Charge a fee to list assets #35
Comments
|
Here a quick input from my side:
All those points are more brainstorming points and nothing is decided yet. But current state is not satisfying, so some action is required.... |
|
I support the general direction of at least requiring that the coins getting listed pay something. At a minimum for the effort it requires from devs in terms of reviews and such. That could typically be a good starting point to see what more could be done in the future, but to keep it simple and low effort to begin with better just have a very simple requirement. @ManfredKarrer some of those points are great but as you say, let's not make it too complicated and waste effort on it until we start with a simple requirement of covering costs. |
ghost
mentioned this issue
|
If you charged any significant listing fee, you'd almost stop getting new coin listing requests due to how difficult it is for most people to trade a buried alt-coin on Bisq compared to centralized exchanges. At the moment most of your users are really good with computers and/or privacy oriented. It is doubtful that devs list here just for the heck of it. They would most likely let their community know when they get listed at Bisq, thus letting new people know about Bisq too. As things are, any new altcoin listings get buried in the app anyway, causing very little nuisance to people who aren't interested in it and the user needs to specifically add it to the list of displayed crypto currencies. You could require that a link to Bisq is displayed prominently on the project's website and possible other social channels. Also if Bisq gets listed at the Markets section of a coin in sites like coinmarketcap, that drives some extra traffic to Bisq. |
|
Many altcoiners listing at Bisq never used Bisq as it is visible from some of their questions or comments (they often think we integrate their wallets and update us about forks or whatever, so they are not aware that the altcoin transfer is out of system in Bisq). So if even those who ask for the listing and doing the PR often don't even read about how Bisq works, beside that they never do any trade, I doubt that we get any community support from them in most cases. The synergies are very limited and can also be negative as many of the coins have not a solid reputation to say the least, thus bringing Bisq in the relation to them will add probably more negative value then positive. |
|
One of the many beauties of Bisq is that it has a beat on the free market ground like no one else. Charging a fee to list won't solve the problem....I'd imagine it would only spawn another set of greater problems. As the great philosopher Notorious B.I.G, said, "more money, more problems." Its understandable to look first to fees/money for the solution. I suppose its all about what your end goal is. If its only to be a top 20 Coinmarketcap fill up station, then that...sounds perfect. ( It sounds like to me that the problem is more a lack of volume on the Bisq platform. Notice that it is a platform wide issue. Not just the unpopular altcoins. I agree it can be a nuisance to see listed coins that have not even a single sell order...much less a buy. So...one quick & easy vetting sweep for unknown altcoins applying to Bisq would be:Are they listed on another Centralized exchange?If they are, you can forget about traders choosing inconvenience over convenience. Even if it means holding their own keys and protecting their wealth like Bisq enthusiasts understand. Unless its users already understand and practice these principles. For LESSER KNOWN altcoins, those based from Monero/CryptoNote would have a higher probability of its users already understanding this - and thus valuing BISQ for its strengths. Just sayin. The other thing I would say for new altcoins would be remove them quicker. Place higher & tighter trade volume requirements on them. Rather than "more than none" - set a minimum. Give em 30-40 days to hit it, if not pull the plug, and move on. Stay fresh. There are WAY too many smart people behind and using BISQ to just think charging a fee will solve this issue. And I do hope BISQ continues to find intelligent solutions to the issues that arise. |
|
I am for the proposal except where noted below and have reacted to the description accordingly. There are only two reactions there so far. Please add yours if you haven't. Specifically, I would like to see the following minimal set of changes happen first. I believe nothing more complicated than this is necessary for a start, and we don't need a 'second proposal' to 'get into technical details'.
