Will GLBSE ever be lowering its prices?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Am I blind or something?! Where do I find the current fees charged if I'm logged in on GLBSE?

It's not in "Terms", on "Transfer" there's only the fee for transfers and anywhere else I've looked I didn't find anything...

Edit: Ok, right after posting this, I found it...  
The only way to see the fees is if you already intend to buy something and go on an asset page. If you want to check the fees first you can be as lost as me.
Also - 0.4% fees were announced, 0.5% fees implemented. That's a 25% increase(!) - why try to kill the liquidity that anyways is the thing that generates income and is most needed on GLBSE atm in my opinion?

No it's actually 0.5% fee, I've only implemented it and not announced but we've added maker taker.

Those who make orders that goes on the orderbook (i.e. are not taken up by another order) pay 0%, those who take orders (i.e. they make an order which takes up other orders) pay 0.5%

We begged you not to do this. It's broken and doesn't do anything other than create confusion. Please do a symmetric fee of say 0.5% from each side.


PS I think the fees should be increased. GLBSE's profits are nowhere near the value it creates.

[1713444808]

1713444808

[1713444808]

1713444808

[N12]

@Meni

Why is the maker-taker model broken? I think it is good for liquidity, and lots of exchanges use it (Bitcoin exchanges as well).

[Meni Rosenfeld]

@Meni

Why is the maker-taker model broken? I think it is good for liquidity, and lots of exchanges use it (Bitcoin exchanges as well).

I see there's now a thread for this, I'll continue there.

[rjk]

@Meni

Why is the maker-taker model broken? I think it is good for liquidity, and lots of exchanges use it (Bitcoin exchanges as well).

I see there's now a thread for this, I'll continue there.

link???  thx

Fail, you quoted the link. Click it.

[Sukrim]

So a strategy to get shares would be to bid 1 Satoshi lower than the lowest ask and hope for someone holding shares to eat up the 0.5% fee?

I would still favor a clear: "0.5% on both sides of every trade or transfer of assets above 20 BTC total volume OR a flat fee of X BTC per 30 days for the 'high rollers' that provide liquidity." - this would have the best of both worlds. Small investors have only 0.5% fees and if you want to go big, you have to have a volume larger than 200 times the monthly fee within that month to be worth it - if the fee is 5 BTC for examplethat would mena, if you plan to move more than 1000 BTC per month on GLBSE, you're better off buying the flat rate, and you will also benefit smaller investors with more liquidity in the market.

[Dalkore]

$40 for the service is pretty dirt-cheap. Nef does a lot of work on the site (along with others involved) and's willing to spend a fair amount of time fixing any problems which come up.

Though.... if you're really interested in an answer, you could try posting it on http://predict.glbse.com/ 

I feel this is good value for the BTC.  Could it be cheaper, sure but I want them to have resources to do the things an exchange needs to do, security and customer service.

Dalkore

[DeathAndTaxes]

Why is reduced/no fees for those who create liquidity "broken"?  I guess some people are unaware that every major exchange in the world operates under similar model (including the NYSE).

http://individuals.interactivebrokers.com/en/accounts/fees/NYSEstkfee.php?ib_entity=llc

You will notice for share price >1 the "fee" is negative.  Thats right.  The exchange PAYS you for placing the order which adds liquidity.

Ever notice the spread on most highly traded stocks is 1 cent.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BAC

Wonder why?  Yup.  reduced/no/negative fee for adding liquidity drives the spreads closer.  The reason it isn't closer than 1 cent is simply because NYSE has min tick rules and for stocks valued > $5 the min tick is 1 cent.

[DeathAndTaxes]

So a strategy to get shares would be to bid 1 Satoshi lower than the lowest ask and hope for someone holding shares to eat up the 0.5% fee?

That would create a spread of 1 satoshi which is nirvana for a market.  Why would that be a bad thing?
Everyone wins under such a situation.

If GBLSE needs the revenue even cutting the fee when adding liquidity is better than a flat fee on both sides.

Something like:
0.4% taking liquidity
0.2% adding liquidity

[Stephen Gornick]

That would create a spread of 1 satoshi which is nirvana for a market.  Why would that be a bad thing?
Everyone wins under such a situation.

I notice the same thing with the U.S.-based bitcoin exchanges (Camp BX, BitFloor).  Bids and asks can only be placed at one penny ($0.01) increments at those exchanges.  You'll have tighter spreads than $0.01 on Mt. Gox but never closer than $0.01 on Camp BX and BitFloor as a result (of U.S. regulation, presumably).

[Meni Rosenfeld]

@DaT: Continued in the thread which I think is more relevant.

[DeathAndTaxes]

That would create a spread of 1 satoshi which is nirvana for a market.  Why would that be a bad thing?
Everyone wins under such a situation.

I notice the same thing with the U.S.-based bitcoin exchanges (Camp BX, BitFloor).  Bids and asks can only be placed at one penny ($0.01) increments at those exchanges.  You'll have tighter spreads than $0.01 on Mt. Gox but never closer than $0.01 on Camp BX and BitFloor as a result (of U.S. regulation, presumably).

There is no regulation that prohibits smaller tick size (or at least none I know).  For lower priced equities (<$5? <$1? something like that) NYSE uses a  tick of $0.001.  

Personally I think 1 cent is a little too restrictive when the asset is trading around $5.00 and really bad if BTC declines to say $2.00.  If they (Camp BX, BitFloor) are continually bumping up on that limit they should look at a smaller tick size.  Maybe to 1/10th of a cent? or 1/100th of a cent? Beyond that there isn't much value.  I mean does anyone really care if they can get a 1 BTC for $5.11000001 vs $5.11000002. You save 1 cent every 1 million BTC traded.

Still it is all relative.  If someday BTC was in the ballpark of $100 ea then tick size smaller than 1 cent is really just noise.  If someday BTC was >$10,000 you probably wouldn't even need ticks smaller than a dollar (well more likely all trading would be done in mBTC.  1 mBTC = $10.00). 

A good exchange tries to balance divisibility with ease of use.  "Does having a smaller tick size provide any benefit to traders?"

[xkrikl]

Am I blind or something?! Where do I find the current fees charged if I'm logged in on GLBSE?

It's not in "Terms", on "Transfer" there's only the fee for transfers and anywhere else I've looked I didn't find anything...

Edit: Ok, right after posting this, I found it...  
The only way to see the fees is if you already intend to buy something and go on an asset page. If you want to check the fees first you can be as lost as me.
Also - 0.4% fees were announced, 0.5% fees implemented. That's a 25% increase(!) - why try to kill the liquidity that anyways is the thing that generates income and is most needed on GLBSE atm in my opinion?

No it's actually 0.5% fee, I've only implemented it and not announced but we've added maker taker.

Those who make orders that goes on the orderbook (i.e. are not taken up by another order) pay 0%, those who take orders (i.e. they make an order which takes up other orders) pay 0.5%

Good. I like it - I guess this can make things better
Especially good news is that we don't have to pay 0,5% both seller and buyer at once.

[Stephen Gornick]

There is no regulation that prohibits smaller tick size (or at least none I know).  For lower priced equities (<$5? <$1? something like that) NYSE uses a  tick of $0.001.  

It appears there is such a restriction for equity securities:
 - http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/subpenny612faq.htm

And exchanges such as NASDAQ had to request permission to do sub-penny:
 - http://marketswiki.com/mwiki/Sub-penny_quoting

But that is for equity securities.  Perhaps BitFloor and Camp BX are using a dose of caution, or just chose penny increment so as to not give bots / automated trading the advantage that sub-penny provides?

Personally I think 1 cent is a little too restrictive when the asset is trading around $5.00

I watch the bots on Mt. Gox sit just above my bids or just below my asks and feel frustrated when theirs will trade and mine don't, thanks to decimalization precise to 5 or 8 digits.  On the other hand, I've benefited from trading where I've been able to get in just ahead of the bid wall or ask wall thanks to decimalization where instead with penny increments my order might not get filled if I was among the most recent orders at that price and the wall doesn't get broken through.

So I guess I'ld prefer the exchange to not have any restriction as sub-penny works for me sometimes.