RFC-000-015 – Raise the burn Fee to 0.2%

[preston]

@MaxRoszko

And I don’t like the idea of ‘trapping’ renBTC holders, making it more expensive for users to return their renBTC to native BTC than what they were expected, based on the burn fees that were present when they first minted using RenVM. I think the psychology of users matters when it comes to retaining their future interactions with RenVM.

The data collected would suggest that nobody feels trapped with our primary competitor wBTC, their users are able to operate just fine with higher BURN fees than we currently list.

@MaxRoszko

I think it would hurt us in the long-term by stunting the growth of high-volume use-cases and hence hurting our volume long-term.

This circles back to RFC-000-0002 having flexibility in fees so we can accommodate both high volume use cases that require low fees in order to function since they can’t make their volume work at higher fees. This RFC still has not been converted to a RIP and creates a lot of value for dark node holders, and opens up the world of possibility for new integrators who can be entered into time-based smart contracts that lock in fees for delivering on volume-based benchmarks, if you don’t bring the volume you dont get the discount. etc

@MaxRoszko

The assumption that volume is unaffected by fees is obviously wrong.

You say this but the data speaks otherwise since epoch 1 we have had low Burn fees, and the highest correlation with the overall DEFI TVL, which is driven by high yield opportunity. BURNs have been high one month low (repeat), having low BURN fees has not increased the BURN rate, our TVL is higher than ever. This is an opportunity for the network to increase darknode income while still maintaining a discount to MINTs.

@MaxRoszko

I think it is more beneficial for us to focus our efforts on reaching out to other projects and proposing integrations with RenVM, instead of spending so much attention on the fees, specifically how much we should raise them.

I agree with this statement. Am I incorrect in saying that the capability to raise and lower the fees has been in place since day 1, how much effort is really going into this?

If the income drops as a result of raising fees, which to date it has not and has propelled RenVM into one of the highest income projects in DEFI, the fees can be lowered just as easily as it was raised. I agree the path to more volume is exactly as you stated through integrations and new use-cases, but to continue to incentivize new Dark Nodes and prove that we are able to continue to grow the top line is also important and signals the project robustness.