

Basically I agree with this idea.
The system needs fees. If the fees don't come from users, then it should come from the business partners.
Instead of increasing UIA creation fee, I'd rather like to add some kind of fees for using the UIA if possible. For example, an issuer pay 10000 BTS in advance, so the users can make transfers of that UIA for free for a month or so.

//Edit:
Business partners want their users to have better experience of their product, but it's not free, they need to pay for it. Imo it's a win-win.

I agree with this too. 5000 BTS is too cheap for having the most powerful blockchain-based asset in the world. IMHO 20k~30k BTS for long name asset would be better.

how will this change the charged fees from the users?

maybe we can split it. lets say on bitUSD/BTS market, if you place an order under x BTS you will charged a fee, if it is higher and stays x minutes on the DEX it will be charged nothing.

Could we charge the fee after the order is chancelled?

No. That can be another attacking vector (placing enormous amount of orders without cancelling, consuming memory).
What about lowering placing order fee to 0.5~1 BTS? Is it also problematic?

[Shentist]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

Basically I agree with this idea.
The system needs fees. If the fees don't come from users, then it should come from the business partners.
Instead of increasing UIA creation fee, I'd rather like to add some kind of fees for using the UIA if possible. For example, an issuer pay 10000 BTS in advance, so the users can make transfers of that UIA for free for a month or so.

//Edit:
Business partners want their users to have better experience of their product, but it's not free, they need to pay for it. Imo it's a win-win.

I agree with this too. 5000 BTS is too cheap for having the most powerful blockchain-based asset in the world. IMHO 20k~30k BTS for long name asset would be better.

how will this change the charged fees from the users?

maybe we can split it. lets say on bitUSD/BTS market, if you place an order under x BTS you will charged a fee, if it is higher and stays x minutes on the DEX it will be charged nothing.

Could we charge the fee after the order is chancelled?

[btswildpig]

The major problem -- which is actually in itself not a problem-- that the is not enough PR out there to explain bitshares, one of the reason seems to me is that everybody is still busy building and perfecting the product. Once that is eased a little , some resources should be allocated to advertising and displaying some real use cases. We all see what PR can achieve just as in DASH or some other products out there. None of them actually has what BitShares has.

Dash have active development and developed some cool stuff .
They can transfer money in 0.1 second using master nodes or whatever .
The Dash devs are known to "propose an idea and then finish it" .

A little birdie told me .

[clayop]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

Basically I agree with this idea.
The system needs fees. If the fees don't come from users, then it should come from the business partners.
Instead of increasing UIA creation fee, I'd rather like to add some kind of fees for using the UIA if possible. For example, an issuer pay 10000 BTS in advance, so the users can make transfers of that UIA for free for a month or so.

//Edit:
Business partners want their users to have better experience of their product, but it's not free, they need to pay for it. Imo it's a win-win.

I agree with this too. 5000 BTS is too cheap for having the most powerful blockchain-based asset in the world. IMHO 20k~30k BTS for long name asset would be better.

[Shentist]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

Basically I agree with this idea.
The system needs fees. If the fees don't come from users, then it should come from the business partners.
Instead of increasing UIA creation fee, I'd rather like to add some kind of fees for using the UIA if possible. For example, an issuer pay 10000 BTS in advance, so the users can make transfers of that UIA for free for a month or so.

//Edit:
Business partners want their users to have better experience of their product, but it's not free, they need to pay for it. Imo it's a win-win.

the point is, this would not prefent spaming, so how does we prefent this?

if we find a solution for this, we can lower the placing fees and just redirect some fees from the UIA fees to the bitshares network.

[bitacer]

The major problem -- which is actually in itself not a problem-- that the is not enough PR out there to explain bitshares, one of the reason seems to me is that everybody is still busy building and perfecting the product. Once that is eased a little , some resources should be allocated to advertising and displaying some real use cases. We all see what PR can achieve just as in DASH or some other products out there. None of them actually has what BitShares has.

[clayop]

I found many business runners (bitcrab, monsterer, kencode, and potentially me) are raising issue about high fees. Lower fee may not significantly attract users, but it incentivizes entrepreneurs who actually provide utility for users.
One could easily say that the network cannot be profitable with low fee system. But are we really able to profitable without broader utilities and large user bases? I doubt this.

We should listen real business runners' voice. This is really important for our ecosystem.

the community choose high fees, because of the referral program. the question is always the chicken and egg problem and how the "customers" feel and like our system.

if i am a poloniex user it feels strange to pay for placing orders, the question is, does the user care or know it? maybe not. i am a regular user of both, poloniex and bitshares and
i do not care how the fees are paid. so, i dont know if this is really a problem, or do we just feel this is a problem.

how does other feel about it? did anyone talk with traders about it?

I'm a kind of trader (more prone to DEX) too. I feel the current fee system of DEX makes no sense.
We can only justify a small fraction of fees (like 0.5~1 BTS for order creation and 0~0.1 BTS for cancellation) to prevent spam. That's all. UIAs already have percentage based fees, and BTS and other bitassets can have percentage based fees if committee approves (but it is needed to be distributed to referrers via BSIP4)

[abit]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

Basically I agree with this idea.
The system needs fees. If the fees don't come from users, then it should come from the business partners.
Instead of increasing UIA creation fee, I'd rather like to add some kind of fees for using the UIA if possible. For example, an issuer pay 10000 BTS in advance, so the users can make transfers of that UIA for free for a month or so.

//Edit:
Business partners want their users to have better experience of their product, but it's not free, they need to pay for it. Imo it's a win-win.

[monsterer]

i do not care how the fees are paid. so, i dont know if this is really a problem, or do we just feel this is a problem.

how does other feel about it? did anyone talk with traders about it?

The thing is, you know already that your order is getting placed on a DEX, so you don't mind. If an exchange comes and wants to decentralise their business, their existing users will not be happy having to suddenly pay a fee to place/cancel an order when they didn't have to previously.

[monsterer]

Do you know about the MAKER proposal to pay a fraction of market fees to those that make a market? I think it is called BSIP#6

Yes, I do. This doesn't address the problem for users placing / cancelling an order on the DEX compared to the cost free nature of a centralised exchange.

[Shentist]

I found many business runners (bitcrab, monsterer, kencode, and potentially me) are raising issue about high fees. Lower fee may not significantly attract users, but it incentivizes entrepreneurs who actually provide utility for users.
One could easily say that the network cannot be profitable with low fee system. But are we really able to profitable without broader utilities and large user bases? I doubt this.

We should listen real business runners' voice. This is really important for our ecosystem.

the community choose high fees, because of the referral program. the question is always the chicken and egg problem and how the "customers" feel and like our system.

if i am a poloniex user it feels strange to pay for placing orders, the question is, does the user care or know it? maybe not. i am a regular user of both, poloniex and bitshares and
i do not care how the fees are paid. so, i dont know if this is really a problem, or do we just feel this is a problem.

how does other feel about it? did anyone talk with traders about it?

[btswildpig]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

[abit]

so for placing orders we would need a kind of POW to prefend spaming.

but how would this works if i just place my order and then close my wallet?

could we combine it with POS, if you have x amount on your account you can do x orderplacings for free x seconds/minutes or so?

lets say i hold 1.000.000 BTS and i place a buy order for 1 BTC , because i hold 1m BTS i have x orders for free X amount of time.

or

we create something like a discount. if you have filled orders you get a token/UIA, if you have this token your placing an order is free and
the token will automatically removed from your account. should be already possible i think.

just some random ideas.

The token is now BTS.

If placing order fee is 1 BTS, is it good for you?

I'm OK with current order placing fees, since it's refunded when order got cancelled. However I'm not a trader.

[monsterer]

so for placing orders we would need a kind of POW to prefend spaming.

but how would this works if i just place my order and then close my wallet?

The PoW required must be solved before the transaction can be sent - the difficulty can be low enough that this takes under a second on a laptop.

[clayop]

so for placing orders we would need a kind of POW to prefend spaming.

but how would this works if i just place my order and then close my wallet?

could we combine it with POS, if you have x amount on your account you can do x orderplacings for free x seconds/minutes or so?

lets say i hold 1.000.000 BTS and i place a buy order for 1 BTC , because i hold 1m BTS i have x orders for free X amount of time.

or

we create something like a discount. if you have filled orders you get a token/UIA, if you have this token your placing an order is free and
the token will automatically removed from your account. should be already possible i think.

just some random ideas.

