Quote from: markm on Today at 08:37:44 AM

Un-necessary thus likely undesirable coersion.

It should suffice to deploy market-maker bots, even very simplistic like the Stellar bot KELP's so called "balanced" mode which assumes the central/balanced price in a pair is precisenly the ratio that bot holds of one side of the pair to the other.

Any speculative activity that moves the price any reasonable / significant amount must, on any platform such bots are operating on, either buy from or sell to such bots, thus automatigically simple deployment of such bots on most/all trading venues should suffice to endow any humanitarian organisation or foundation with operating funds proportional to the encountered price volatility combined with the (presumably ever-growing) size of the holdings of the bots.

Thus all mentions of any implied or implicit coercive charging of fees in the initial post's proposal should be completely discardable, which maybe might leave other parts of it remaining to possibly have some redeeming value, haven't bothered looking farther into the whole kit-and-kaboodle beyond the glaring impression the whole thing is fundamentally based on a coercive approach / intention / motive.

-MarkM-

Your market maker bot proposal is theoretically attractive, but it overlooks the real-world cryptocurrency ecosystem.

While you criticize the existing exchange fee systems as "coercive" and propose an alternative, this is akin to suggesting the removal of highway tolls while having the government maintain the roads through gas station businesses. It sounds appealing, but its feasibility is low.

Rationale behind current fee structures There is a reason why the current exchange fee model is widely adopted:

Predictability - Both developers and users can accurately predict costs Fairness - Users pay for the resources they use Transparency - Clearly stated fees, instead of hidden costs, are open to all Stability - Continuous cash flow is ensured regardless of market fluctuations Market maker bots cannot provide such stability and predictability. While they may generate profit during a market boom, what about during a bear market? It's difficult to maintain stable profits.

Strategic value of ecosystem fees: Introducing a slight additional fee within blockchain ecosystems like Bitcoin means more than just a simple "tax":

Promoting ecosystem growth - Securing funds for more applications and service development Network effects - More development → more users → more value Long-term vision - Focus on long-term growth rather than short-term costs For Bitcoin to evolve from a mere speculative asset to "digital gold," establishing a stable ecosystem is crucial. This can be achieved through systematic funding mechanisms rather than relying on the uncertainty of market-making profits.

Your market maker bot approach faces several practical challenges:

Paradox of initial capital - Running a bot effectively requires significant capital upfront Risk exposure - Potential for huge losses in extreme market situations (flash crash) Technical complexity - Requires advanced algorithms, 24/7 monitoring, and continuous optimization Regulation risk - Market making activities may be subject to regulation in various jurisdictions Difficulty in scaling - As the ecosystem grows, more capital is needed Resultant centralization - Reliance on a few large capital market makers

The last issue is particularly ironic. While criticizing centralized fee systems, you may ultimately come to rely on an even more centralized market-making system.