RIP-000-001: Increase minting fee to 0.2%

[preston]

@DavidPerkins

Traditionally, assets are valued by their ability to generate cash flows in the future . The sum of future cash flows as the result of high growth and adoption today may have a greater effect on price than generating income today at the expense of lower growth.

1. This growth model is financed off the backs of Silicon Valley and VC investors, the DN network does not have the benefit of subsidizing its customers with lower rates infinitely, we have to stabilize our economics for the security of the network and the growth of the network. The sooner we can realize our true decentralized and stabilized self the stronger our product will be in comparison to our competition. Another RFC during those times will surely come up in regards to attacking market share and growth through incentives.

@DavidPerkins

Growth is measured not only in the number of integrations, but by the ease in which liquidity can flow between chains. A truly cross-chain product should give other chains their best chance! Let’s let liquidity flow to Acala, Solana, and the rest of the Multichain, and not via competing bridges.

2. Agreed, liquidity flow between chains is the name of our game, and having different fees to incentivize this flow is what was raised in the RFC002 Multivariable Fee Control , I believe these networks will all offer highly competitive and attractive yields, and our RenVM fee will be so nominal in comparison making sure we are attracting node operators to strengthen our economic decoupling from the rest of the cryptoverse is key to this successful growth.

@DavidPerkins

Liquidity spurs adoption, and flooding the market with renBTC now across chains makes it easier for those chains and dApps on those chains to boostrap volume once live.

3. DEFI is still in its early stages, and RenVM has proven that it is a great choice in bridging assets, although we are not the top choice today, as larger and more frequent mints can be found at WBTC, I think this is because customers can see that we are under-bonded, and not fully decentralized yet, which in order to get there we need to stronger economic incentives for DN operators. The sooner we reach #MAINNETONE, the liquidity will come.

@DavidPerkins

That means users are comfortable with the Greycore, even with just Ren in it, which (1) lets RenVM suppress fees while optimizing for growth and (2) is a strong counterargument to RenVM needing to monetize now.

4. I think the reason we do not see the same level of volume as wBTC is exactly that customers are unsure about the Greycore. The sooner we are able to prove we can maintain a well-bonded network, and can take the training wheels off the better for the Network. Optimizing for growth, I think is a mood point, the fees we charge is so negligible to the yield had on these DEFI opportunities people are selecting the fastest and smoothest bridge operator, fees I feel need to be discovered its too early to claim that the current rate is driving any growth at all.

@DavidPerkins

It will be difficult to isolate and measure the impact of a fee change. Without A/B testing, we cannot be confident that changes in volume and income will be due to the fee change and not to changes in the market around us.

I am in the camp that we need to raise our fees until we see an excess of volume decrease above and beyond our income growth. I expect us to see over the next epoch a similar flow of volume with twice the fees until there are more DEFI yields increase again.