Hello all, I would like to begin the conversation about adding a fee to the new dex aggregator feature that recently launched.
There are pros and cons to adding a fee. The feature is great for ease of use and convenience. A 1 stop shop for easily seeing price peg difference across all major Cardano dexes on all iassets, and currently with no added fees attached, people are encouraged to use the feature. If a fee is added, people might be more inclined to see the swap prices on the Indigo platform and go to that dex directly to avoid the added fee.
So I believe we must find a balance. I am in favor of adding a flat fee of 1 ada to all swaps. This fee could then be distributed to either
A)Part or All to Indy Stakers
B)Part or All to the Indigo Treasury.
I also wonder if it is possible to have the fee waived if a person holds/stakes indy.
True, Muesliswap charges a fee of 1.5 ADA for all swaps.
I think introducing a very small fee is not a bad idea.
I use Muesliswap all the time and would use Indigo’s swap even if it charged a fee of 1 ADA.
Waiving the fee for $INDY stakers is an idea that could be considered, but since there are only iAssets there, all swaps will come from stakers (probably). Such an implementation has to be worth the developers’ time, and if no fees are collected, it’s not worth it.
Also, right now people might go directly to the other DEX, but once Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem is large enough, that will not be a viable option because it will change too quickly. In this respect, the aggregator is the best option, even if it costs a small fee.
I would support this. I think the fee should go to Indy stakers rather than the treasury simply because the treasury will be adequately funded for at least a few years.
We also need to make sure it’s possible. Depending on how the aggregator is coded it could be difficult to rewrite to include it. Need Cody to chime in on that.
There’s going to be an elasticity of demand so we would want to gauge that carefully to find the sweet spot. I think the fee could be anywhere between 0.2 & 2.
I don’t know how this works but if Minswap gives fee discounts for holding MIN, could the protocol hold MIN to take advantage of this. Just a thought.
@DrOctaFunk thank you for initiating this discussion!
I think there is definitely value in the dex aggregator that could be tapped via fees, but I don’t think now is the right time to implement fees.
My reasoning boils down to what I think should be the overall goal in this first phase after protocol launch: Growing the protocol usage (Users & Volume), which the dex aggregator does, because it makes it easier to “work with” iAssets. Anything that does not directly benefit this goal should imo not be pursued at this time (adding additional fees might even deter usage and protocol adoption).
Furthermore, I think some key assumptions that should be investigated before committing to a DAO vote:
What is the approximate cost for the dev team to implement fees for dex aggregator and potentially what are the cost to update the price structure down the line ( I understand this might be hard to quantify ex ante)?
Would it technically be possible to achieve the same discounts (e.g. via holding MIN, MILK, WMT etc.) through the dex aggregator as trading directly on the specific DEX itself?
How many trades do we assume to be made via the dex aggregator per day/epoch/week/month?
All in all I do see the additional value in the dex aggregator that could be tapped into but am convinced that it is not the right time due to the maturity stage of the protocol (i.e. growth stage) and no underlying data (i.e. usage and cost of the dex aggregator and fee implementation) at this point in time.
Every resource that is not spent growing the protocol does have opportunity cost which I think in this case outweigh the (so far) unclear benefits.
Depending on updated assumptions of 1,2,3, I am more than happy to update my point of view.
Bad idea. Penny pinching at every opportunity is bad publicity. I for one only used the internal swap to support Indigo developing it. If you add a fee then im just not going to bother.
Like with Muesli, I just use their aggregator to find the dex with the best price and then just go to the dex directly.
Indigo is earning enough through its core product that adding fees for swaps just looks petty.
I agree, 1 ADA fee will increase use in indigo and the fees go to stakers (A) will help holders and price of indy stability. Minswap charges 1,5 if you hold 50k min so 1 will compete well.
I agree with @AlexanderTeaH , there is no value added to charge an extra fee on this. People could go to the dex instead.
DEX Aggregator is a great feature that improves the great product of indigo. Let’s focus on improving the platform and don’t be greedy.
Since the aggregator only has iAssets in it and it helps drive the use of Indigo by providing an easy way for Indigo users to access DEX information on these iAssets, why would we want to discourage use by charging for it.
We get charged 1 ada just to withdrawal our rewards from a Stability Pool, and yet people don’t seem to mind paying it. How are 1 ada fees attached to swaps performed on the protocol any different?
I like this but what if the fee was really really small and paid in $INDY instead of $ADA? I would like to see detailed statistics on the Aggregator usage currently to better gauge things.
In principle, I am with those who think that this is not the time to charge a fee for using the aggregator. Basically, those who use it are the holders of synthetics, so it’s a facilitator. I think of other treasure capitalization strategies, such as the dex that executes the exchange from the aggregator paying a small commission for the referral.
I also agree with 1 ADA flat fee. We can think is a fee to have the aggregator on the site. Even knowing has 1 ADA fee I would pay for this service, ofc not to exchange 50 ADA.