Note that I differ from the concerns of the proposal as written in the description above, in that for me, this has nothing to do with getting more engagement from asset promoters. I see plenty of promotion every day with asset teams mentioning Bisq on Twitter to let everyone in their circle know their asset is now listed. There is plenty of promotion going on out there, and even if there weren't, it wouldn't be a problem that needs fixing from my perspective. Bisq maintains a policy that anyone can list a coin if you follow certain instructions. What you do with that listing is on you afterward. Note also that we (Bisq) do not promote the assets we list other than mentioning them in release notes, and again, I wouldn't want to do anything more than this. As Manfred mentioned above, every asset we list is reputational damage waiting to happen. That's why we maintain total neutrality and don't 'promote' in any way. We officially have no interest in one coin over another. An notable exception to this is when a given asset is doing a lot of volume on the exchange. We do often mention this (and it's almost always / only XMR), because it is of broad interest to users, always gets positive engagement and is unlikely to incur the kind of reputational damage I'm talking about. In the interest of executing this change quickly to align with the v0.7.2 release, please weigh in as to whether you're aligned with the minimal set of changes proposed above, and please consider volunteering to carry out the changes yourself. Thank you. (note: I believe @ManfredKarrer will need to do the purging step himself in any case). |
|
@BTC2CoreDevs wrote:
That's the idea. Charging a nominal fee (1 BTC is nothing compared to what centralized exchanges charge) is fundamentally an anti-spam measure to keep low-value / unserious assets out. If we keep getting dozens of time-wasting asset listing requests after this, we would likely raise the fee. The asset projects out there that are really serious will blow past a 1 BTC, 2 or 10 BTC fee if they think it's worth having a presence on Bisq. I'm interested in deterring those asset projects who are simply taking advantage of Bisq and Bisq dev time as cost-free resources. It's our job to arrange incentives correctly to avoid this sort of thing, and charging nothing for asset listing has clearly not been the correct arrangement. Thus time for a change. |
|
I like the rule of delisting if volume is not met. Together with some listing fee it would encourage asset team to provide liquidity. |
|
In answer to @cbeams.
Have we fully taken the possible legal implications in consideration ? (If yes, fine).
I submitted this proposal on august 14th, after a 5 lines discussion with Manfred on slack on august 11th. I fully agree that there is a need to change the actual listing fee policy, but imo we should take the time necessary for that. |
|
I am absolutely not in favor of listing fees. These are tactics of centralized platforms. |
|
I would say assets not producing a trading volume on Bisq after X amount of time be candidates for a listing fee. It would seem reasonable to factor in trading volume from other markets before delisting an asset on Bisq too. I think the trading volume is greatly influenced by the quality of the the offers being made. There were some altcoins I wanted to trade for on Bisq but the offers were so ridicious there was no way I was going to take the offer. |
Introducing a listing fee is something Manfred and Christoph and I discussed and basically agreed on a week or two ago. It's helpful that you added this proposal, but we planned to do it in any case. @ManfredKarrer, I leave it to you whether 0.7.2 is too tight a timeline. Again, it's going to be you doing the purging of untraded coins, so it's mostly your time here.
The worst case scenario is that existing PRs don't get listed until v0.7.3. We have dozens of requests coming in now, and we want to do something about this as soon as possible.
I'm sure it would, but it's also all more work for us to merge them, add them to release notes, etc.
The major stakeholders are agreed on this change. I understand this seems abrupt, but there's not a lot of sense in waiting otherwise, unless it's just too much a hassle for us to get this in for 0.7.2.
One-time fee. Has to be repaid if you get de-listed due to inactivity.
Acknowledged. No change from my side on this.
Probably a good idea to to use a different address, @ManfredKarrer I leave that to you. On the legal front, none of us are lawyers, and we're not going to hire any for this decision. It's just a requirement for getting listed. Follow the instructions to create a correct PR, list your block explorer, send 1 BTC to this address. If we're paranoid about it, then don't ever spend the bitcoin until somebody talks to a lawyer. None of us plan to spend it on anything any time soon anyway. This is just to reduce spam and workload.
Again, I think this will be on Manfred. He's the one that's purged un-traded assets before, probably makes the most sense to do it again.
There are no other means, e.g. fiat bank account.
Yeah, again, it's all a bit of a coincidence. We had discussed this at some length more than a week before, and debated whether to do a proposal at all because we were already pretty clear about it. @ManfredKarrer, with all the above said, please just nix this if you don't want to do it for v0.7.2. I'm in "just get it done mode", but it's mostly an ask on your time to actually execute it. If we wait, we wait, and that's fine with me too. |
|
Ok. Thanks for the above precisions. I did some rapid counting in the #analytics slack channel. Abrupt moves have sometimes unintended consequences. |
|
https://deadcoins.com/ lists ~900 deceased altcoins. |
|
If I may, I would like to weigh in on only the portion of this debate that affects Blur Network and the other currently proposed PRs that are in Limbo, at present
This seems to very partial to Conceal $CCX. While somewhat understandable due to the thorough nature of their PR... to leave approved ones "Open" and then charge 1 BTC, does seem very odd. I would ask, in fairness, if a 1 BTC fee is to be applied retroactively... That those parties required to pay the fee, should include all assets who have submitted PRs since the last release 0.7.1. The specification of "open PRs" is troublesome. Especially if one looks at the fact that the only non-paying party, in the last 1.5 months, would include CCX. How would this apply to BLUR, as an asset? A simple unwillingness to merge the final PR, when 2/3 PRs have been merged for listing of BLUR (see: bisq-network/bisq/pull/1617 and bisq-network/bisq-core/pull/142) seems a poor reason to be required to pay such a fee. @ManfredKarrer noted that conventions were followed, and the only PR remaining is bisq-network/bisq-assets/pull/58. Such practices will cause many projects, Blur included, to wonder why there is a single man acting as the gatekeeper on a Decentralized Exchange... that is now charging a 1 BTC fee in a way that so clearly favors a single party. |
|
@blur-network There is not a single gatekeeper that's why we discuss it here, but fact is that most work is done by a relative small group of people and following our principle of meritocracy they have a higher weight in making decisions. Anyone welcome to join the forces. Lots of work waiting for helping hands... Talk is easy, work is hard... I understand that your case might require extra treatment if we have already merged the other 2 PRs. @cbeams People have to understand that relations are not one sided and if they are they should not be surprised if those relations are considered worthless and get terminated. It was always a part in the initial listing policy that synergistic effects should be triggered, so that the coins bring new users and volume as well to spread the word about Bisq. We did not had time to verify that assumptions due lack of time so we only applied a cleaning once at the latest big update at v0.5 where not traded coins got removed. But to look back of 2 years experience I think it is valid to say that > 90% of the altcoins did never match our initial listing criteria. To not add extra work load to @cbeams as maintainer, I would suggest we just make a freeze until we have a clear decision. So no reviews from @blabno and merges (exceptions might happen if they are well reasoned). |
|
Please don't misunderstand my tone... I do genuinely feel as though all of your maintainers are doing something with Bisq that is very unique and impressive. I really appreciate the work that has been put into what I think is something of a revolutionary idea. Your documentation is second-to-none in the exchange space, in particular. I remain thoroughly impressed with the ability of your group to work together with structure and efficient discussion. That said, the point of my post was not to throw a dagger -- please allow me to apologize if it came off a bit too abrasively. I do understand the meritocracy inherent in these things, and I'm in no position to argue with your decisions, ultimately. That is why I chose to speak to only the area that affects BLUR, directly. I do not feel as though I am in a place to speak elsewhere. First, to answer your questions @ManfredKarrer :
BLUR is currently being traded only on MapleChange (CCX is also listed here), apart from the PRs to Bisq. To that point, our Discord server has had open dialogues about Bisq's proposed changes from this thread, the platform in general, and members of our community have been educating others on how to use Bisq. While our community is only about 2 months old ... it is growing quickly, and actively seeking to educate others. All while doing our best to lower the barriers to entry in the Crypto space for both mining and trading. Blur Network runs on a dynamic algorithm called Cryptonight-Adaptive, created by the NERVA Project. The algo changes every block, with the goal of making GPUs/ASICs too resource-intensive to be worthwhile. BLUR is CPU-mined, with each miner hashing on a full node. Mining rigs won't work on our network, nor traditional stratified pool mining software, without a fair amount of modifications. The