Good afternoon, thank you for being involved in the process. We are so sorry for late response.
Answering the first question about the broker’s commission, I would like to say about a number of points.
To begin with, I note that the main idea of creating a service was open distribution and maximum decentralization. We deliberately did not add exchange features to contracts such as order books or ratings, simply because the technology itself requires the absence of any third parties, minimizing the cost of interacting with contracts and transparency in execution. The technology does not imply additional functions such as finding a deal partner and so on, and in our case, all the staff to help users find deal partners is carried out on the side of the final service. In general, the implementation of contracts directly is aimed at ensuring that everyone can create their own services with their own functions, features, etc. Isn’t that what decentralization is all about? From our point of view, ideologically, any extra features in addition to the main technology are implemented and lie on the shoulders of those who will implement it into their ready-made products.
If we deviate a little from our ideology and hit slightly into the technique, there are the following points:
-
Atomic swap, as I already said, is a technology that does not imply third parties. The very architecture of the technology contradicts the charging of any additional payment in addition to transaction fees and a certain number of tokens to support the execution of the contract.
-
From a technological point of view, the implementation of such a commission in the “when you take - pay the commission” format is extremely difficult to implement, if at all realizable, within the BTC framework. If we cannot make a polymorphic model for all currencies, it turns out that someone must always pay. Or you need to look for some other ways, the specification of which is a separate task. In fact, in any case, a person buying BTC will have additional profit relative to his opponent, since the exchange of TON in BTC can only pay to the broker with TON, and the exchange of TON - ETH can be paid by both parties.
-
Commissions of networks are already high enough. If you look a little into the future, paying additional commissions will force people to either make a fork or simply not use the service at all, since an atomic swap without a broker’s commission is often more expensive than a regular centralized exchange exchange, where there are practically no commissions for transfers other than brokerage. Plus, the translation of the broker fee itself is also an expense that someone should incur.
On the other hand, the implementation of this requirement is literally 4-5 lines of code for each of the networks which support fee stuff, provided that a clear criterion of functionality is defined, for example
-
at what moment the money is sent to the broker’s account
-
who pays the commission for this transfer
-
whether a commission is charged if the transaction did not take place
etc.
In any case, the architecture and implementation of our solution more than allows us to realize the broker’s commission. The question is solely about necessity, ideology and usability.
Answering the question about the production-ready solution. We are still working on the service, at the moment the design mentioned in the presentation is being implemented, automated tests are being added, and so on. The bottleneck, in our understanding, of any financial technology is security, therefore it is important to conduct a correct audit of contracts and their mandatory formal verification, which will take the most time. We estimate the work before the stable release as 2-3 months of work. We plan to carry out the first tests in combat networks not earlier than in 2-3 weeks.
. I have just worked out in this direction, the code turns out to be really more complex.
