WEP 5: Change of minimum transaction fee

Waves Enhancement Proposals
1
Author Andrey Andreev <[email protected] >
Last update 2019-08-13

Abstract

We have analized user’s usage of transactions and it was found that the value of some transactions did not match the relevance of their usage.

Thus, we propose to change the cost of the minimum fee for Issue, Reissue and Alias transactions.

The changing of the minimum transaction fee will also increase the profitability for the miners.

Motivation and Purposes

The main idea is to bring the minimum fee to the correct value.

Transaction Reason for changing the minimum fee
Issue transaction Due to the usage of tokens as spam, it is proposed to increase the cost of issuing new non-NFT tokens
Reissue transaction It is proposed to reduce the cost of tokens to a logical value, because of the inflated cost of the token reissue transaction. Also, the decrease in the cost of this transaction may lead to the emergence of new ways of using it, which were not considered before because of the high fee.
Alias transaction It is proposed to increase the cost of this transaction, which will also increase the profit of miners, without a significant effect on users, because of the initial low cost of an alias transaction and the potential for using an alias with smart accounts (dApp).

Specification

We propose that in the blockchain must be set new minimum fees for the following transactions:

Transaction Proposed minimum fee
Issue transaction 10 WAVES - to issue a normal token; 0,001 WAVES - to issue the NFT token (no change)
Reissue transaction 0,001 WAVES
Alias transaction 1 WAVES

The specified amount of minimum fee for Issue transaction is not final. It is proposed that a vote be held to approve the final value.

The fee for these transactions should be changed at the activation height. If there are Issue and Alias transactions in UTX-pool with a fee lower than the new minimum, they must be canceled due to insufficient fees.

All fee values must be set in the NODE code as constants.

Rationale

Transaction statistics:

Amount:

month Issue Reissue Alias
2018-11 1071 56 3562
2018-12 970 36 723
2019-01 1076 59 750
2019-02 877 44 1576
2019-03 1632 58 432
2019-04 767 37 12060
2019-05 544 22 7624
2019-06 575 67 7123
Average number for 6 months 939 47,375 4231,25
Attitude to all transactions 0,006 % 0,0028 % 0,25 %

Fee in WAVES:

month Issue Reissue Alias
2018-11 1071 56,004 3,562
2018-12 970 36 0,723
2019-01 1076,004 59,008 0,75
2019-02 877,02 44,02 1,58
2019-03 1632 58,06 0,436
2019-04 767,008 37,172 12,0721
2019-05 544 22,004 7,624
2019-06 575,004 67,064 7,127
Average fee rate (6 months) 939,0045 47,417 4,2343
Attitude to all transactions 6,31 % 0,64 % 0,06 %

Expected change in the average fee after the change in its minimum value:

With the minimum amount of fee for Issue transaction = 2 WAVES:

For the calculation, we assume that the average number of transactions has not changed

Fee amount 2 WAVES 0,001 WAVES 1 WAVES
Transactions: Issue Reissue Alias
Average fee rate (per month) 1878,01 0,0474165 4234,2625
Attitude to all transactions 14,95% 0,0004 % 33,72 %

The total yield of miners will increase in 1,7 times.

With the minimum amount of fee for Issue transaction = 5 WAVES:

For the calculation, we assume that the average number of transactions has not changed

Fee amount 5 WAVES 0,001 WAVES 1 WAVES
Transactions: Issue Reissue Alias
Average fee rate (per month) 4695,0225 0,0474165 4234,2625
Attitude to all transactions 30,54 % 0,0003 % 27,54 %

The total yield of miners will doubled.

With the minimum amount of fee for Issue transaction = 10 WAVES:

For the calculation, we assume that the average number of transactions has not changed

Fee amount 10 WAVES 0,001 WAVES 1 WAVES
Transactions: Issue Reissue Alias
Average fee rate (per month) 9390,05 0,0474165 4234,2625
Attitude to all transactions 46,78 % 0,0002 % 21,10 %

The total yield of miners will increase in 2,7 times.

7 Likes
2
  • issue - ok
  • reissue - ok
  • alias - why? but still ok
2 Likes
3

Actually, what is the point of talking about increasing the fees to increase the profitability of the miners when they offer more than 100% of their profits to attract more leasers in their nodes?

4

profitability of miners and their leasers
But it’s up to miner how much to promise for leasers.

5

This is not realistic.

Let’s suppose that Jhon has a capital of $ 2,000 and wants to buy 2 iPhones for $ 1,000 each, giving Apple a 30% profit each (2x $ 300).

If the Apple decided to raise the price to $ 10,000, Jhon would probably not be willing to buy even one, and that would not lead to a profit equal to 30% of $ 10,000 but equal to zero.

This is to say that, in my opinion, it would be better to focus on increasing trading volumes instead of increasing fees.

1 Like
6
  • Issue Token - ok (10)
  • Reissue - 0,01
  • Alias - 0,1
1 Like
7

Im fine with the approach in general but those numbers are a joke.
Do you really believe that if you raise the fee x10 the same amount of issues would happen? Thats pretty silly … Most likely the amount of issue transaction will just drop 90% and we will end up with the exact same fee amount as before with the only difference that you made the entry barrier for newcomers 10x as high as before.

If you want to change such fundamental things you should do some serious research and not this literally useless bullshit in the post above. Those numbers are meaningless because you just brouhgt them up without any evidence. Those numbers are dreams, they are based on nothing and in the end those numbers are just not true. There is not the slightest proof of your claims. You tell the community any bullshit which wont (or even cant) happen, then (oh wonder, oh wonder) you cant keep your word and people get mad.
This has happened with some things in the past and its about to happen again.
If you believe this will make the eco system better just proof it. I really really hope you did some serious research and this absolutely nonsense calculation above is NOT where you based your proposal on. Otherwise it would be amateur shit way below the niveau Waves should serve right now…
Good job Waves Team

8

yes they have different solutions for fee revenues.(inflation) no need to care about scam tokens at all. real projects can charge 10 waves for fee, for testing there are testnet.

1 Like
9

After making senseless spam assets more expensive we can achieve growth of miners reward from zero to zero. C’mon, lets do something more useful please

10

Most of assets are not scam or spam it’s just senseless toy of its creators. Anyway no need to care about token issue transaction at all. In healthy ecosystem it make no impact to economy. If there is any impact then ecosystem is sick
http://dev.pywaves.org/assets/

11

What are you talking about?

There are thousands and current rate of them enough to make ppl annoying. Check Waves Community repository they still adding spams manually to the list :slight_smile:

12

You compared something not functional, not similarities between this case and your example

13

I see with good eyes this proposal, the focus not is use issue to reward nodes increase as a final resource, but sure will benefit rewards. This proposal will do something needed a long time ago: Avoid token creation for fan, spam and scam, or try luck with who not have knowledge’s. Only because issue token on waves platform is easy and fast not is representation can be abuse of facilities without responsibility. And I believe need include to issue token a mandatory KYC/AML

14

I just wanted to avoid enunciating economic laws and making more understandable to everyone what I meant by an example…

The law of demand states that, if all other factors remain equal, the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand that good. In other words, the higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded.

I am not opposed to the proposal, I simply stated that a price increase would not automatically lead to an increase in profits as has been assumed.