Author Topic: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule  (Read 566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
[Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« on: December 17, 2018, 11:46:57 am »
As I've mentioned before, I've been working on analysing and optimising the existing fee schedule.

Some preliminary discussion and fine-tuning took place on GitHub and now I'm bringing this to the wider community for further discussion.

All details and fee changes are available here: https://github.com/bitshares/committee-tools/pull/2

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2018, 11:49:44 am »
Good idea to put it in USD terms for people to compare apples and oranges.

What ratio will you use to convert to bts fees when approved?

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2018, 11:51:31 am »
It's done automatically by the scripts @xeroc has provided. I believe it uses feed price.

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2018, 12:15:06 pm »
Understood. Then I agree with the schedule. And if the smart tech guys tell me @xeroc's scripts work accurately then I support.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12875
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2018, 12:30:09 pm »
Understood. Then I agree with the schedule. And if the smart tech guys tell me @xeroc's scripts work accurately then I support.
It did not. Though it wasn't my fault :D
The scripts used the core exchange rate to derive a BTS value from USD value. That makes sense because it meant that people actually paying fees in bitUSD would pay the correct amount, and BTS is slightly cheaper.
However, due to global settlement, the CER is not at GS price.
I fixed that and expect to revert back (the script) when bitUSD is out of GS again
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2018, 12:37:32 pm »
Ok...will update the relevant issue on github

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1462
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2018, 01:05:46 pm »
IMO transfer and asset_issue are much too expensive, especially in relation to the market operations. The former are extremely cheap on the network, the latter extremely heavy.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2018, 01:15:03 pm »
IMO transfer and asset_issue are much too expensive, especially in relation to the market operations. The former are extremely cheap on the network, the latter extremely heavy.

FWIW, I initially had the market operations more expensive but set them lower after community response.

Asset_issue is in direct correlation to the Transfer op.

You believe 3 cents (0.6 of a cent for LTM) for a transfer is too much?

Also, pricing is based primarily on competition/expectations and optype usage. I did not consider chain impact/computation cost (except for the per_kb fees).


Offline kennybll-accnt

Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2018, 01:48:36 pm »
One thing is the transfer and asset issuing costs. I believe RuDEX as well as CryptoBridge, not sure about others, issue their UIAs when someone deposits. Increasing the asset issuance, by that much, will cause some extra costs to those gateways, and possibly shutdown of certain coins. I don't know if that will happen. I hope blckchnd can enlighten us, not sure if he's on here. I get for the normal user, but we should also think about the gateways.
Bitshares witness: kennybll-accnt
Whaleshares witness: kennybll-witness

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 205
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 2.0
  • BitShares: steem-not
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2018, 04:56:33 am »
One thing is the transfer and asset issuing costs. I believe RuDEX as well as CryptoBridge, not sure about others, issue their UIAs when someone deposits. Increasing the asset issuance, by that much, will cause some extra costs to those gateways, and possibly shutdown of certain coins. I don't know if that will happen. I hope blckchnd can enlighten us, not sure if he's on here. I get for the normal user, but we should also think about the gateways.

Exactly point - where blockchain earns then ? If Rudex, OL or CB just click and issue bunch of UIA's they are charging for 1 and 2 percent market fees and blockchain earns what ? 1/10th of a cent ? Self-funded ? Long-lasting ? My ass.

0.03 or 0.05 USD to be paid once you issue amount of assets is not that much. For the fact, gateways can update their current scripts and replace part where deposit issues asset, and instead issue assets to coldstorage wallet on BTS and use simple transfer on each deposit received.

Please keep in mind that reserve pool (blockchain) currently earns nothing, while others do. As BitShares is core of all those businesses - its not healthy position for BitShares to continue operating at current fees. End of discussion.

@clockwork - full support!
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org through Consensus
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline Customminer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
  • Bitshares FTW!
    • View Profile
  • GitHub: grctest
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2018, 11:25:00 am »
Looks good, no need to slowly adjust to these fee levels that some have called for, a swift update to BTS internal profitability would do nicely 👌

Offline Victor118

Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2018, 01:36:07 pm »
One thing is the transfer and asset issuing costs. I believe RuDEX as well as CryptoBridge, not sure about others, issue their UIAs when someone deposits. Increasing the asset issuance, by that much, will cause some extra costs to those gateways, and possibly shutdown of certain coins. I don't know if that will happen. I hope blckchnd can enlighten us, not sure if he's on here. I get for the normal user, but we should also think about the gateways.

Exactly point - where blockchain earns then ? If Rudex, OL or CB just click and issue bunch of UIA's they are charging for 1 and 2 percent market fees and blockchain earns what ? 1/10th of a cent ? Self-funded ? Long-lasting ? My ass.

0.03 or 0.05 USD to be paid once you issue amount of assets is not that much. For the fact, gateways can update their current scripts and replace part where deposit issues asset, and instead issue assets to coldstorage wallet on BTS and use simple transfer on each deposit received.

Please keep in mind that reserve pool (blockchain) currently earns nothing, while others do. As BitShares is core of all those businesses - its not healthy position for BitShares to continue operating at current fees. End of discussion.

@clockwork - full support!

+1

Online blockchained

Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2018, 04:56:01 pm »
One thing is the transfer and asset issuing costs. I believe RuDEX as well as CryptoBridge, not sure about others, issue their UIAs when someone deposits. Increasing the asset issuance, by that much, will cause some extra costs to those gateways, and possibly shutdown of certain coins. I don't know if that will happen. I hope blckchnd can enlighten us, not sure if he's on here. I get for the normal user, but we should also think about the gateways.

Exactly point - where blockchain earns then ? If Rudex, OL or CB just click and issue bunch of UIA's they are charging for 1 and 2 percent market fees and blockchain earns what ? 1/10th of a cent ? Self-funded ? Long-lasting ? My ass.


Rudex has mostly 0% trading fees.

But yes we will change our fees policy, in the case of a rise
and we will definitely put fees on all coins after that
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 05:52:57 pm by blockchained »

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 205
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 2.0
  • BitShares: steem-not
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2018, 11:56:22 am »
My bad on homework done and btw - Very nice :) Point was: most 3rd parties are earning while blockchain doesn't. Fees are currently super low.
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org through Consensus
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.