The idea is actually to experiment with fees to get data how users react. I actually think we should go higher in MINT until we see a significant impact on MINT rewards (=volume*fees). The noise of the market is strong, so we need to push a bit for a significant signal/noise ratio.
There is no need to dismiss higher burn fees altogether. But experimenting with both at the same time makes data even more difficult to read. I think we will increase BURN after we are done playing with MINT.
I agree that BURN should never be higher than MINT.
1 Like
Love to see the hustle and bustle of the forums during the holidays. Hope I’m not too late to weigh in.
These arguments made by you, @maxroszko, and @preston have helped solidify my perspective. I believe we should definitely raise mint fees now, and we can postpone increasing the burn fees. Test it out for 2-4 weeks and see how it impacts volume.
I’ve been exploring quite a bit outside in DeFi where you can leverage your Bitcoin…
Looking at BadgerDAO, they currently hold in their vaults:
- 1,478 renBTC in the Ren Curve LP pool
- 1,160 renBTC in the sBTC Curve LP pool
- 1,373 renBTC in the Harvest Ren Curve LP Pool
earning 29%, 33%, and 31% APY respectively. This is 4,011 renBTC ($118m) out of a total 13,335 renBTC. This is over 30% of all renBTC in circulation! These users do not appear to care about a 0.1%, 0.25%, let alone a 0.5% mint or burn fee as Badger has 0.5% withdrawal fees on your investment in certain vaults at BadgerDAO, and we already have $500m in TVL.
My position that we must experiment with higher fees in RenVM remains strong. If it hurts volume, worst case scenario, we switch it back in 2-4 weeks.
Both mint and burn are increasing. In my opinion, we should be increasing fees while APYs in the ecosystem are high.
2 Likes
When was the last time there was a 1000 BTC mint or even a 500 BTC mint? Not since the last time you pushed for fee increases. People now get excited over seeing a little 10 BTC mint.
