Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Upgrade fee structure #61

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 5, 2022
Merged

Upgrade fee structure #61

merged 3 commits into from
Mar 5, 2022

Conversation

Reckless-Satoshi
Copy link
Collaborator

@Reckless-Satoshi Reckless-Satoshi commented Mar 3, 2022

This PR upgrades the fee structure. So far it was very basic: the seller locks a hold invoice for X, the buyer submit an invoice of 0.998*X. The overall fee for a trade is 0.2%.

This is functional, however the fee load is fully applied to the buyer (...well the market can accommodate it by shifting the equilibrium premium). However, we would prefer to use a proper fee structure to incentivize liquidity providers to use the platform.

So the fee structure changes from:

Maker Taker
Buyer 0.2% 0.2%
Seller 0.0% 0.0%

To:

Maker Taker
Buyer 0.025% 0.175%
Seller 0.025% 0.175%

The total trade fee remains the same (0.2%), but now we align the maker/taker incentives to better fit the platform's need of makers.

Why exactly that split between maker/taker? This split is taken from the predominant BTC p2p market (Bisq): https://bisq.wiki/Trading_fees . The fees on Bisq are: 0.1% maker fee and 0.7% taker fee. There seems to have been a lot of deliberation around this split for Bisq (makers pay a fraction of 0.125 of the total fees), so it makes for a very a good initial value for RoboSats.

It all boils down to a new hparam: MAKER_FEE_SPLIT=0.125 (It is implicit that TAKER_FEE_SPLIT = 1 - MAKER_FEE_SPLIT)

@Reckless-Satoshi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Everything works as expected. Already deployed in RoboSats mainnet.

For the future, one can think of also biasing the cost in the buyer-seller axis. As of now, buyer's routing fee is covered by the platform, while the seller's fee is not. In addition, there is an obvious imbalance between buyers and sellers.

@Reckless-Satoshi Reckless-Satoshi merged commit 9b9b4ea into main Mar 5, 2022
@Reckless-Satoshi Reckless-Satoshi added this to the v0.2.0 alpha milestone Mar 5, 2022
@Reckless-Satoshi Reckless-Satoshi deleted the upgrade-fee-structure branch July 19, 2022 18:25
@turizspace turizspace mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2023
1 task
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant