“I’m in favor of this proposal, but maybe if it’s feasible we should think about using 0.05% of the mint fee as an affiliate commission to incentivize integrators. Someone on telegram had suggested this and i think it’s a great idea. Smart contract developers get better ROI on their time by creating some random farm token than integrate renjs to their platform.”
I disagree with this- we do not even generate enough revenue to be close to economically secure and you want to start giving incentives to integrators?
In my opinion any integrator who would only be an integrator because of the additional incentives is probably not the sort of integrator/integration we want or that both benefits and benefits from RenVM.
RenVM has clear use cases, and I think those don’t need artificial incentives to encourage the right people to connect to and build upon RenVM.
The goal is to increase the volume, and they would only get commission on the volume they bring not from the total. I was suggesting we increase the mint fee to 0.2% like this proposal and share some of that fee. It’s an idea maybe a bad one.
I’m in favor for raising fees to 0.2%, because I don’t think it will affect minting/burning rate due to the current high yield BTC farming oportunities. Plus by comparing to other wrapping options, renVM is the cheapest and the easiest to use. So let’s raise those fees to get more APY on our DNs.
However, I don’t think we will be able to take any meaningfull conclusion after the observations, because :
The volume is not stable yet (with constant fees), as we have only one use case with one native integrator.
Most of the volume comes from few individuals (the >50BTC mint/burn are driving the volume we have), so we don’t have enough renVM transactions per day (currently we might seat at 20-40 tx/24h)
So, as we already have a high volume volatility (some day its 50M, the ot4187her it’s 10M, and the next it’s 1-2M), how will you analyse the impact of raising the fees?
To conclude, before making such obesrvations/experiments, I’d wait for more integrators, to be objective let’s say wait until we have at least one integration in DEX/Loan/Yield Farming.
First of all 0.2% is still not greedy or beyond industrial standard.
Second, the market is very volatile so to get any useful data above the noise, we need to provide a significant stimulus.
I have always been in the camp against raising fees in the initial stages of the project to bolster initial usage, however, I agree that it is time to start experimenting with the fees for all the reasons mentioned above (I won’t repeat them all again)
I would add that the fee increase has to be widely communicated so that users have been made aware of it, and also communication that there will be further fee changes in the coming months (perhaps a medium article detailing how the testing using fees will take place and the justification behind why it is being done).
For optics, we don’t want to be seen to be able to just change the fee whenever we would like, especially in the more centralised stage that we are in the project. As a user of RenVM you could, of course, see the concern if all of a sudden the fees raised a lot higher, e.g. the burn, to profit all the holders.
With all this considered, I am for the increase in the fee to 0.2%.
Thanks everyone for all your thoughtful responses! We will review all of the feedback as we continue to work on the underlying economics of RenVM, but it is clear that the majority of the community supports this RIP. Changing the status to “accepted” and implementing it at the beginning of the next epoch (~8 hours from now).
The Defi market is definitely our common future. Every year, there are more and more decentralized projects. There will come a time when bitcoin will be worth so much that the regulator will have to ban it. Q: Can RenVM create a tokenized Bitcoin that is uncensored?