@BlockchainBard On the fee schedules, should it be 0.05% instead of 0.005%? The others are in increments of 0.05 so looks like it might be a typo.
1 Like
What do you think of adding both an upper and a lower TVL limit as signal to adjust fees?
And what do you think of wrapping this all up into a single RIP, that will be linked to several votes?
(We are talking about the other RFC in here and vice versa, I really think this will get confusing when we get to RIPs)
Can we add some options between 0.005% and 0.1%? I felt like fees in the 0.03-0.07% range were also considered in all the debates.
1 Like
I see where youāre coming from. Having a high mint fee on $BTC, our most liquid asset, and a promotional low/free minting fee on other assets serves both goals to keep BTC TVL in check while incentivizing liquidity provision for our new and illiquid assets.
However, I would not like to see this at this point in time. It is already complicated enough for us to govern these dials, creating even more dials for ourselves would make it even more unwieldy. Also for our users and integrators. Also I think it was mentioned that technically this could be implemented, but per asset fees are not there right now so would not help yet with the issue at hand.
Long term bespoke asset fees might be a must though, since liquidity provision requirements can always be at odds between different ren assets, preferably Iād like to see this in an algorithmic way which brings it back to a single dial.
That being said Iām coming down towards
- mint 15 - 20 bps: to stay a bit conservative in lieu of accommodating RenLabs. We can re-evaluate after 1 month to lower it more if liquidity provision is lacking
- burn 5 bps: low burn to help with TVL
- burnAndMint 0 bps: free for promotional period of 3+3 moths, after that 5 bps
2 Likes
+1 Updated thanks.
Also added additional fee options as requested by @Woodgast
Yes I think this is a great idea, it is obvious that a change in fees will be required again in future if the volume and TVL go crazy.
As discussed already we will need to agree what our limits are in terms of ātoo highā and ātoo lowā etc.
This can be voted on after any fee changes have been implemented, for now I fear weāre in a race against time to get the minting and burning fees changed with H2H going live any day now.
A single RIP that would link to two separate snapshot votes? That could work I guess, provided it is crystal clear which vote is for which proposal.
I think @Sabobi would need to give his permission to combine his proposal with mine. Not sure if we can do that ourselves or if an admin is required?
4 Likes
I was gonna suggest the same to you lol, will reach out to you before the RIP so we can do it together 
4 Likes
**** UPDATE ****
Having briefly discussed the RIP with Sabobi, heās going to start drafting the RIP early next week with my support.
This single RIP is intended to include two votes for the following:
ā Shilliamās Temporary Mint/Burn fee reduction in time for H2H proposal
- Sabobiās setting the initial burnAndMint fee proposal
Sabobi has confirmed with Max that both of these votes are likely to occur in time for host-to-host landing on the RenBridge.
Iāll keep the community updated as and when I receive any developments 
ā Shilliam
6 Likes
Awesome! Thanks a lot! Iām looking forward to the RIP 
That sounds good to me too. I would like even a 1 bps fee though for introductory burnandmint, unless we think the āfreeā label is powerful enough to attract enough users to try us that wouldnāt have at 1bps to overcome the loss of any revenue
DNO volume picked up dramatically.
Obviously the fee structure already in place isnāt a factor.
Donāt really know why the fee structure in place needs to be re-revised again, thereās no real reason to launch a teaser-rate fee campaign.
Almost all increase in volume can be ascribed to the Solidly TVL war. The rest is likely linked to the markets being extremely frothy, this usually causes more volume because of an increase in arbitrage opportunities or people having to cover their positions.
I like it. I think a downward adjustment of mint that doesnāt cut too deep would get us moving in the right direction. A nominal 5bips to leave keeps the door wide open and a introductory 3(+3) month burnAndMint fee holiday gives us marketing potential and creates a sandbox that users can totally go nuts in.
Iām just curious, @MaxRoszko , does the team have some TVL threshold in mind at which point attacks on the protocol might rise substantially?
There isnāt a particular threshold in mind because itās impossible to determine. More TVL is more risk, and less TVL is less risk.
I vote no change.
Appreciate all the work that went into this RFC and the responses above, I think a premium product like ours should charge a premium price, the price war to the bottom is not a great tactic for our protocol, users who take advantage of free bridging are disregarding safety, time, UX, etc. These are not the kinds of customers we are searching for, exposure is one thing but safety should take priority.
The best infrastructure is well maintained, consistent, and provides a high amount of utility, to power this utility we need to charge customers fees so we can enhance and maintain the product. We cannot achieve our long-term objectives by providing free services, this puts stress on the network, and takes on risk with little to no upside, as the stickiness of customers is questionable, as is the Life Time Value of those customers in comparison to the network risk we put ourselves in.
I disagree with lowing the Burn fee, it is already very low, and currently, our TVL in BTC is near all-time highs, lowering this burning fee any further has not seemingly had a significant impact on lower TVL in BTC, in USD perhaps but that is more due to price action of the market than BTC held in RenVM.
Lowering our MINT will likely not increase our volume by an amount greater than % in fee reduction that most are proposing to lower it to. This will result in a definitive short-term decrease of income for all DNO, and might very well lead to more operators de-registering nodes, which does not help our security or decentralization efforts, both of which are important.
We have seen a decrease in operators over consecutive epochs, and we need to think to ourselves how we can motivate more operators to join, certainly, the REN price is lower now, which provides a greater ROI, but this is only going to help if we can maintain a certain level of consistent income, lowering our fees is likely not to help this cause, as with past fee lowers, operator income decreases as well.
The key to our market growth lies in incentivizing liquidity on new chains, this new yield will encourage users to MINT, use H2H features, all positives for the network, not from reducing our fees. How we can accomplish this is probably another conversation for another RFC.
Imagine a user wanting to bring his token token to another blockchain via RenVM:
- He pays minting fee 0.36%
- Then he pays burn&mint 0.05% fee (if it wins)
- Then he pays 0.04% fee to an AMM to swap say renUSDC to native USDC on a destination chain.
Thatās 0.36% + 0.05% + 0.04% = 0.45% total
Thatās many-many times more expensive than our competitors charge. And this fee structure doesnāt leave any room for our integrators to profit.
I think we should lower the minting fee (to reduce entry barrier) and up the burn fee, something like: 0.15-0.2% mint and 0.1-0.2% burn is a good middle-groundā¦ And thatās still expensiveāish for the user.
2 Likes