# Proposal to introduce a small pool standardized fee (0.3%) based on market cap ranking **URL:** \ **Category:** Deprecated Proposals (NOT SUBMITTED)\ **Created:** [June 5, 2021, 1:14pm UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-to-introduce-a-small-pool-standardized-fee-0-3-based-on-market-cap-ranking/2340 "2021-06-05T13:14:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![mbr](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/gov.bancor.network/mbr/32/3021_2.png) [@mbr](https://gov.bancor.network/u/mbr)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2021, 2:30am UTC](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-to-introduce-a-small-pool-standardized-fee-0-3-based-on-market-cap-ranking/2340/4 "2021-06-06T02:30:19Z")
Fees have been a polarizing topic in the Bancor community since the launch of v2.1: > [@A prospective BIP4: Standardize trading fees in order to increase trading volume](https://gov.bancor.network/t/a-prospective-bip4-standardize-trading-fees-in-order-to-increase-trading-volume/101): > > Bancor v2.1 has gone live, and with that we have the industry’s first single-sided AMM, equipped with full protection from impermanent loss. Going forward, our earnings potential as liquidity providers will be dependent on trading volume, and we must therefore step up our efforts to attract traders away from competitor DEXs over the coming weeks. Traders are of course attracted by low trading fees. Whereas Uniswap offers a standardized trading fee of 0.3% for a single trade between any two list… > [@A repeal of BIP4: Decision to uphold flexible fee structures to optimize market making activities](https://gov.bancor.network/t/a-repeal-of-bip4-decision-to-uphold-flexible-fee-structures-to-optimize-market-making-activities/135): > > Summary: Following the launch of V2.1, the community was fervently seeking strategies to drive more activity on the platform. It was noted that swaps on Bancor incurred inconsistent fees, and in selected cases, at a non-competitive rate to its rivals. It was surmised that enforcing mandatory fee structures could create a more compelling case for swappers to use Bancor. BIP4 proposed to price-match Uniswap, and the idea met with very little resistance during discussions with community members on … From some of the experiments we have run over the last 8 months, we have learned a few interesting things: - Specific trade paths cannot be ignored. The overwhelming majority of 2-leg trades occur from the ETH pool, and so all changes to the ETH pool fee impact swaps across the protocol at a disproportionate rate. - The pool fee has a small impact on trade volumes in general. When we dropped the pool fees across all pools to 0.1%, the volume remained relatively unchanged. Then, when we increased the fees again to 0.2%, the trade volume was similarly unchanged. - High pool fees are easily tolerated if the slippage is low compared to the ecosystem overall. wNXM is the best case-in-point; we have the deepest source of liquidity by far, and a 1% pool fee does little to perturb traders due to the slippage more than compensating for the increased commission. - During periods of high volatility, fees can and should be higher. A dynamic fee has been a topic of debate within our own community for a long time, but [Kyber](https://blog.kyber.network/kyber-3-0-architecture-revamp-dynamic-mm-and-knc-migration-proposal-acae41046513) will likely be the first to implement it (see below). ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/uploads/bancordao/original/2X/4/445b577771b1245c97f3ce16206fc20e4705421c.jpeg) To my mind, this kind of dynamic fee structure is the best course of action, not just for Kyber or Bancor, but probably for all AMMs. --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.bancor.network/t/proposal-to-introduce-a-small-pool-standardized-fee-0-3-based-on-market-cap-ranking/2340)._