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

Jump to bottom

BSQ trading fee update for Cycle 35 #374

Closed
MwithM opened this issue Apr 29, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

BSQ trading fee update for Cycle 35 #374

MwithM opened this issue Apr 29, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@MwithM
Copy link

MwithM commented Apr 29, 2022

This proposal keeps a record of the process to keep the BSQ trading fee at the target discount to BTC trading fee. It will remain open until we need to update BSQ trading fees again.

Last update was #357

Cycle 35

Parameters (see issue)

  • USD/BTC price: 38700
  • USD/BSQ price: 1.24
  • Current BSQ discount: 67%

image
image

It's necessary to update BSQ trading fee on Cycle 35.

New BSQ trading fees

A change parameter request for BSQ trading fees will be submitted to DAO voting:
New BSQ maker fee: 14.98 BSQ per BTC.
New BSQ taker fee: 124.84 BSQ per BTC.

BSQ trading fees are calculated using the new values proposed at #365.
Discount target is 60% and should be adjusted back to exactly 60% every cycle if it's not within the 55-65% range.
@MwithM
Copy link
Author

MwithM commented May 1, 2022

BSQ trading fee maker change parameter proposal: b22b37a78733fb8e6d1a465537ba54cf2b24b0325b203b00c7ad789fa3c6c9fe
BSQ trading fee taker change parameter proposal: 143afdef6a318135f70c91d7dc57a88addf574766c15819b93c2d21cd3784ea5

@jmacxx
Copy link

jmacxx commented May 1, 2022

@MwithM the new BSQ taker fee should be 109.86, not 124.84.

@MwithM
Copy link
Author

MwithM commented May 2, 2022

I'm sorry, I copied the total trading fee instead of the taker trading fee.
It was not a simple typo and the proposals sent are wrong as well. Taker would be paying a higher amount than the desired, and total discount would be too high.
I think that both proposals should be rejected.

@MwithM MwithM mentioned this issue May 9, 2022
Open
@MwithM
Copy link
Author

MwithM commented May 9, 2022

Closed as rejected.

@MwithM MwithM closed this as completed May 9, 2022
@chimp1984
Copy link

I'm sorry, I copied the total trading fee instead of the taker trading fee. It was not a simple typo and the proposals sent are wrong as well. Taker would be paying a higher amount than the desired, and total discount would be too high. I think that both proposals should be rejected.

In such cases I suggest to send out at all our communication channels the information to that it does not get voted ok by accident.

@MwithM MwithM mentioned this issue Jun 1, 2022
Closed
@MwithM MwithM mentioned this issue Jul 4, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@jmacxx @MwithM @chimp1984