Fees and future of fairmarket

Hello all,

Right now, there are no fees in fairmarket because the beta version.  Still a decition for production phase has not been reached.

I see two possible approach:

1.  Small fees, where the community can decide about how are going to be spend. From fairmarket improvements, to distribution to autonomous projects.

2. No fees. We promote participation in the fairmarket at most deleting fees, and the fund for projects and for improving fairmarket comes from othe faircoop funds.

What do you think?

 

Enric
Enric
172
| 4 1 3
Asked on 3/10/16, 12:10 PM
3
vote
2343 Views

<p>I think is better avoiding fees for all the fairmarket, making it a common resource, funded by faircoop. Fairmarket will be important step for that because extend the use of faircoin will make more valuable all the faircoop funds, and this will help us to sustain all the faircoop ecosystem.</p> <p>I see, that extending an alternative currency like fairmarket is already a big challenge to happen, and we not should put more difficult elements here. Also I see that if already using faircoin have sometimes a cost, like 1% fee of getfaircoin for online buyings, or 1% for sellers to change again to euros online. Then we should not double charge with a fee on fairmarket</p> <p>In the opposite, we, as a faircoop, already have a good plan for getting incomes from the resources that freedom coop will bring to members, and we should focus on that at sustainibility level</p> <p>Also, Avoiding fees, makes Fairmarket more resilent at legal level, because then fairmarket is only a resource, not intermediary and not get direct responsability of the goods and services that are exchanged here.</p>

Enric
Enric
172
| 4 1 3
Answered on 4/6/16, 1:32 PM
2
vote

I agree, Also, legally talking, FairMarket should emit invoices by the fees so it would need a legal form. Without fees we are simple intermediates and we don't have any responsabilty.

Administrator
on 4/6/16, 3:57 PM

I think that depends on the intricacies of how faircoin passes through the system. If there is a point where money can be somehow caught in fairmarket due to a bug, then we are intermediaries while we hold it, or do we need legal knowledge to say for sure? Fairmarket would be more resilient as local nodes get underway. There still needs to be a legitimate responsible party in case something goes wrong. If a group falls apart for example, the user who set up that shop has responsibility, according to how we have it working now... It's still our duty to make sure both parties reach a good agreement to sort out any problems. Probably by providing a simple platform where these things can be collectively managed online or offline at a node.

Ale Fernandez
on 4/6/16, 4:47 PM

<p>At the 7 April assembly we didn't go into the discussion again but decided to simply not charge fees for the time being although there is the worry that while money is held in the system due to errors we might still be liable and still needs to be looked into more.</p> <p>I'm leaving the initial proposal I'd made below, advocating a shared fund instead of fees:</p> <p>Proposal for large fees (shared fund): As a cooperative market we can decide on even if we want to call them "fees" or "voluntary shared fund" and each year or winter solstice, buy ourselves a laptop or some sweets, as long as everyone agrees that laptops and sweets are the best way to spend the money between us. Until someone goes to hospital or gets fined and we have to figure it all out again.</p> <p>The fees wouldn't be the only way the fairmarket itself might be sustainable in future: I see a combination of group partnerships for development, an ongoing crowdfund, and the needs of other faircoop funds, as complements to whatever we might raise off this: so a choice is also if we want to tax on transactions, and leave it open, considering that in Fairmondo for example, a problematic area is fraud, so that each seller pays a one time fee(for example when registering or downloading an app), a periodic fee - like a weekly, monthly one, or one based on a certain amount of sales, knowing that in the ethereum age we can be very varied in our responses to these things. Do we even want to charge at all, but instead just request a helpful, collaborative work ethic? - For example where people with products in section areas administer those areas like ancient guilds once did, and how do you foster innovation, this time unlike guilds - and where people who in a local setting might be a minority, able to voice their worth in the actual participation in common tools.</p> <p>So a proposal is that the way the fee is charged be optional, but not the payment itself: so for now or whenever makes sense: charge a periodical fee, so that at launch we add the ability to also or alternatively charge a transaction fee or a mix. Then people can choose the one they are most comfortable with. Faircoop on the other hand, as an open participatory structure would need to ensure fairmarket made good use of the funds where used for the furthering of the market itself, and any excess fairly and democratically for all stakeholders(eg people who might use it and leave).  Fairmarket itself would use these forums to debate, and a monthly online assembly to decide on things.</p> <p>So that said, we can decide on an amount which we feel can make fairmarket work, and a minimum amount of sellers who by a combined transaction fee would make that feasible in the short or medium term, subtracting whatever other funds are prepared to give, or other funding streams we might see that fit with our objectives and ethics.</p> <p>I feel that sellers should be able to participate fully in the running of the market, also from the ground up, so that this can be a more participative, self managed system but where people also look out for each other and are fair in the way they relate to each other. If amazon creates the mturk, we can re-create human values in how we decide to share our work dynamics across human and online systems. Also people who identify with or wish to represent groups of buyers, or people in other forms of alternate or cooperative markets, all should have a say,  and perhaps the fairmarket should eventually fund meetings, workspace, internet connections and spaces where sellers can also have physical markets to complement the online versions.</p>

Ale Fernandez
Ale Fernandez
132
| 4 1 2
Answered on 3/18/16, 3:20 PM
2
vote

<p>I've read the above opinions and I believe the most suitable solution at this point is 'no fees', mainly for the reasons Enric explained already. Although, I would also vote for a versatile fee algorithm e.g. a small percentage fee depending on the products eah one offer etc, although avoiding to place a fee on each exchange. But still, better avoid this for time being and look to reach our main goal first, which is extend the use of FairCoin by creating a  wide fair trade through this market.</p>

Ask Mana
Ask Mana
20
| 2 1 2
Answered on 4/9/16, 3:08 PM
1
vote

Your answer

Please try to give a substantial answer. If you wanted to comment on the question or answer, just use the commenting tool. Please remember that you can always revise your answers - no need to answer the same question twice. Also, please don't forget to vote - it really helps to select the best questions and answers!

Create a topic

Keep me informed

About This Forum

This forum is for new features proposals in FairMarket and to speak about the future of the tool and cooperations with external platforms.

Read Guidelines

Question tools

6 follower(s)

Stats

Asked: 3/10/16, 12:10 PM
Seen: 2343 times
Last updated: 11/14/17, 11:30 AM