Future proofing the protocol fee

[nikita]

@abandeali1

We’ve actually discussed this at length, and one solution we like is to only charge fees on trades that are split between multiple sources (either 2 or 3, depending on the desired threshold). This turns out to be a decent proxy for trade size in a lot of cases, auto-scales with gas prices (because single sources are more likely to be used in high gas price environments), and only charges a fee when users are getting excess value from aggregation.

@abandeali1

There is also significant opportunity for the protocol to monetize multi-chain volume if fees are not only limited to open orderbook (~5-10% of Ethereum volume atm).

Am I reading this correctly that swaps would become “fee-eligible” again (under certain conditions) whereas currently only filled limit orders (i.e., non-bridged) incur fees? Conversely, would this also mean that limit orders would no longer incur fees as there is no aggregation routing? Or would there be some hybrid appoach for fees depending on the type of order/fill?

Is 0x Labs doing any research/analysis that can be shared on how other aggregators and apps building on top of 0xAPI are implementing fees and what revenue that is generating (for them)?

Is there more recent granular data on the breakdown of types of orders, volume, fees, etc., from this post last year? Open discussion on ZEIP-79 (decreasing protocol fee multiplier)

I like the idea of using Polygon as a testing ground for new fee/tokenomics models!