goal is to enable anyone with a laptop or PC to generate a significant ability to mine blocks ... not just high-end or specialized hardware owners. I believe our mission is very much in line with Bisq's. We are aiming to be accessible, but require a rudimentary amount of technical knowledge. To return to my initial purpose in joining this discussion: Being that the same conventions were followed as those merged into master, for CCX listing... I do not see the fairness in a retroactive fee for BLUR. We have done our best to make the review easy for your maintainers. Reissued the changes after the most recent commit (CCX listing) as per @cbeams request in another thread (though I can't recall where to find it) regarding the issue of spending too much time reviewing coins. It was mentioned as necessary for developers to ensure that the only piece of the workload to be completed, is the merge by Bisq maintainers. Otherwise, the agreement was to ignore the requests. I do recognize that your plates are very full -- that is why we have followed instructions, as precisely as possible. |
|
@blur-network Thanks for your response. |
|
@ManfredKarrer Sure thing. Appreciate you being genuinely interested in what sets us apart. No offence taken at that question, when there are simply so many coins out there. That solution mentioned above, or a similarly fair one, would be something that Blur Network would support with reciprocity. Thanks again. |
|
@m52go Maybe we should reference that discussion to the "how to list an asset" doc? |
|
@ManfredKarrer are you suggesting we reference this discussion here? Perhaps replace this line...
...with something to the effect of "A fee structure for new listings is in the process of being determined. See bisq-network/proposals#35 for details"? |
|
Instead of hard-coding the coin listings in the source code, would there maybe be a way to evolve Bisq into a distributed protocol where users register their trading pair on the network themselves? That way it would save you guys time having to merge pull requests, and would scale infinitely. I would imagine it like a distributed database (DHT, blockchain, ...) where people associate an ID with the metadata for trading their crypto token and publish it in the network. To trade, other users can do a distributed search to fetch the metadata and do trades with other users. The ID would be freed and removed from the database when there have been no active orders (or trades) for a certain period of time. Coin developers would have to take care for themselves that the associated data is correct and functional, and provide the correct market ID to their users. A listing fee comes with serious problems for small community projects like the one I am active in, called Wisp. We selected Bisq as our only exchange to be listed on in the future, because it is the only exchange that matches with our vision of decentralization and trustlessness. We are not listed on any other exchange, and we have hardly the funds for paying our own developers, let alone having one "spare" BTC to spend on a Bisq listing. We are all working on it in our spare time. Without being listed on any exchange, there is no way to attract users into the project and build up volume over a period of months. Such a project depends on being able to join an open network to trade with other users, which I think is what Bisq was originally about. If Bisq was to introduce development fees, I am sure it would be cloned on the long term to build a second network without fees, because some projects simply depend on this possibility. |
|
It seems that a majority of weighted stakeholders voted in favor of changing the listing fee policy. |
|
Since nobody added comment to the proposal, I now close it as advertized in my previous post. edit : This closing conformes to : bisq-network/roles#30 (comment). Indeed it's just a step which is closed. |
|
In order to pursue, could please the proposal be labelled (not in my attributes I think). Thanks. |
|
I don’t understand. I don’t think we need a dedicated label for these two proposals to be linked with one another if that’s what you mean. Just paste a link on either issue.
… On Sep 7, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Harry MacFinned ***@***.***> wrote:
In order to pursue, could please the proposal be labelled (not in my attributes I think). Thanks.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
I have seen that quite all closed proposals have a label: |
|
I see. My preference would be to continue this proposal here in one place, as opposed to creating a second issue as it’s not clear to me that there is a consensus on this proposal and that in any case the particulars of how a listing fee would be implemented are inseparable from merely agreeing that it should be done. Is there some strong reason to close this this and create a second?
… On Sep 7, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Harry MacFinned ***@***.***> wrote:
I have seen that quite all closed proposals have a label:
approved, rejected, stalled, moved, invalid, etc.
