I like 3% now. We can always go down from there and it costs LPs nothing. This will be a real incentive to market this project.
2 Likes
I think 3% is the sweet spot: not too low to dismiss the referral program, not too high to cause disruption.
For example, for a common $200 ZNN → wZNN swap the fee paid will be $6, enough to bring back 2 users into the ecosystem (and hopefully twice the value in $ terms that will flow back into the ecosystem).
1 Like
If you’re planning to be able to adjust this in the future, why not set the maximum fee to 10% and initialize a currentFee variable with the result of the poll?
This way we can adjust based on the whole spectrum of the poll, not just the winning the result.
I don’t understand this limitation. Won’t the API only require the referral code anyways?
What’s the difference between a referral code and a referral link?
Syrius Desktop doesn’t support URIs yet.
Theoretically you’re right, but there’s a minimum delay between these changes, so it’s better to be set to a percentage that’s been agreed on.
The web app will only support referral links. If you are planning to implement the bridge interface in syrius you can allow users to just paste the referral link or a referral code.
2 Likes
Not sure if I understand…
-
What if the ZNN to wZNN lane has lower volume than the wZNN to ZNN lane on the bridge?
-
If I want to bridge 1000 ZNN to wZNN when ZNN is $20, I’ll be looking at a $600 fee at 3%.
If I understand correctly, that’s offensive. I think the fee would have to be less than 1%.
How about a sliding scale?
Or…
How about something that utilizes protocol emissions to reward affiliates?
Lazy idea: Stake a bunch of ZNN from AZ for perpetuity and pay monthly $QSR to affiliates according to performance.
1 Like
It doesn’t have any impact. The idea is to penalize exiting the ecosystem.
If you want to dump such a large amount, $600 is peanuts for you. Initially, I voted for 5%. You’re penalized because you want exit the ecosystem. This means you have no interest left in this project. You will not contribute to this project anymore. Your sole purpose is to profit. Therefore, your 30 ZNN fee (notice I didn’t use the $ value) will be on good hands: marketers, believers, ZNN maxies or even fellow aliens (with the help of the referral program) will make use of the funds to engage, attract and convert new participants.
Even businesses can charge 2-3% and no one is complaining about fees. And they’re charging you for every credit card purchase.
This can be implemented only into a sidechain. Another take: would you change protocol emissions for Bitcoin?
Here is my proposal for the xZNN fee mechanism:
I think this is a valid idea that should be taken into consideration. The only problem is that the ZNN QSR are locked into the A-Z embedded.
Alien is right. Look at sales tax. We pay 10% in certain markets in and around Chicago.
1 Like
I live in a tax free state and I don’t accept credit cards for this very reason. And ‘everyone’ complains about taxes. 
It’s not possible, because there can only be as much wZNN as was swapped from ZNN.
I’m not saying $600 out of $20000 is cheap, but…if this mechanism gets us there I don’t think many will complain. And imagine how incentivized marketers will be to attract even more users.
The fee can be lowered in the future if the community decides so, but it’s important to know that once the fee is lowered to a level, it can never be raised above that level ever again.
Any external incentives source will be make it profitable to abuse the mechanism.
Awesome!
The main objective of this mechanism is to provide a sustainable source for rewarding marketing efforts so the community can grow over time. Accelerator-Z does something similar for the builders of the ecosystem and it’s working.
3 Likes
How to shoot yourself in the foot. Setup a ridiculously high fee for crosschain txs. You guys are obsessed by marketing and forget that liquidity + volume is what gets you traction. I can’t wait to see influencers fighting for their shares of a ref links over a 100k liquidity market which will turn into a p&d fest.
1 Like
@sumamu one issue I see is that if thevpenalty is too high it will disincentivize people from using wznn in the first place, especially if you add eth gas fees on top.
This could very well impact liquidity growth as @dat_she_pepe pointed out.
I know I also voted 3% but a smaller fee probably makes most sence. There is no shortage of funds to pay marketers. The shortage are marketers who actually know what they’re doing (or people who understand what effective marketing means)
Our focus should be on building liquidity and volume first and foremost.
There is a shortage of liquid funds to pay marketers. AZ cannot sustain everything because (unfortunately) is not replenishable. Luckily, this mechanism is both auto-replenishable and scalable.
The shortage are marketers. There is literally no active marketing right now.
You forget that people that join the community and buy gets you liquidity + volume. What do you do to attract and convert people?
It’s in the title: “perpetual ecosystem growth” 
Like the team wisely said, Acta non verba
I’m all for getting liquidity + volume, I want this to be very clear. My experience simply happens to be that traction comes from marketing, retention from utility, volume from buyers and sellers and liquidity from incentivizing liquidity providers.
If what you’re saying were to be true, then we should already have liquidity + volume on STEX and it should’ve been there on Pancake Swap too.
That’s not the case, so what you’re saying must be incomplete.
Orbital is about to start, which will attract liquidity. Also, during the campaign, the rewards will be higher than ever, so it will likely attract even more liquidity.
For current ZNN holders there are 2 reasons to use wZNN:
- providing liquidity - and this case is even incentivized
- selling wZNN - which will happen if the price and/or liquidity are better than STEX
Now for the 2nd case, which is valid if the price and/or liquidity are better than STEX. That is likely to happen for the following reasons:
- buying from Uniswap, 1inch or other DEXs doesn’t require the user to trust and deposit the funds on a CEX
- the referral program will incentivize affiliate marketers to promote wZNN
- Orbital program incentivizes liquidity providers if they lock their liquidity over a period of time, which means that wZNN will likely have a deep liquidity pool
The problem is not the shortage of funds, but the lack of a mechanism that accurately rewards marketers who actually bring added value to the ecosystem.
Sure we can go ahead and reward social interactions, onchain activity, wallet downloads and whatnot, but in the end, if we were to try and measure the success of these, we’d still look at how well we’re doing in terms of: price, liquidity and volume.
Why?
- Success in terms of price means the price is getting higher, which happens when someone buys.
- Success in terms of liquidity means we have as much ETH in the AMM pool as possible, which again happens when liquidity is added (already taken care by Orbital) or someone buys.
- Volume is the only metric that benefits from both buyers and sellers.
So the one common factor that measures the success of these 3 metrics is how much “buy” a marketer brings.
Well then why don’t we use the same mechanism but a different funding source?
- We could, but they wouldn’t be as sustainable as this one.
- We could, but if we used another funding source, it would incentivize current holders to cheat the mechanism.
- We could, but any other available funding source would penalize the holders and/or buyers instead of the sellers.
Orbital already does that and it’s not clear to me how a 3% fee would harm liquidity and volume.
- A seller won’t sell anymore because of the 3% fee? I’d say that’s a win.
- A liquidity provider won’t provide liquidity because of the 3% fee? But it gets refunded when the LP returns to the ecosystem.
- A buyer won’t buy anymore because of the 3% fee? Buyers actually receive a 1% bonus to swap from wZNN to ZNN, that’s pretty much all they’ll know at that point.
Conclusion
We could continue to argue or we could give it a try and see how it goes for a few months. If later we decide to lower the fee, we can do that, but if we lowered it from the start, we actually shoot ourselves in the foot because we won’t ever be able to increase the fee beyond that amount for the referral program.
This fee proposal is very different than a standard swap fee. I think we all have experience with those fees, and paying 3% to swap ERCs would be a nonstarter. I can tell you first hand the swap fees on THORchain are a big obstacle to adoption.
If you buy wZNN and then trade it on uniswap, you only pay swap fees on the CEX. This 3% fee will not impact trading in any way on Ethereum. The fee only impacts people who are exiting.
This is a novel approach to marketing that we have not seen before. Setting the fee too low will not give us the opportunity to test any price levels. And initially it will only impact LPs who will get it back upon repatriation.
Why run an experiment with no room to experiment? I voted for 3% but think it could be even higher - maybe 5%. Also, think about the incentives for the people responding here. If someone wants out, they want the fee as low as possible. And for those who want to experiment with the novel approach, setting a higher number likely makes sense so we can test.
Also wanted to point out that if you buy 100 wZNN and move it to ZNN you now have 101 ZNN. When you move it back to Ethereum you have about 98 wZNN (assuming no natural price movement). The net fee is 2% doing a round trip from ETH > ZNN > ETH.
1 Like
Thanks for the explanations. I’m not dismissing anything. Just challenging some thoughts. A critical discourse should be acceptable either case. I am still supporting this, it doesnt mean I can’t question design decisions.
That was a general mention, it was not directed at you. Sorry if it seemed so.
Indeed, this is NOT a trading fee, nor a transfer fee. It only applies to swaps from ZNN to wZNN.
That’s right.
3 Likes
Wrong assumption at the begining. You get liquidity with PA and good incentives. AKA you market a clear and competitive APR. Stex is unknown and there’s 0 real trader going there. You only took what suit your views from what I said. Here’s the complete ELI5:
- Outrageous fee will get you rekt
Why ?
- Deep liquidity allows OI which allows a good PA people can actually trade and that’s your best marketing because THEY TALK. Some might even MM your asset.
Guess what ?
-
Zenon has non of those because it NEVER found a good way to incentive liquidity. No vampire campaign, no APR marketed on except on a bridge people that broke ridiculously on a chain which is perceived as the fruit farm one.
-
Here you have a way to do real marketing and not Twitter campaigns funded by the community money, campaigns that resulted so far with 0 effects. I guess being in a bear market should be an important information in decision making here.
If you don’t fuck around, you will never find out.
2 Likes
I am excited. Can wait for bridge to go live.
2 Likes
Interesting idea to use the fee only as incentive to attract potential zAliens. Personally I would be willing to pay 3% to convert ZNN to wZNN as it would be logical to enlarge the ZNN network. Although one could say being feeless is one of the pillars of ZNN. And it still is, just the bridge has a incentive fee. Good job guys ^^
2 Likes