i am in support of transitioning linear finance to be more focused “real-world” assets. some of the most popular commodities traded in traditional finance are
Brent crude (oil)
WTI crude (oil)
there are many options for users to currently trade crypto - the competition is intense binance, coinbase, etc… conversely, there aren’t many liquid exchanges with a diverse selection of real-world commodities.
we know that the linear finance exchange contract is gas intensive - i.e. more liquid asset options on exchange require more gas for transactions. what i propose is to eliminate the vast majority of crypto options - keeping only 3-5 and begin the process to increase commodities, currencies and indices.
gas fees have been a common complaint from our community. if we create a more lean exchange with fewer crypto options, we could reduce our gas fees and we can take proactive steps to become a more diverse exchange with more real-world liquid assets.
I understand your point. However commodities always gain attention in difficult market situations… It could be interesting on the long term to add more commodities as they work as a hedge… however the market will change again economy will find a way out… markets will raise again and commodities will become cheaper before this happens… Its nog a good idea to take out what we will need in a good market. (Crypto, stocks, …) However I do like the point of adding some more commodities to hedge.
This would be very drastical. I like the Idea to add more commodities, currencies and indices, but not by the cost of removing any of the other liquids. Correct me if I’m wrong but you are talking about the gas prices for building, burning and claiming, because the exchange gas fees are not effected by the count of liquids in the eco system as far I can tell. For me it’s okay, that these operations need an elevated gas fee, because I don’t need to use them very often. It would be much worse to lose the diversity of the other liquids, than pay a little bit more fees to provide liquidity and gain these high rewards. So, sorry I don’t see removing a lot of liquids, that’s my opinion!
Good debate here, thanks Capt.
Just to re iterate what I said on Discord, for me trading the volatility of crypto is what I’m most interested in and thats not something you really get with commodities.
Rather than Gas fees I would argue our main focus is to attract new users and adding more options like commodities would do this, but as Pho points out not at the cost of the majority of crypto’s.
As the eternal diplomat I think we should look to meet somewhere in the middle, lose some of the lesser traded cryptos, introduce commodities and increase the indices we have.
But from what parle we’ve had with dev’s thus far this seems like it could be a big job and would affect gas fees negatively, I’ll need to check this.
Final point, amother way to diversify and attract/ maintain user base woulbe be to add functionality to the exchange, ie, more shorting options, leverage etc.
Best wishes all.
Ps, apologies for slow to no comms recently, the market conditions I think have affected us all! Looking forward to getting things pumping again though of course.
the gas fees on exchange are higher because the contract runs through all liquids options, so more options = more work (please excuse this overly simplified explanation). so if we had 100 liquids options gas fees would be significantly higher than if we had 10.
just checked it again, but there is no iteration over Liquids in the contract source code of the exchange method of the LnExchangeSystem.sol. The Runtime Estimation should be independent to the count of liquid symbols. Maybe you can provide the source where you found or get that info, but I think it’s wrong. In contrast to that all the other functions in connection with the dept pool have a liquid count dependent runtime. Maybe there was a kind of missunderstanding or confusion of the different functions.
As semi1993 has mentioned adding new commodities is excellent idea but dont take out crypto liguids from exchange. They are crucial in bull market, i can remember in spring 2021 we had $1bil volume in a week on exchange.
Exchanging liquids does not change debt for anyone in the system, including the trader. So there’s no re-calculation of the system’s total debt, and thus the number of liquids listed is irrelevant. I.e. it’s not an increased gas cost in trading on the exchange that we would see, but rather as Pho mentions when using the build/burn functions.