I’m in favor of this proposal. I’m curious to see, prior to removing the protocol fee, if the team has any ideas on their vision for the tokenomics redesign. I’m sure once live data is collected it can influence certain decisions, but the last time this discussion came up on the “Future Proofing the Protocol Fees” thread, I feel like the conversation ended without any real ideas.
I wish I came into this conversation with my own ideas lol. Don’t want to be a backseat driver - I believe “we” (community + team) will figure it out.
Thanks @nikita for proposing this. I will vote 1. Yes as well.
This experiment will hopefully equip us with the necessary data points to shift towards a more sustainable model, or at the very least validating (and addressing) the fact that the current one is anachronistic vs how product/market fit evolved.
I would focus in particular on two data points during the experiment:
open orderbook volume → expected to increase. When available, one could even break it down by application.
% of limit orders filled / # limit orders created → expected to increase. This latter metric is just a heuristics for the impact pf have on the likelihood of limit order execution. We ran an analysis internally in February that showed that ~25% of limit orders created in Matcha are eventually executed.
For both metrics, we will have to settle for correlation with a simple pre/post analysis, but I think it’ll be enough signal. Obviously, both metrics depend heavily on market and gas conditions, which hopefully don’t change drastically.
After the vote passed and executed in effect yesterday, the protocol engineer updated the nativeOrderFeatures contract destination and it needs to be added in data pipeline to reflect correct count of fills.
the Success Fill Rate charts in dashboard means the (1 - revert rate) on chain, i.e. the success rate of settlement after the orders are matched/taken and signed by both taker and maker. We gonna try to add another % of matching order success rate (i.e. % how many orders are picked up by takers from the open orderbook pools). Presumable assumption is without protocol fees, this rate can go higher as (adjusted) price is more competitive.