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

BSIP 27: OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds #188

Closed
vikramrajkumar opened this issue Jan 18, 2017 · 10 comments
Closed

BSIP 27: OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds #188

vikramrajkumar opened this issue Jan 18, 2017 · 10 comments

Comments

@vikramrajkumar
Copy link
Contributor

From @xeroc on March 4, 2016 20:13

Two points about the fee pool:

  • The fee pool of an asset can be drained by anyone that has a share in that asset by creating an order paying the fee in that asset and cancelling the order again. He gets refunded 90% in BTS not the asset.
  • When creating a new asset, the fee pool is prefunded by 50% of the fee. This fee is deducted from the basic member fee. Recently @rune has bought a 3-letter symbol (MKR) and payed quite a bit for it with the expectation of a 80% refund after 90 days! He won't get 80% after 90 days but only 40% because the fee pool funds have been deduced from the total amount! He could now drain the fee pool him self (which is cumbersome and time consuming) or we offer a way to collect all of them instantly.

This should really exist as there is no real reason (AFAIK) that should prevent the issuer of an asset to also full control funds in the fee pool.

I propose a new claim_pool_balance_operation that takes

  • the asset,
  • the amounts of BTS to claim, and
  • the account to credit

as arguments.

I consider this high priority to get this included in the next hard fork (if by any means possible)

Copied from original issue: cryptonomex/graphene#608

@vikramrajkumar
Copy link
Contributor Author

From @abitmore on March 4, 2016 20:55

Assume the core exchange rate of the asset is 1 asset = 1 CORE, assume there is X CORE in fee pool, the issuer can claim funds from fee pool easily with following steps as a work around, no matter how much CORE is in the fee pool:

  1. issue X assets to herself
  2. craft an limit_order_create_operation which will never be filled, set the fee field to X assets, sign & broadcast it
  3. cancel the order

I believe @xeroc can make a python script to batch these operations, no need to write C++ code.

@vikramrajkumar
Copy link
Contributor Author

From @xeroc on March 5, 2016 18:56

@abitmore
The approach you describe is exactly what I meant by "pool draining" in the OP.
I see it as a hacky solution that cannot be used if you have your asset traded already.

@vikramrajkumar
Copy link
Contributor Author

From @abitmore on March 7, 2016 13:40

@xeroc what did you mean "have your asset traded already"? IMO the issuer can withdraw from fee pool with that approach at any time, anyone else can do that as well if have enough issued assets.

@vikramrajkumar
Copy link
Contributor Author

From @abitmore on March 7, 2016 13:44

The approach I provided is just not too "cumbersome and time consuming" as you said in OP.

@jonnybitcoin
Copy link

jonnybitcoin commented Apr 16, 2017

i need help draining my fee pools. I tried method above, but I can't enter a custom fee in the GUI.

@pmconrad
Copy link
Contributor

Which asset, which account?

@xeroc
Copy link
Member

xeroc commented Apr 28, 2017

@pmconrad I managed to help @jonnybitcoin out ..
We can still need a distinct operation for the issuer to make it simpler

@pmconrad
Copy link
Contributor

It would be even more simple to halve the asset creation fee and leave the fee pool empty after creation.

@oxarbitrage oxarbitrage added this to the Hardfork - Operations changes milestone Aug 13, 2017
@abitmore abitmore modified the milestones: Hardfork - Operations and Authority related., Next Consensus Changing Release - 201803 Nov 28, 2017
@abitmore abitmore changed the title New OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds BSIP 27: OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds Nov 29, 2017
@abitmore
Copy link
Member

@abitmore
Copy link
Member

abitmore commented Mar 5, 2018

PR #572 merged, closing.

@abitmore abitmore closed this as completed Mar 5, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants