Merge pull request #253 from abitmore/bsip86

BSIP 86: Share market fees to the network

bsip-0086.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+    BSIP: 0086
+    Title: Share market fees to the network
+    Author: Abit More <https://github.com/abitmore>
+    Status: Draft
+    Type: Accepted
+    Created: 2019-11-29
+    Discussion: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/194
+    Worker: TBD
+
+# Abstract
+
+This BSIP proposes a protocol change: Every time a trade is executed (limit order is filled) and
+if there are market fees generated, a portion of the market fees goes to the network.
+
+Example: The network percent of market fees is set to 50%, and 0.2% of trading volume is the set as market fee. 
+Then 0.1% of trading volume goes to the network.
+
+# Motivation
+
+The network needs more tools to generate income to support its development.
+
+# Rationale
+
+A major activity in the network is trading assets. The asset owners make
+profits in the form of market trading fees. Currently, the main tools for the
+network to generate income from asset trading activities are order creation
+fee and order cancellation fee. It seems reasonable that the asset owners
+share some profits (a part of market fees) to the network to support its
+development.
+
+The cut of market fees can go to committee-account's vesting balances.
+As a supporting measure, committee-account should be exempted from
+white-listing restrictions, so that it is able to claim the vesting balances
+and sell them for core token or other tokens to pay for development later.
+
+# Specifications
+
+## Protocol upgrade
+
+A time will need to be scheduled for applying the change. In this document,
+terms "before the protocol upgrade", "at the protocol upgrade" and "after
+the protocol upgrade" may or may not be used to indicate things happen before
+the scheduled time, at the scheduled time and after the scheduled time.
+
+## New global parameter
+
+Add a new global parameter `market_fee_network_percent` which can be updated
+by the committee only after the protocol upgrade.
+Initial value of that parameter is `0%`.
+Valid range of that parameter is `[0%, 100%]`.
+
+## When processing market fees
+
+After the protocol upgrade, when splitting a non-zero market fee, firstly
+split `amount * market_fee_network_percent` (round down) to committee-account,
+then process the remainder as before. The amount split to committee-account
+should go to the vesting balance object whose type is `market_fee_sharing`.
+
+## When checking asset authorities
+
+After the protocol upgrade, when checking authorities (E.G. white-lists) of an
+asset on an account, if the account is committee-account, let it pass.
+
+# Discussion
+
+* Other than [the "coin-days as market fees" proposal](
+ https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/191) which applies
+ a discount to market fees to benefit core token holders directly, this BSIP
+ seeks for a mechanism to increase the network's income and benefit core token
+ holders indirectly.
+
+* Adjusting the fee schedule and network percent in the referral program is
+ another option to increase the network's income, and is probably sufficient
+ for funding development.
+
+* In the original design, the purpose of market fees is to reward asset
+ issuers for their work (e.g. gateway providers, or businesses built around
+ PMs), while operation fees (`limit_order_create/cancel` in particular) reward
+ the network for performing its work. The separation of market/operation fees
+ matches the separation of roles. Changing this may damage existing businesses.
+ Thus this BSIP could be a bad idea from this perspective. Also note that the
+ network can profit from market fees by setting them on committee-owned tokens.
+
+* This would be another motivation for businesses building on top of BitShares
+ to get involved in the parameter governance process. The percentage can be
+ `0` if it is more appropriate.
+
+* Asset owners can specify a zero market fee percentage to get around the fee
+ sharing, while still profiting by setting a higher deposit/withdrawal fee.
+ It is uncommon nowadays probably because it is less convenient or attractive
+ for their customers.
+
+* Another strategy is to charge a network market fee globally, independent of
+ what the asset owner decides. It essentially removes the option to not set
+ a fee from asset owners, which kills some freedom and would hinder non-profit
+ use of the platform.
+
+* It is possible that committee-account would accumulate a lot of tokens with no
+ value and tokens which are unable or hard to be used to pay for development.
+ It is a side effect. Hopefully there will be quite some usable tokens.
+ The committee will have to do some work to manage the tokens anyway.
+
+* The committee will be accumulating tokens which could potentially be used or
+ not used for any purpose. In other words, this BSIP as currently written does
+ not stipulate how those tokens will or will not be used by the committee.
+
+# Non-Technical Summary
+
+This BSIP adds a tool for the committee to impose a fee on market trading
+fees for all assets which enabled market trading fee, thus it can increase income 
+for the network to support its development. It may 
+hinder businesses relying on market fees if the committee-decided fee is high.
+The committee may need some efforts to decide on an appropriate value of the parameter and manage the income.
+
+# Copyright
+
+This document is placed in the public domain.
+
+# See Also
+
+* https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/194