This is a way in which users who just trade can benefit from holding BSQ that gains value over time, and it's easy to explain.

I agree on doing the monthly adjustments. That was the original intent and I think we didn't do it the last few months after experimenting with lowering fees to see if it would drive trading. I haven't done a study on that but my feeling is that it didn't work and that the trading is pretty much uncorrelated to our fees as long as they're kept at a reasonable level.

I do think we should keep the BSQ fee at 50% of the BTC fee though since that's what we have been promoting as the Bisq fees. That is 0.1% maker fee and 0.3% taker fee when paid in BSQ.

@sqrrm Yeah, I would love to see what the percentage of trades done with BSQ versus BTC is on, for example, a weekly basis.

To all:
Anecdotally, I am seeing quite a few more small BSQ buys (20-100 BSQs) at these new much lower BSQ prices, which I interpret as the direct incentive being responded to. See image:

That's a nice discount on your trading for going through the trouble of buying BSQ from contributors.
To me, this (hopefully)temporary discount is a nice benefit for BISQ users and incentivizes people to buy BSQs both for near-term trades and maybe for some future trades as this BSQ weakness may not last forever. A simple case of more demand eating up more contributor BSQ, IMO.

Can't this be more... dynamic? Can't the BSQ maker/taker fee be automatically updated in function of the BTC/BSQ price average? And only have the percentage updated when needed through proposals?

@huey735 The problem is that for it to be dynamic you need a distributed source of BTC/BSQ price. This might not be impossible since BSQ is colored BTC, but that would only work after we have atomic swaps for the BTC/BSQ trading. That's something we could probably do reasonably easy and perhaps it should be prioritized to get more people to use BSQ.

With that price data it would be possible to get an on chain price feed for BSQ and thus it would be possible to create a 30 day average. Problem is that it would be very easy to paint the tape for this feed, just do some big self trades and suddenly the BSQ price is 10 times the market value, and your fee is a 10th of what it should be.

Agree with @sqrrm to keep BSQ fees at 50% compared to BTC. It keeps the discount simple, easy to understand. Obviously when BSQ rises I would expect fees to be reduced to keep that 50% discount also.

I'm OK with monthly adjustments. Making it more dynamic is not worth it. Most people don't even bother to check Bitcoin mempool congestion and fees before doing a tx... are they going to bother checking BSQ rates every day?

I notice the proposals to change the parameter in the DAO are already made. They're targeting 60% of BTC fees which I disagree with, but they're fairly close to 50% at the current 30 day average, which is the previously discussed and agreed on discount. I might vote yes on them.

To me it seems counter productive to raise the BSQ fee too much as it's just easier for traders to pay the fee in BTC, adding to the administrative tasks of the burning man and also adding risk for the DAO.

@m52go It would be good to advertise this to users well ahead of time to avoid that sudden jump that took some by surprise last time we doubled the fees.

yeah, when it was proposed earlier this cycle, the market value of BSQ was well below 5000 sats, and now it's around 7000-8000 sats, It definitely doesn't make sense to me to double the BSQ fee rate. I would propose to submit a less aggressive fee change and let the major BSQ holders decide which route they prefer..

@sqrrm alright, how about we amend this proposal to be 60% for the next cycle, and 50% after that

@wiz that would be good. Although I think @ifarnung has a point in doing more moderate changes to the fees. They need to increase of course but we won't balance the budget this cycle anyway so I think focus should be on minimizing the impact on users. Most won't notice it, but it seems unnecessary to alienate those that do. Perhaps just raising them by 50% this cycle would be better, then for the next cycle the increase would be much less than 50% (barring major movements in price). Much more palatable than a >100% increase.

Last time a sudden fee price increase occurred, trading volume was not very affected, but we had very negative media reactions.
I agree with this proposal but changes should be as smooth as possible.

They need to increase of course but we won't balance the budget this cycle anyway

Actually from what I understand, Bisq was actually profitable last month after some burning man net calculations - @m52go did you figure out our net PnL last cycle?

Cycle 9:

    UNVERIFIED: { count: 0, feeSum: 0 },
    INVALID: { count: 0, feeSum: 0 },
    GENESIS: { count: 0, feeSum: 0 },
    TRANSFER_BSQ: { count: 165, feeSum: 0 },
    PAY_TRADE_FEE: { count: 2058, feeSum: 6842.3600000000815 },
    PROPOSAL: { count: 21, feeSum: 42 },
    COMPENSATION_REQUEST: { count: 23, feeSum: 46 },
    REIMBURSEMENT_REQUEST: { count: 0, feeSum: 0 },
    BLIND_VOTE: { count: 25, feeSum: 50 },
    VOTE_REVEAL: { count: 24, feeSum: 0 },
    LOCKUP: { count: 1, feeSum: 0 },
    UNLOCK: { count: 1, feeSum: 0 },
    ASSET_LISTING_FEE: { count: 2, feeSum: 395 },
    PROOF_OF_BURN: { count: 7, feeSum: 135210 },
    TOTAL: { count: 2327, feeSum: 142585.36000000156 }

Total burned: 142 585
Total issued: 106 536

Supply effect: -36 049

@m52go thanks for the PnL numbers, is there any easy way to see this on the website somewhere? I just want to see PnL for every cycle exactly like you said above "supply effect"

Short answer: not yet, but I've been automating the process of getting these numbers recently and would like to replace the stats page altogether with more meaningful stats like these soon. This would also remove the need to manually report numbers in blog posts, which is annoying and prone to errors.

@wiz that would be good. Although I think @ifarnung has a point in doing more moderate changes to the fees. They need to increase of course but we won't balance the budget this cycle anyway so I think focus should be on minimizing the impact on users. Most won't notice it, but it seems unnecessary to alienate those that do. Perhaps just raising them by 50% this cycle would be better, then for the next cycle the increase would be much less than 50% (barring major movements in price). Much more palatable than a >100% increase.

As based on the current BSQ price we have reached already a 56% discount for using BSQ I'll reject the parameter change for this cycle, which would decrease the BSQ discount to 11% otherwise.

This proposal is not about current price (8699 BSQ/BTC), but 30 day average (5630 BSQ/BTC), which is a great discount.

Rejecting this proposal because of current price is focusing on short term. Fees and BSQ market is balanced and it doesn't matter if for some time BSQ is not very attractive to pay fees and BTC is relatively more used. If BSQ discount is too low, demand will be reduced, and thus current BSQ price, which means more attractive BSQ discounts.

There's 2 different proposals to be discussed here, and only one of them it's to be voted at the DAO. The one not being voted is using 30 day average for BSQ trading fee, and the one being voted at the DAO is a parameter change. We've been using 90 day average to claim compensation requests and it's working quite well. If you agree on using 30 day average, rejecting the current change parameter because it would make BSQ fees too high in the short term looks like cheating at solitaire to me.

I have also decided to vote against. Primarily due to the bad press we get by raising fees by 100%. I also think it will make the fee discount for using BSQ over the coming month too low, there need to be a proper discount compared to using BTC for paying fees in my opinion.

@MwithM Using the 30 day average would put the BSQ fee ~13% higher than target whereas using the 90 day average would be ~36% above target fee. Using last trade price would put it at 75% over target, at the time of writing this comment.

Okay so it seems the DAO parameter changes will be rejected for this cycle, but I'll make another proposal next cycle using the 60% adjustment as we discussed.

And maybe a 20 or 30% fiat increase limit for each cycle, so it's easier to implement without disturbing traders that much.