So I presumed it's something necessary to pursue (?).
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
1/ My understanding is that there is a weighted majority of stakeholders (>300.000 BSQ) who agree that a change must be done. Which was the basic point of the proposal. 2/ The proposal was open for 20 days, so everybody willing to participate could do it. 3/ This thread has already 30 comments and 14 participants. Which is already the max reached by a proposal, and 2 or 3 times the average number of comments than for other proposals. 1/+2/+3/ = strong reason to close. imo it is enough for this basic step. I'm not sure it's mandatory to have a second proposal. My personal feeling is the subject is a bit delicate, and I would proceed with small steps. And if the steps are really small, maybe simple PRs could do the job (better than proposal which are not meant for small things : https://docs.bisq.network/proposals.html) For my part, I'll not add a proposal in the proposal, I feel the present discussion is long enough and it would not help to make things understandable. However, of course, if you @cbeams want to continue in accordance with your will, please of course, just do it. You're co-founder. For me, it's 100% ok so. |
|
We already spent too much time and energy on that area. Lets keep that topic on hold for the moment and delay a decision when we get closer to the DAO launch. To use the DAo for fee/bond is probably the preferred way anyway and we need to find a solution which does not cause lots of effort. Atm there are tons of other important things we need to focus on like the redesign/rebranding, the Java 10 upgrade and the DAO testnet release. |
|
In any case, please know that, from my side, I did continue to work on the question and I have (rather simple) ideas/proposal which I can submit when needed. |
|
I just run the trade statistic with the altcoins to see how many are never traded: Never traded Crypto currencies (only coins added until 0.7.0 since that we added about 40 more, probably most of them also have been never traded): All traded Fiat currencies: All traded Crypto currencies: |
|
I have tested it locally if a coin was added in a altcoin payment account and the coin gets removed from the Assets resource file it does not cause any issues. The user who has the account can still create an offer but probably nobody would take it. Also the currency list in preferences does not get screwed up if we remove a coin. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@ManfredKarrer and I met via voice on this proposal recently, and agreed that we should revert to the prior status quo of accepting correct asset listing PRs without any fee. Here's the rationale:
Thus we come full circle, back to the status quo before this proposal was first floated. We will merge all already-ACKed PRs before the next Bisq release, and we'll work through the current backlog of asset listing PRs as promptly as we can. (@blabno, it'll be most appreciated if you pick back up this effort as you have time). I'll leave this proposal re-opened for a while to field any additional questions or clarifications or objections. Thanks, everyone for the effort and feedback you put into this proposal. It's a bit frustrating to have spilled so much ink and spent so much effort on it just to have it all be a no-op, but in the end I'm very glad we worked through this and decided on non-action rather than taking an action we very well may have regretted. |
cbeams
changed the title
|
I've changed the title of this proposal from "Listing fee policy" to "Charge a fee to list assets" to phrase it the language of a specific proposal that can be approved or rejected. I've also changed my vote from 👍to 👎to reflect what I wrote in the comment immediately above. |
|
@cbeams I would personally suggest recommending projects to optionally donate some BTC back to Bisq, even if the listing becomes free :) |
|
I'm conflicted but @cbeams argument of custody of funds does put me back to not taking a listing fee at this time. I'm still not sure about continue spending time on listing new ones at this point. I have changed my vote on this proposal so by default nothing changes. I agree that it has been good to let the issue get some air and it will surely resurface as soon as BSQ is online. |
This reverts commit ad2a70f per bisq-network/proposals#35 (comment).
