The figures on this page are compiled from data files generated by the Bisq software. You can verify everything yourself by running these scripts on GitHub.
Cycle Started17 Jun 2019 / Block 581107
Cycle Ended17 Jul 2019 / Block 585786
Supply Change+ 9,229
Governance20 of 21 proposals accepted
|BSQ Amount||# of transactions|
|Asset listing fees||65||2|
|Blind vote fees||40||20|
|Compensation request fees||34||17|
|Net BSQ Supply Change⁵||+9,229|
¹ Proof-of-burn includes trading fees paid in BTC and disputed BTC deposits for trades that went to arbitration (see docs for more details). Funds may be accrued and burned in different cycles, so proof-of-burn figures do not map directly to activity in their cycles.
² BSQ trading fees only. BTC trading fees are included in proof-of-burn.
³ See more details on GitHub.
⁴ Over time, the net impact of reimbursement issuances on BSQ supply is close to zero, as corresponding amounts of BTC are burned through proof-of-burn (see docs for more details).
⁵ Decreases in BSQ supply are good.
Following the continued strength of BSQ usage and trading, Cycle 3 voting resulted in another fee increase, this time for both BTC and BSQ fees. Full discussion is here on GitHub, but the basic reasoning was that strong BSQ markets, strong trading volume, and a need for the network to attract good developers made fee increases toward targets appropriate.
The fee schedule this voting cycle approved look like this: