The BKC fee and Nu

I am 100% not saying that it should. I am saying that B&C should allow Nu to operate LP’s at 0 fees. That is distinctly different from paying for the operation, as the only cost to B&C is blockchain space. This will not lower dividends, it will amplify them. It is not costing B&C money, it is allowing for more trade, thereby helping to generate money for B&C.

This is false. Poloniex does this, Bter does this, Bittrex does this, CCEDK does this. Practically any NBT pair with volume does this. The exchange doesn’t pay the liquidity costs, Nu does. CCEDK has mentioned that it would love to drop the fees for LP’s if it could figure out a verifyable way to do that. We have that opportunity on B&C in ways that centralized exchanges can only dream of.

The tendency for arbitrage (i.e. price slippage) is going to be equal to the sum of all fees. That includes the network fees, but it also includes the trade fees on the exchange as well as withdrawal fees. That means that when Nu wants to sell 1 NBT for some BTC it has to pay the trade fees and withdrawal fees on arbitrary exchanges. That’s wayyyy less efficient than simply trading on B&C.

Why would we make B&C if we aren’t going to use it? You think trade volume will magically appear overnight, but without liquidity it will be a long time before people start trusting B&C exchange.

So you even agree that there is a clear benefit toward stimulating trade using liquidity.

Is your argument that liquidity provision on B&C is not worthwhile for NSR holders, BKS holders, or both? Because you’ve simultaneously said you don’t know why Nu would do it and you don’t know why B&C would do it.

I just cannot fathom why you think B&C is a bad exchange for Nu to operate a liquidity pair on. That’s the entire point of B&C. Let me just quote from JL’s initial announcement of B&C:


I agree with Jordan Lee about the synergy between Nu and B&C, I mean the win-win situation:

  1. Nu LPCs provide trading volume for B&C, and an important basic/stable currency: NBT, which makes up the absence of USD FIAT.

2)B&C provides Nu LPCs a safe exchange, almost, if not completely, immune to hacker/thieves.

But I am opposite to giving 100% free discount to Nu LPCs on B&C, because

a) the CMC will delist NBT volume if there is no transaction fee.
b) It’s unfair to those BKS holders who have no NSR, just like me. :smile:

1 Like

I’m not saying don’t have a Tx fee. I’m saying Nu should provide BKC to LP’s and B&C should provide BKC to Nu. There will for sure be a Tx fee on the blockchain and for all traders.

If Nu said that it would provide 10K liquidity if B&C forced Nu to buy BKC for $1 a piece, 20K if it’s only $0.5 a piece, and 40K if Nu gets free BKC for liquidity operations, which would you vote for a s a BKS holder?

BKS holders are not begging Nu LPC to trade on our exchange. BKS holders care about revenue by charging trade fee(such as 0.2% on BTC-E), if Nu LPCs wouldn’t pay that trade fee(not the trasaction fee on blockchain, I mean the buy/sell fee), I would vote to ignore any request from Nu company.

B&C can survive WITHOUT Nu at all, eg, we can survive by providing BTC/LTC, BTC/Doge pairs. Yes, NBT stable currency is welcome, but if bitUSD/USDT are more popular, I as a BKS holder or potential signer, will vote for more bitUSD/USDT rather than NBT pairs.

B&C is neither a branch nor a subsidiary corportation of Nu company. For B&C shareholders, any stable currency’s success (TRMB,bitUSD,USDT,NBT) is welcomed, we don’t care about your liquidity, we care about our trade volume which is related to our profit.

It appears to be a good choice for both Nu and BCE to vote for option 3 :slight_smile:

All decision should be voted by shareholders, not by we several men.

Personally I like to reward something to attrack Nu LPCs in early days of B&C operation, but if in future B&C business grows big, I dislike that expenditure: why should B&C give money to another company? At least NBT should compete with other stable currencies and satisfy BKS holders, otherwise, you can go.

Even if NBT liquidity providing were in any way sponsored, the fee from other people trading thanks to NBT liquidity on the exchange were available in full height.

Would you rather have (knowing that it can’t be calculated like this) 0.2% fee from each side of the trade with little volume “thanks” to low liquidity or 0.2% fee from one side of the trade and maybe less than 0.2% fee from the other side with way bigger volume?

If BCE can only double the volume (I’m still aware that it can’t be calculated like this) with 100% sponsored liquidity providing (not saying that 100% is necessary), BCE is at break even. With more than doubling volume, it’s for the benefit of BCE.

I know which way I’d like to go :wink:

Because BCE can make even more money by “investing” some money!
Reasoning see above.

I tend to disagree with a lot of this post.
The lead architect is the same, the dev team is the same and although the initial funding that would have made BCE a 100% subsidiary of Nu wasn’t successful, 85,000 BKS were paid to NSR as dividends.

That makes 85,000/184,811 = 0.459 or 45.9% potentially in the hands of NSR holders.

I won’t find out, but I wouldn’t wonder if some more percent have been sold to NSR holders.
At the very start Nu and BCE are tied to each other.
That might change over time.
But liquidity providing to get the ball rolling is an important task for the early phase of BCE, a phase where Nu and BCE interests are economically tied to each other.

BCE needs to care about liquidity, because that’s the key to volume!

It’s as convenient for BCE to have good connections to a provider of a pegged currency as it is for Nu to have good connections to a decentralized exchange :smile:

If bitUSD, USDT or others approach BCE to provide liquidity for better conditions than Nu does, fine. I haven’t seen the queue of stable currency providers in front of BCE’s doors so far…

1 Like

Option A: The largest exchange in cryptoworld with 1millions USD revenue annually.

Option B: The 4th largest exchange with less trade volume, but 1.2 million revenue annually.

Definitely I will choose B.

That is possible because the revenue is not a simple proportianal relation to trade volume, I guess if everything else being equal, if you raise the trade fee, initially the revenue increases and then drop.

Revenue = (trade volume) X (trade fee rate)

BKS holders’ task is to find the opitimized trade fee rate which gives us the largest revenue. A proper fee rate.

Perhaps B&C holders should have more ambition than some Nu people think: this is a credit broken cryptoworld, we don’t trust Mtgox, nor BTC-E, Poloniex, etc, in fact I trust none of them.

B&C’s goal should be as high as being a famous, big, perhaps top 5 exchange in cryptoworld.

To sum up, how much invest should be put into reward Nu LPC, will be fully discussed and voted by BKS holders. For a new born and not rich Company(B&C), it’s not wise to give too much money to Nu, unless there are quite some big Trojan in B&C’s “board of directors”/decision making process. :smile:

Revenue = (total transaction size in byte) X (fee in BKC per byte)

What about Option C:
the 30th largest exchange with very low trading volume, because of lacking liquidity and only $12,000 revenue annually?
I’m in favour of incentivizing liquidity providing (even at an expense!) to turn Option C into Option B :slight_smile:

Then I need to adjust the formula:
Revenue = (total transaction size in byte) X (fee in BKC per byte) - expenses

1 Like

B&C exchange’s core competition is its decentralized feature. I have much confidence that people will like B&C than any other BTC-E, Poloniex, XXStamp etc, sooner or later.

We may lower our trade fee(on byte basis) to attack more customers.Very possible.

But one thing you should remember, today NBT/BTC trade volume is 2,000$, while Bitfinex LTC/BTC pair trade volume is 36,000$. 18 times difference.

Who tell you NBT pair will be the large pair during first operation year of B&C? If NBT trade volume on B&C is only 1/10 of LTC/BTC pair, who cares you? :smile:

I believe LTC/BTC is the most important pair when B&C begins to operate.

Become a 10th largest LTC/BTC exchange is a proper goal for B&C in first year.

I’m not able to foresee the future, but looking at the USD pairs at Bitfinex (linked form here) I see demand for an USD equivalent crypto currency.
NBT trading pairs won’t necessarily be the ones with the most volume in normal times. But I expect the volumes of other trading pairs to be much lower (without sufficient NBT liquidity), because there’s nothing to hedge volatility available at BCE without NBT liquidity.

The trick might be to provide sufficient NBT liquidity to attract volume, use parametric order books to save the liquidity providers from paying the full price for the hedging and make BCE a success for every party: customers, BCE and Nu.

ninjaedit: Thank you for this picture showing LTC volume by exchange and trading pair.
You recognize the volume of the USD pairs?

1 Like

I guess you are a bit opitmistic, if NBT is as same as USD, free market would already give LTC/NBT, BTC/NBT a very large trade volume.

For majority customers, they are speculators, that’s why LTC/BTC trade volume is so big, 30 or 100 times of NBT pairs? If they wanna hedge, just remove BTC from B&C and sell for USD, yes, there will be some people keeping NBT on B&C for convenience, but I guess mot many which you may disagree.

It’s premature to predict trade volume on B&C, but my prediction is that NBT pair will be the 4th or 5th large trade pair.

As a 4th or 5th large customer for B&C, NBT pair natually has some “Negotiating capital”, but not so important for BKS holders as BTC/LTC/Doge/ETH pairs.

If B&C manage to reach LTC/BTC trade volume of BTC-E, we can enjoy our lives, ad forget NBT. :slight_smile:

Assume LTC/BTC pair is avalible on B&C, why not people trade LTC directly with BTC and sell BTC on other exchange for FIAT? Why do they need to use BTC to buy NBT first, and then buy LTC using NBT? How many customers will keep NBT for a long time? They have to sell NBT for FIAT, inconvenient.

1 Like

Of course I am! :slight_smile: NBT are on earth for close to one year and have been rock-solid ever since. It’s only a matter of time until the NBT rocket takes off! :wink:

Where would they do that? On centralized exchanges? Those exchanges they tried to escape from coming to BCE? Why not keep all the funds safe in multi signature addresses?
Oh, that leaves NBT! :smiley:
And it has more to do with security awareness than convenience.

There will be occasions where traders have to rely on centralized exchanges (or similar services). If they want to trade crypto coins to money on their bank account, they won’t find support by BCE soon, I guess.
But just for hedging NBT pairs on BCE are a good choice.

BCE has a vital interest to support NBT trading pairs. If that requires free/cheap access to the blockchain for Nu to allow NBT liquidity providing it’s a small enough price to pay for BCE.

Ultimately you are right when you say that BKS holders will decide.
They will either vote on a motion that creates a framework for this or on grants to support liquidity providing this way.
If it weren’t a little premature - being still far away1 from a BCE that supports trades, with so many questions not answered - I’d be happy to start preparing such a motion or drafting grants.
But I think this discussion about fees we have here is helpful for the time when BKS will need to vote.

1 JordanLee on September 02, 2015:“I estimate the core B&C Exchange client is 20% complete at this point”

1 Like

Discussion in this thread – The BKC fee and Nu – should happen when there is some conclusion in a thread on The BKC fee itself.

B&C needs to run to show the actual relation between fee rate, volume, liquidity, operatiional cost, and maybe other parameters such as performance (e.g. tx excution speed).

On almost every exchange with fiat, BTC/fiat is the highest volume pair. If crypto/BTC beats out BTC/NBT (our BTC/fiat equivalent) for order frequency (I.e. revenue) then BKS holders can totally decide to cut ties with Nu. I really don’t believe that will be the case, however. Look at the btc-e chart you showed, ltc/USD has 3x more volume than ltc/btc.

It’s not! B&C has nothing to lose but blockchain space from offering Nu BKC subsidies. By not giving Nu BKC, Nu will simply use less BKC. BKS holders are not ‘giving money’ to Nu, they are simply allowing Nu to do more business than they otherwise would have. Without the subsidies, Nu would provide less liquidity and consume less BKC than with the subsidies. This is not about B&C paying for liquidity, it’s about B&C allowing Nu do provide liquidity for little to no cost so that they can provide as much as possible.

Option A: B&C gets 30k revenue from traders. Nu provides no liquidity.
Option B: B&C gets 60k revenue from traders because they have custodians to trade with. Nu provides liquidity at $0.5/BKC; B&C make 10k revenue off of Nu liquidity operations.
Option C: B&C gets 120k revenue from traders because there is a whole lot of liquidity and people are confident that they can get the trades they want on B&C. Nu provides liquidity at $0/BKC and begins to let other liquidity pools disappear as they make the pools on B&C bigger and bigger, attracting more and more customers.

You woul vote for the option that gives more dividends right? Even though it involves giving free BKC to Nu?

1 Like

If B&C gives Nu free BKC, why would Nu even provide liquidity on any other exchange? Just do what Tether does on bitfinex until exchanges start begging us to put liquidity back. If the reward rate necessary is so much less on B&C, I don’t see why we would even use anything else. Assuming we can get the process efficient enough where Nu isn’t spending huge amounts of B&C block space; that should be the only thing we need to worry about.

I just don’t believe NBT LPCs can bring enough revenue to B&C, perhaps you LPC’s so called liquidity is just 5% value of LTC/BTC pair on B&C. If B&C get popular, it’s because people love the decentralized feature of B&C, NOT because of Nu.

Let’s wait and see,

1 Like