dexwebapp icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
dexwebapp copied to clipboard

Minimum swap amounts too high. Suggestion to add minimum fee instead to allow small traders

Open brentmw1 opened this issue 4 years ago • 0 comments

Problem: $100 minimum amount for a swap is far too high. I understand there has to be a way to make sure Loopring can't get spam attacked with small amounts that cost more than the fees generated by the transaction. However, I see at least a couple issues with the current structure:

  • Small traders (<$100) are completely blocked from trading. This is unacceptable, especially with onboarding soon moving to L2, making wallet creation much, much cheaper. There will definitely be users wanting to swap less than the minimum amount. When they aren't able to do so, adoption and growth of the platform will be hurt.
  • It's currently impossible to arbitrage a low liquidity pool that could be profitable for someone, even with a higher fee. This also prevents people from bringing pools to normal prices before adding liquidity. This also hurts growth, as it can hinder willingness to add liquidity to pools, thus also affecting growth of the platform.

Solution: There should be a minimum fee, which can be higher than 0.25% of the transaction amount for smaller trades. A disclaimer should be included in the UI, potentially for all trade amounts that would cost more than the normal fee. However this fixes both of the above problems:

  • Small traders can now trade freely. A ~$.50 fee (or whatever the required fee would actually be) on their trades will likely be acceptable to users trading less than $100. Growth is then supported.
  • Arbitrage and bringing pools to normal value is also made possible. Someone wanting to add a lot of liquidity would be willing to pay the minimum fee for a small trade if it means their liquidity is properly added. Again, growth of the platform is supported by this move.

The only thing I don't know about is whether this makes the relayer more costly or significantly more complex, but I don't believe that to be the case. I believe this proposed change would be a positive for Loopring's protocol and products in almost every way.

brentmw1 avatar Mar 26 '21 15:03 brentmw1