Proposing Carbon - DRAFT (DEPRECATED)

[sylentz]

This should tie into my recent proposal as well. The sooner we can get vBNT removed from the ecosystem and focusing entirely on BNT directly the better.
Ideally we should do an analysis of PoL to see if each pool has sufficient to keep the pool open or if we should shutdown entirely. If you have a framework just tag me or reach out and I can get that Prop started.

[mbr]

I have added to the proposal the five categories of maker fee. However, I have kept the proposed settings at 0.0005 ETH in all cases. I refer to the prior DAO meetings where the topic of setting a zero fee during on-boarding, then switching it to a non-zero value later was considered, and met with mostly negative criticism.

@mbr

This topic has been actively discussed on DAO meetings, and the general consensus view is that it is preferable to have this aspect of the system active at Carbon’s initial deployment. The major talking points were that there is little benefit to withholding such an insignificant component from the system, and that if doing so represents a significant advantage in the early phases of the protocol adoption, then let that be evidence that the maker fee is too high. In other words, if there is an incentive to participate only because the maker fee is currently absent, then it has failed in its ambition to be an innocuous element. Secondly, fears that adding additional costs over time could be conflated with bait-and-switch tactics were also voiced, and that presenting the system in completeness would avert such unfavorable impressions.

[mbr]

This proposal has been reviewed and edited since its initial publication:

• The proposed Vortex mechanic has been discussed, and its caller incentive has been reduced from 10% to 2%.
• The maker fee sections have been expanded to include descriptions of five different actions, wherein each may have its own discrete setting.
• The deprecation of some sections have resulted in BIP 29 being dropped from the decisions being put to a Snapshot vote.

To maintain a clean presentation, I have decided to remake the proposal on Level 2 with these changes applied, and to move the original (this document) to the deprecated proposals section to maintain provenance.

[teamAsaf]

thank you for the clarification and adding the breakdown.
i still believe that the protocol launch should have 0 fees to encourage onboarding and adoption

tbh, if trading is massive, we might be fine with 0 fees on makers as trader fee is basically net profit to the protocol (to use as discussed) which is very different from all other AMM fees that are used to try and make LPing profitable (unsuccessfully) and are NOT actually profits to any of these protocols.

also, worth clarification, as you have pointed out, the maker fee is discussed and voted upon yet there is a chance it will not be included in the initial version (well the vote is if the DAO approve releasing without the maker fee code or not).