|
I would like to congratulate the Bisq team for re-open the thread and allowing everybody to participate in this discussion. Personally I have nothing against the possibility of paying fees to get listed if there is consensus' quorum supporting it. I just don't consider fair halting all listings from previous applicants with such a short notice. It feels bad to be hold on uncertain, like in a limbo. A few projects invested time and effort to be complaint with all the necessary listing requirements and had their commits merged before all this controversy. Those coins should be listed for free. In my opinion, before start charging any fees, it would be better to clarify all the new listing terms and do a public announcement with at least a few weeks in advance. I am sure this community will overcome this tough times and succeed. Thank you very much. |
|
I close that proposal as it did not find consensus. Thanks for all who participated in the process! |
|
Bravo, Bisq. |
|
Appreciate this proposal has now been closed, but I wanted to add my 2 cents worth. First of all, I was a big fan of the Bisq project prior to reading this proposal, and I’m a even bigger fan now! Bisq really exemplifies how all decentralized open source communities should behave and interact. As someone who is currently looking to list on Bisq, I’m not in favour of fees. That said, given the number of coins that get listed which are subsequently never traded, I believe Bisq needs to do something to stop or at least minimize this from occurring. Imo, Bisq like a large number of exchanges (and a larger number of crypto projects) suffers the dreaded low liquidity curse. Liquidity is the term used to describe the degree to which an asset, such as a cryptocurrency, can be quickly bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price. Rather than charging a ‘listing fee’ per say, a similar much fairer approach, would require coin developers to provide a minimum amount of starting BTC liquidity (or a minimum value of BTC buy orders) to list. Technically speaking, this can’t be considered a fee and potentially mitigates the legal issues outlined above (I’m no lawyer so who knows, if it does)! Increasing liquidity minimizes negative price volatility, which minimizes investor risk. The project I work on (https://ittrium.io), understands the importance of improving liquidity, and therefore, we’d be happy to pay BTC to improve Ittrium’s liquidity. In fact, that’s exactly our strategy. I acknowledge, there is nothing stopping the coin developers from simply selling, to get their BTC back, if they did however, at least it would increase Bisq’s trading volume. |
ghost
mentioned this issue
This proposal writing was suggested by @ManfredKarrer after a short exchange on slack.
Proposal for listing fee policy - step 1 (general)
Listing fee policy is imo important for Bisq.
Up to now, free listing has been the rule, see https://docs.bisq.network/exchange/howto/list-asset.html
Bisq has more than 130 altcoins listed (https://bisq.network/faq/#altcoins), which costs Bisq BSQ, dev time, promotion time (and reputation).
(Actually, Bisq does promotion for altcoins ... while altcoins do quite few promotion for Bisq).
If we look at the statistics on several months (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o-I5fAx7DJRVqYjW8fPbo0ztlGIhIZ1EM2iLc5aEHnA/edit#gid=1000435171) there are less than 10 altcoins having effective trades.
And ~80 altcoins having day after day simply absolutely no offers at all.
Not only does this lead nowhere, but it doesn't help conveying the image of a dynamic market place.
(For a (too) big part of the listing, it looks more like a kind of an altcoin cemetery. Imo it has a negative reputation effect.)
Considering this situation, this proposal has as object to change the current listing fee policy.
The proposal as a whole, if we accept the proposed directions, will need to go into technical details.
However, I don't want to mix general direction with technical details and numbers, so I proceed here with a first simple an general proposal.
If there is no consensus for the general direction, no need to propose technical details.
So here are the first suggestions :
1/ I suggest that Bisq continues to apply a "no politics" rule for listing altcoins.
Listing/unlisting should be only a matter of numbers.
This means also that the same rule should apply for all altcoins.
2/ End free listing :
By asking nothing in order to be listed, we encourage numerous altcoins communities to just do the listing job ... and absolutely nothing after this point.
Listing process ended, there is no incitative for the altcoin promoter to do anything on Bisq.
By asking some fees, maybe even very small, we could stop this "list me and see me never again" attitude.
Asking some fees should help the concerned altcoin community to think about doing something on Bisq in order to help to generate trades.
And this will be positive for everybody.
Listing may still continue to be free for a limited time, under certain conditions.
But free listing forever policy will end.
If there is consensus about those simple general lines, I can deepen things in a next proposal.
The goal being however to have a proposal having in mind to do things as smoothly as possible and avoid also massive and/or brutal unlisting.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: