Quote from: Serpens66 on August 07, 2014, 04:38:39 PM

Quote from: Dargo on August 07, 2014, 03:39:44 PM

When evaluating the true cost of an exchange, you also have to consider other factors, such as the cost of depositing and withdrawing from your account. We still have the same low fees we've always had for depositing and withdrawing euros from your account (basically free for SEPA).

that's no excuse, SEPA is free , that's the point of SEPA.

I didn't intend it as an excuse, just stating a fact. For some exchanges, there are considerable fees for depositing or withdrawing fiat from your account, and this is part of the overall cost of using their services. So if you are evaluating the true cost of an exchange, you need to consider more than the trading fee.

Quote

It is okay, that you raise the fee a bit, but more than doubling is much to much!! And why do you raise them more for good volume customers?? Why?

Our introductory rate was too low by a factor of two and this had to be addressed. We didn't raise the fee as much at the lowest volume tiers because we analyzed this and found there wasn't much advantage to it. You may have heard of the "80/20 rule," which refers to the idea that 80% of trade volume comes from 20% of traders. This rule holds for us (in fact the disparity is slightly higher). This means that there is comparatively little advantage to having higher fees at the lower volume levels. We wouldn't gain much by raising our highest fee to 0.4% over 0.35% and we thought it was more important to have the highest fee start a bit lower. So, it's absolutely not our intention to punish higher volume traders more, it's just that there wasn't any payoff for raising fees at the lower volume levels as much.

Quote

Please think about that one more time and also the Maker-Taker thing!

We did consider a maker-taker model. It's a very interesting model and we may try it someday. But there are cons to the maker-taker model. One is that if the make-take fee disparity is too large, it can actually hurt liquidity, because you just end up with no one trading and everyone trying to provide the liquidity. Given the target we had for our fees, we felt that we'd need too large of a make-take fee disparity so decided against it for now. Another con is that speed becomes hugely important because que prioritization becomes a big part of the game. It can start to skew things pretty heavily in the direction of high frequency trading and we don't want to go too far in that direction. And the focus on speed can lead to attempts at slowing others down with quote stuffing and other annoying tactics. I'm sure a maker-taker model can work well, but it's no bed of roses and a somewhat delicate matter to get right.

Thanks again for your feedback Serpens.