Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

REQUEST: Optional fees #2

Open
stevenroose opened this issue Jan 5, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

REQUEST: Optional fees #2

stevenroose opened this issue Jan 5, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@stevenroose
Copy link

We're interested in running an instance of UbiTok internally for trading between our own ERC20 tokens.

For this, we would like to be able to disable the fee functionality. I think by requesting a fee rate upon construction and skipping all fee-related logic when this is 0 would make sense.

@kieranelby
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Steven,

Thanks for the feature suggestion. Yes, supporting a custom fee (including no-fee) makes sense.

I'm afraid development on UbiTok.io is currently suspended so it's not likely to happen any time soon :( Sadly, while a totally decentralized exchange is cool technically, it's not currently very practical commercially - paying $$ in gas to place an order that never gets filled is not popular.

As a quick workaround, you could probably (I've not tested!) just replace this line:

uint constant feeDivisor = 2000;

with a huge number - e.g.

uint constant feeDivisor = 10 ** 36;

Then the fee would get rounded to zero.

Regards,
Kieran

@stevenroose
Copy link
Author

Hi @kieranelby, thanks for the heads-up! Would you know of any alternative project similar to UbiTok?

We've been looking at several, but the few ones that exist all seem discontinued.

@kieranelby
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure it's particularly active either, but https://cryptoderivatives.market/ ( https://github.com/bokkypoobah/TokenTrader/wiki ) is one example I know of a fully decentralized exchange. The EtherDelta contract is normally used with an order book server, but I think it can be used directly at the contract level.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants