What can we do to bring some sense into LTM?
Restrict more ops to require LTM ... like `create_asset`, `create_withdraw_permission` and stuff
Tweaking the fees is certainly a good way forward. However any fee that we increase would have consequences. Those who wishes to create asset may no longer find it worth while to do so or that they may find a competitor chain cheaper and make more $ense. IMHO, we do not want to go a similar path as the 20-US-cent-transfer-fee.
We need to find a price point where we can bring in good revenue and attractive to LTM-buyers, and yet comfortable to our target market. ie the consumers are willing to pay.
We should certainly be careful about raising fees, but if prices for creating assets are too small, I think it's actually a weakness for our chain because of the extra mess it creates in the assets view and is more likely to lead to asset name squatting. I think requiring a minimum investment of an LTM is a cheap requirement to create assets, and I doubt that anyone not willing to spend that amount (or basing their decision on what chain to use based on such a small amount) is likely to bring interesting assets to our market.
Also, I think we're hijacking Chrono's thread, so going to repost my last post:
@xeroc interesting idea. I think since the worker proposal can be voted out at any time, and the payment will vest for 30 days, shareholders are already well protected.
I've produced a video to introduce this worker proposal! Check it out: https://youtu.be/RYFmBVTJodY
I agree, Chronos, and the videos you've produced so far speak for the quality of your work. I wish I had seen a video like the one above the first time I voted: I was ready to file a bug report before I figured out the need to press the publish changes button.
For anyone who's not voted before and would like to vote for this proposal, I recommend watching the above video clip.