Really? when was the last time we had a 1000 BTC mint, or even a 500 BTC mint? Not since the fees were raised. Also, the arbitrage bot stopped minting immediately after the mint fees were raised although it continued to burn at the original fees.
1 Like
I was and Iām still in favor of a mint increase to .3%.
Brings us to parity with Uniswap fees but without slippage.
2 Likes
Totally against: look after 19/10
-Total BTC on ethereum: almost equal
-wbtc on ethereum: up
-renbtc on ethereum: firmly down
Market share, network effect, in my view the only way to make the net safe is growing TVL to stronger numbers and generating possitive feedback to price, addoption, income, nodes. This is the time to test it.
3 Likes
Yes. Focus on velocity of transactions? Let allow arbitrage bot do its work, between other possibilities.
1 Like
After reading a few posts in here I realized my post has a small flaw, I did not take into consideration that we also had many new nodes joining the network at each epoch which reduced the revenue share, while mints did not go down as @preston pointed out. My bad.
I see no harm in exploring every avenue and have no issues with this raise of mint fees, I do however remain in my initial position to not be in favor simply because I am of the belief focus should be on incentivizing burns and velocity, not reducing mints.
1 Like
I am in favor of increasing the minting fee to 0.3%.
Lets continue the experiment.
2 Likes
Agree with this wholeheartedly.
āThis route of increasing mints seems like we are just decreasing revenue.ā
Canāt agree more. We should be aiming to increase our btc per epoch rewardsā¦Cāmon
2 Likes
It would be super helpful if you could share your market share analysis broken down by percents if youāre going to use those charts.
āWe had x% market share of btc on ethereum on this date, and that changed to y% on this date after we increased fees.ā
Iām still supporting increase, but if the data were presented that way, it would be quite insightful for all of us as another viewpoint.
2 Likes
Iām thinking of doing a request for comment for decreasing mints fees and Will try to present both un linear and percentage. Yes.
1 Like
Increasing fees is going to hurt high-velocity applications, especially new ones coming up like 0confirmation. I donāt think high fees in general is what we want long-term and is not what will help us get to a high-velocity future either.
4 Likes
I am in favor of 0.3%. Its important to test out now and 0.25% went really well.
1 Like
How would fees at 0.3%, which you are deeming high, hurt 0conf?
To me, this seems unproven, as we currently do not have this implementation or know with certainty that adding this service at fee levels 0.3% OR higher than we currently charge interferes with high-velocity based use cases. In theory, if we have the fastest solution, premiums would be happily paid to facilitate faster transactions and capture time-sensitive opportunities.
As I see it, there are two opposing forces here:
- People want higher income to improve yields, ren price and TVB.
- People want high velocity trading and donāt want to disincentivise arb bots amongst other high velocity users.
Personally Iām more in the second camp - however perhaps there is a solution that serves both purposes that hasnāt been trialled yet, which is a volume based fee structure. For example:
<100btc = 0.3% minting fee
100 - 999 btc = 0.2% minting fee
1000+ btc = 0.1% minting fee
This has the advantage of capturing higher fees for darknodes, but also still incentivises arb bots to move large sums at lower minting fees.
There is a risk that this would see an increase in large mints and increase TVL - however hopefully the fee increases for nodes plus increased volumes would push the ren price up and counterbalance the increase in TVL - and also hopefully most of the large mints would be in and outs via arb bots.
Would people be interested in an approach such as this?
3 Likes
Why would a higher fee help? Right now I am just going to buy RenBTC of binance and pay 0.1% fee instead of going through ren.
Iām in favor of this proposal in order to continue the experiment, and as other users have pointed out, mint volume has not significantly decreased after the previous fee increase.
Simultaneously I do want to mention that I, as others have pointed out as well, do not believe high fees as these are what we want long term. I think we should incur less friction to facilitate high velocity use cases, and would like to see experimentation with bringing the fees down again.
3 Likes
The total volume from the famous arb bot is 488 BTC, compared to the regular ren bridge 16, 829BTC, or the curve integration 20,907BTC this volume is not worth sacrificing our revenue for, it barely represents 2.5% of what Curve integration has brought to the RenVM.
Our volume comes from our major integrations, this volume does not mind our fees, and raising it will boost our revenue far in excess of whatever volume the arb bot brings, based on data collected so far, over this last epoch the arb bot did produce some volume as well, it found a way to work at 0.25%.
1 Like
I am curious why you are always pushing so hard for more and more fee increases. You have publicly stated that you do not have any darknodes and therefore have no skin in the game. By the way, the arb bot did not mint at .25%, it burned at .1%
When was the last time we saw a 1000 BTC mint or even a 500 BTC mint? Not since the last time you pushed hard for increasing the fees.
2 Likes
Iām opposed to this, the higher we go the more we incentivise users to look for alternate methods such as cexs/dexs. donāt kill the goose that layed the golden egg.
2 Likes
Lmfao thank God someone could prove what my instincts would tell me. That this arb bot, looking for tiny mints has no real
Affect at all( as opposed to whales( for me whales has 25+btc and those whales pay premium for no kyc. Ty for this post !
1 Like
I think the metric to focus on is volume. Mint size is a large contributor to this, but I think that these large customers are more driven by yield opportunities than by our fees. The more whale opportunities created for renBTC the more whale customers we will see.
What matters is that their total participation is minor, it shouldnāt govern the BTC Mint rate of the entire network when the largest integrator is Curve.fi by miles. If the arbitraging volume could compare to Curve volume, perhaps there would be a conversation.
Do you recall this proposal? RFC-000-009, every RFC I submit is to create value for Dark Node Operators powering renVM. I back my positions with actionable data, which is what should lead our decision making in this fast-paced environment.