BSIP 86: Share market fees to the network #194
This BSIP proposes a protocol change: when every trade happens, if there are
The network needs more tools to generate income to support its development.
A major activity in the network is trading assets. The asset owners make
The cut of market fees can go to committee-account's vesting balances.
A time will need to be scheduled for applying the change. In this document,
New global parameter
Add a new global parameter
When processing market fees
After the protocol upgrade, when splitting a non-zero market fee, firstly
When checking asset authorities
After the protocol upgrade, when checking authorities (E.G. white-lists) of an
This BSIP adds a tool for the committee to impose a tax on market trading
This document is placed in the public domain.
In my understanding, the purpose of market fees is to reward asset issuers for their work (e. g. gateway providers, or businesses built around PMs).
In contrast to this, operation fees (limit_order_create/cancel in particular) reward the network for performing its work. Network effort is independent from the size of an order and therefore fixes.
IMO the existing separation of market/operation fees matches the separation of roles perfectly. Changing this might damage existing businesses. I think this is a bad idea.
(Note that the network can profit from market fees by setting them on committee-owned tokens.)
I can understand that @bitcrab as owner of an exchange running on top of BitShares, he doesn't want to reduce income of his own exchange. But I don't understand where @pmconrad stands. Besides of the near-zero operation fees, the network can always earn more income to support funding for more workers which would add more value.
The network does earn some market fees for the network via committee-owned assets at this moment, but it doesn't mean the income is sufficient nor forever.
I suggested some numbers, but I am not convinced this is the right thing.
DEX service is not free, if want more better service, it need more reasonable income to support.
I agree with the sentiment, if the expectation is met that the current network fee is sufficient to support the network or gateways contribute back to the community. History shows that most gateways are not interested in that, such that I agree that imposing a tax on their profits seems reasonable. This also goes hand in hand with the current voters sentiment that the network needs to fund its own development more outside of worker proposals.
Either way, having the option to impose a percent network fee on the market fees sounds reasonable to me, even if it blurs the distinction Peter has laid out. That parameter could still be 0. This would be another motivation for businesses building ontop of BitShares to get involved in the parameter governance process.
It might also be sufficient to adjust the fee schedule and network percent though. Either or should happen as its the voters expressed opinion at the moment IMO.
@ryanRfox please assign a number to this. Thanks.
BTW quote from an old post in forum:
IMO that would be a stupid thing. We have per-asset configurable fees, which means every issuer can configure their assets as they wish. Applying a global fee would remove the option to not set a fee.
It's a strategic decision
a) Charge a network market fee cut, iff the asset owner is having a market fee which indicates for-profit use
b) Charge a network market fee globally, independent what the asset owner decides.
Explain and let voters decide?
I now support this BSIP, as a gateway operator I feel it is OK to be taxed 5%-10% of the market fee.
however I am considering whether a global
as under the marketing maker contest scenario, charging tax from gateway asset market fees will make it more reasonable for system to fund the contest, and it seems even more funny if system can demand a higher percent for the assets which are included in the contest funded by system?
I don't think it's necessary. At the end, we want to make it more interesting for traders to participate. An asset participating in the market making contest could be required to have market fee sharing enabled to a certain percentage.
The concern over what the maximum fee cannot be made on any sort of principle. Once the principle of fee sharing is accepted it is all arbitrary. But the lower the better for the asset issuer.
But every asset issuer in the future will be nervous and reluctant about introducing a new asset because even if the maximum fee is set at, for example, 25%, that asset issuer will remember this BSIP as a warning sign: "Sure, you created an asset where the maximum fee was set at 25%, but let's not kid ourselves. Someone else may come along and introduce a new BSIP which changes the maximum value to 50%. Then 75%." There can be no trust in the platform if core token holders will come along and change the rules under which they originally created the asset.
The same concern will be held by today's asset issuers. If core token holders can change the terms of the platform without the consent of the asset issuer, this is not any sort of agreement. This is a platform that can change at any moment.
Therefore, my personal non-technical recommendation is that this BSIP should not apply to existing assets without the consent of each asset issuer. How this can be achieved depends on whether the asset exists before or after this BSIP takes effect.
Existing asset issuers must either opt-in or have the ability to opt-out of the effects of this BSIP. Opt-in could be accomplished either by a complete agreement, or with a partial agreement such as, "We agree to pay 60% of the fee sharing %".
Future assets issuers agree to sharing fees at a maximum value of X% that is defined in this BSIP. If any later BSIP is introduced to increase X% then the asset issuer will have the option to opt-in or opt-out as described above for existing assets.
I believe that this is the only fair way to treat asset issuers.
I don't think this is a good idea.
for example, we have several gateways that have ****.BTC, do you think it's good that OPEN.BTC completely opt in however GDEX.BTC can select to opt out?
BTS can change at any time, if there is strong enough consensus, I don't think this is a problem.
tax is compulsory, no government can work without tax. BTS is a DAC, it need to charge enough fees for providing public service.