The token is now BTS.

If placing order fee is 1 BTS, is it good for you?

[xeroc]

IMHO, the dex is just one of the products .. may be not even the one with the most utility ..
transfering bitusd on a real-time crypto platfoem is another product and i dont think it should be handed over for free .. and certainly not for providing a POW hash ..

I understand. However, I just wanted to write out my thought process here to give you an idea of what must also be going through the minds of other exchange developers when they start to think seriously about decentralisation.

Do you know about the MAKER proposal to pay a fraction of market fees to those that make a market? I think it is called BSIP#6

[abit]

so for placing orders we would need a kind of POW to prefend spaming.

but how would this works if i just place my order and then close my wallet?

could we combine it with POS, if you have x amount on your account you can do x orderplacings for free x seconds/minutes or so?

lets say i hold 1.000.000 BTS and i place a buy order for 1 BTC , because i hold 1m BTS i have x orders for free X amount of time.

or

we create something like a discount. if you have filled orders you get a token/UIA, if you have this token your placing an order is free and
the token will automatically removed from your account. should be already possible i think.

just some random ideas.

The token is now BTS.

[clayop]

I found many business runners (bitcrab, monsterer, kencode, and potentially me) are raising issue about high fees. Lower fee may not significantly attract users, but it incentivizes entrepreneurs who actually provide utility for users.
One could easily say that the network cannot be profitable with low fee system. But are we really able to profitable without broader utilities and large user bases? I doubt this.

We should listen real business runners' voice. This is really important for our ecosystem.

[Shentist]

so for placing orders we would need a kind of POW to prefend spaming.

but how would this works if i just place my order and then close my wallet?

could we combine it with POS, if you have x amount on your account you can do x orderplacings for free x seconds/minutes or so?

lets say i hold 1.000.000 BTS and i place a buy order for 1 BTC , because i hold 1m BTS i have x orders for free X amount of time.

or

we create something like a discount. if you have filled orders you get a token/UIA, if you have this token your placing an order is free and
the token will automatically removed from your account. should be already possible i think.

just some random ideas.

[abit]

I'd rather like a fee pre-paid by the UIA issuer, so the users of the UIA can freely use something for example transferring or placing orders.

[yvv]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

What's wrong if it is just a collateral token?

[monsterer]

IMHO, the dex is just one of the products .. may be not even the one with the most utility ..
transfering bitusd on a real-time crypto platfoem is another product and i dont think it should be handed over for free .. and certainly not for providing a POW hash ..

I understand. However, I just wanted to write out my thought process here to give you an idea of what must also be going through the minds of other exchange developers when they start to think seriously about decentralisation.

[xeroc]

IMHO, the dex is just one of the products .. may be not even the one with the most utility ..
transfering bitusd on a real-time crypto platfoem is another product and i dont think it should be handed over for free .. and certainly not for providing a POW hash ..

[monsterer]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

Filled order fees would compensate for the lack of other fees - the DEX is the selling point after all.

[xeroc]

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

[monsterer]

whats a PoW submitted by the sender ?

Proof Of Work

[bitacer]

whats a PoW submitted by the sender ?

[monsterer]

I was just musing over possible directions to take metaexchange in the future, one of them was to move most of metaexchange functionality onto the DEX (order matching, market making etc), such that the user would then have the convenience and speed of using a centralised exchange (confirmation times are a PITA for users, and the METAEX.IOUS are basically instant), while at the same time having at least some of the security of a  decentralised service.

The only real hitch to this idea is the transaction fees for transferring funds, placing and cancelling orders. It would be totally impossible to explain to users of metaexchange why they need to pay a transaction fee (of any kind) to place, or cancel an order. The fact that canceling refunds the cost of placing the order is not enough to make this frictionless.

I actually found myself discounting bitshares as a way to achieve decentralisation of metaexchange, and pondering forking the entire blockchain to remove the fees, but that is ridiculous.

IMO, it would be great if we could just remove all fixed size fees and replace them with a PoW submitted by the sender, which will eliminate spam while making transactions zero fee (except order fills, that is an acceptable fee for any exchange).