Fees are a real problem for the DEX

[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?