I strongly disagree with this, at least until someone explains how this encourages providing liquidity. Intersango did something like this, I'll quote what I wrote to them:
To me it seems very poorly thought out, for the simple reason that it will make absolutely no difference. Makers take fees into account when setting prices, and the change will just mean they will modify their prices so that everybody still pays the same.
Before:
John wants to sell 10 BTC, as long as he gets at least $0.9935 for each. He puts a sell order @ $1/BTC.
Beth executes this order, paying $1 per BTC plus 0.65% fee.
John gets $9.935, Beth pays $10.065, Intersango gets $0.13.
After:
John wants to sell 10 BTC, as long as he gets at least $0.9935 for each. He puts a sell order @ $0.997/BTC.
Beth executes this order, paying $0.997 per BTC plus 0.95% fee.
John gets $9.935, Beth pays $10.065, Intersango gets $0.13.
No change in the actual trades and prices people get, this just makes things unintuitive and complicated.
By the way, any plans to have the issuer of the share get a portion of the trading fee?
Thats not entirely true, although I'm on your side as I think its pointless, Intersango's new fee structure does make business sense: it delivers on the goal of reducing spreads. Their thinking is a tighter spread will lead to more customers. For those who unknowingly sign up, the buys will be more expensive then they expect. I think this is stupid, however it has made the exchange favour sellers. If you dont mind using two exchanges, you can use this to your advantage for your trading activities.