<< Of course I’ve considered this, and a good amount of data is also based on low volume. If that’s the basis for measurement then mandatory fees are likely not making us sustainable either. Just a marginal improvement, and that is assuming we preserve that insufficient volume too. >>
I don’t think anyone is expecting adding fees would magically put the DAO in the green. Rather, it’s seen as an experiment that would see a.) how fee-sensitive users are (within the narrow scope of where the fees are added), b.) get a better sense for what sort of fees they’d be willing to pay, c.) test the fundamental assumption that users will abandon the platform if there are fees, and d. ) possibly generate more revenue for the community than is being generated solely by donations.
What’s that old saying attributed to Einstein? Something like “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Fees would not be a panacea, but at least they’d be an experiment with something different.
<<Part of SCP-128 was based on the expectation of FOX Rewards driving volume and thus generating more revenue through donations, while preserving our Public Good status. Why not focus on delivering something the FOX holders voted on?>>
FOX Rewards held great promise during the fee debate six months ago. I was excited as fuck about them. However, for various reasons, they’ve gone nowhere – and currently there is no realistic path to having these implemented within the next three, or even six, months. The Product Team has a clear list of things that will need to happen before those are prioritized, and most of things are not close to being a reality.
Again: FOX Rewards is off the table for the near-term. Don’t take my word for it; ask the Product Team.
In the absence of FOX Rewards anytime soon, one of the most compelling arguments against fees during the prior debate is absent. This is a notable change compared to six months ago.
<< It’s what FOX Holders voted for in SCP-128 as a counter proposal to mandatory fees, with mentions of this status of Public Good in the proposal. This status enabled us to get grants we couldn’t have otherwise. So I’m not sure where you get this impression it has never been a positioning of the DAO, it’s what FOX Holders voted for in my understanding/interpretation. >>
I respectfully disagree. That vote was to determine whether to add optional donations rather than fees. It’s true that Willy referred to Public Goods in his reasoning for the proposal, but the specific action taken by a “yes” vote was simply to add the donations; the community assenting to this does not mean that the community had collectively bought into the notion of Public Goods (whatever that means). Granted, no fees and Public Goods tend to go hand-in-hand in the eyes of many, but I would personally feel broad-sided that just because that proposal mentions Public Goods, we must pursue a specific path.
There’s tons of ambiguity here, and precisely why we’re having a community discussion around this. Maybe someone will eventually decide to push a proposal that is designed specifically to say that SS is a Public Good, and outline what that means. If that were to pass, by all means, let’s move forward will a clear distinction/definition.
I personally did not sign up for some slavish adherence to a nebulous ideal like “Public Goods.” It’s not what I’m here for…I’m here to live and breathe the core crypto values that have been the motivating force behind ShapeShift since its inception (both the DAO and the centralized entity). Self-custody. Permissionless. Cross-chain. Public Goods in crypto can certainly be a great thing, and ShapeShift can help play a supporting role, but once we tie ourselves down to these types of definitions we lose autonomy and flexibility.
<<I just do not think that the DAO should choose a strategy that makes us simple clones of competitors who pretty much all add fees on anything they touch, it’s just not how I envision our DAO bringing anything valuable to the space. If we build something sustainable only because we can tax user each time they interact with our service, why not use existing services which do exactly this right now, with more chains, and why not simply use CEXs which do exactly this too. I want the DAO to build something different.>>
As Willy often points out, there are a lot of cool aspects of the platform: its super-sexy UI and cross-chain abilities to name a few. A lack of fees is not the only competitive differentiator SS has to offer. Now that wee’ve built something unique, there’s nothing wrong with trying experiments to see if users will pay a nominal fee to leverage that uniqueness. And to reiterate the obvious: the current approach is not working. This situation calls for rapid experimentation and iteration, lean-startup style. We can’t simply continue doing what we’ve been doing and hope for different results. (And again, FOX Rewards is completely off the table for the foreseeable future).
<< This seems like the same argument as above, the same volume with mandatory fees does not seem to make us sustainable either? The marginal improvement for the runway does not seem like a good trade-off to renounce having an actual different value proposition that just rent-seeking on services we, in the end, do not provide but just regroup/aggregate. >>
Thus far the free market hasn’t found much value in the DAO’s no-fee value prop. It’s been six months since the last fee debate, and here we are, still waiting for that glorious day when the Public Goods model is validated. Maybe that will happen, but we can’t just sit around and pray to the business model gods for success. The API is a good example of trying something different. Experiments with fees are another example. And as I alluded to above, the data we glean could help ShapeShift be much more successful when the next bull market finally arrives.
<< You’re right, I don’t have hard data to measure this, I’ve mentioned customers because we do have to care about them, even if it could be a minority, we can’t really afford to scare people away with regards to the volumes you’ve previously mentioned. But the main point was about partners. If you switch that Public Good status on and off regularly, I honestly doubt a committe like the one of Optimism would consider the project a Public Good, to the point I’ve raised, what would have happened if such decision was taken during our previous campaign using one of their grant? Should we have refunded it? >>
I’m honestly not sure how to answer those questions…it’s hard to say. But what I can say without hesitation is that if those Public Goods partners disappeared, it would not make or break the DAO. Some of these efforts have brought the DAO some revenue, while others have been an abject failure. None of them have brought the DAO meaningfully closer to self-sustainability. So–let’s turn on fees on a very specific part of the platform and see what happens. We don’t have the luxury of perpetuating the current approach ad infinitum; our limited runway says otherwise.
