Fees are a real problem for the DEX

[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.