pull down to refresh

Hey everyone —

We’ve been listening closely to all the feedback around our current fee model — especially in response to this post:
🔗 #1008186

We want to apologize for not thinking it through more carefully before launching the original fee structure.
Your concerns are valid, and we’re working to adjust in a way that aligns incentives and respects the community.

💡 Our Proposal (Open to Feedback)

We’re considering a new, simpler, and more trader-friendly fee structure:

Buy Fee: 0%

No friction to enter. Buyers help set prices and provide liquidity — they shouldn’t be penalized.
Sell Fee: 1%

A minimal fee applied when users exit early. Helps reduce liquidity drain and support LPs.
Win Fee: 1%

Only charged if your bet wins — aligned with performance and upside sharing.

🧮 Why This Matters

For context — in LMSR, markets subsidize liquidity by design. Without enough volume, they can lose sats.
This structure:

Encourages participation with zero entry cost
Keeps total fees very low (1–2% max)
Enables fair revenue sharing with creators and liquidity providers
Discourages spam or exploitative trading patterns

💬 We’d Love Your Input

Before finalizing any changes, we want to hear from you:

Do these fees feel fair?
Is 1% too high or too low for Sell/Win?
Would you prefer another structure?

Reply with your thoughts, or reach out in Discord or directly.
We're building Predyx to be a fair, open, and sustainable platform — and your input helps shape it.

🙏 Thanks again for keeping us honest and helping us build better.

cc @grayruby @Undisciplined @BlokchainB @Coinsreporter @south_korea_ln @denlillaapan @OT @TNStacker @WeAreAllSatoshi @NEEDcreations @Shugard @ek @itsTomekK @Cje95 and all the other users of Predyx that I may have missed.

view all related items

152 sats \ 8 replies \ @ek 8h

Unrelated feedback: you use way too much AI for your posts. I don’t read any of them (including this one) because they are boring, full of marketing speech and have no “soul.”

If you didn’t write it yourself but just prompted for it, I don’t feel like it’s you who is talking to me, but just some statistical model as a proxy, that is coming up with words that sound nice but aren’t your words.

It also makes me wonder how much you care about your users if you don’t come up with your own words for them or if you even read the output yourself before you post it. Maybe I should also not have wasted my time trying to come up with my own words here but just reply with some prompted, generic text, so you can see how it feels?

Regarding the fees: you should fix the underlying problem which seems to be that you don’t handle transactions correctly.

Did you switch from MongoDB to Postgres?

78 sats \ 7 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 8h

Yes, I do use AI heavily - because I thought it makes it more readable and clear. But I guess its the other way round as you rightly mentioned "boring and have no soul". Thanks for the honest feedback - will try to use less of it.

Honestly I do care a lot about the users that's why I'm mostly available here in SN to get feedback and market announcement etc. I do tell the AI what to write for example for the above post my prompt was: "Make an announcement of new fee structure of 0% buy, 1% sell, 1% buy - as the previous fee structure was too high." - Somehow unconsciously I don't feel very confident in creating formal announcement like above. But I get your point - It just comes off as I don't care about the users. My own insecurity I guess.

Regarding the fees: you should fix the underlying problem which seems to be that you don’t handle transactions correctly.

Can you please elaborate more on "not handling transactions correctly" - what are we doing wrong?

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 7h

No we didn't switch from mongo to postgres. We learned that using atomic transaction solves the problem of double-spend ex: $inc: { balance: -100 } - since then we do not have any double spend problem. Now we also use Layer7 API gateway for rate-limiting and throttling to get a first level protection for parallel API attacks.

101 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 7h

Somehow unconsciously I don't feel very confident in creating formal announcement like above. But I get your point - It just comes off as I don't care about the users. My own insecurity I guess.

Okay, I get that! And thanks for letting me be honest with you!

But do your SN posts have to be formal?

I don't know how others feel, because nobody else mentioned this issue, but I like your replies a lot more because then I actually feel like a human is talking to me. Is it not possible to announce something like you reply?

Can you please elaborate more on "not handling transactions correctly" - what are we doing wrong?

You mentioned in #1008195 that the real reason was an attacker that was exploiting or trying to exploit you via double sells. Since you introduced fees because of that reason, I assumed he was successful? But you also mentioned that you fixed it in the software without fees? 🤔

Anyway, I thought you had issues with concurrent transactions. This seems to be a good read.

87 sats \ 4 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 6h

But do your SN posts have to be formal?

Thanks for breaking my fear - I think its same like public speaking fear. (In my mind I always thought from my own limitations) I'm going give writing myself a try w/o use of AI. Lets see how feels.

You mentioned in #1008195 that the real reason was an attacker that was exploiting or trying to exploit you via double sells. Since you introduced fees because of that reason, I assumed he was successful? But you also mentioned that you fixed it in the software without fees? 🤔

The double-spend or parallel attack issues have been fixed.

But in this (the current spam events) case the spammer/attacker is draining us with network fees. We do not charge any fees on sell to LNAddress directly. However there is a network fees that we have to pay everytime the user sells to LNAddress directly. If he sells to internal Predyx/lnbits wallet then this is not a problem, as the internal wallet transfers don't go through the network but just database updates (its a feature of lnbits) - I hope I was able to explain the above issue clearly.

Anyway, I thought you had issues with concurrent transactions. This seems to be a good read.

Thanks for sharing the link, will give it a read.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 6h

However there is a network fees that we have to pay everytime the user sells to LNAddress directly.

Oh, right, you should definitely charge users for network fees and not pay them out of your own pocket, else you're opening yourself up to fee siphoning attacks.

If that's the reason for the fees on selling, wouldn't charging them for network fees be the fix you're actually looking for? If you're still paying for network fees out of your own pocket, this doesn't actually fix fee siphoning.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 6h

Thanks for "fee siphoning attack" link - I'm hearing it for the first time. Will implement the network fees for LNAddress payouts.

Also another motivation for adding the fees are to incentivize the market creators. We have plans to allow user created markets in few weeks. As you may already know every market created in LMSR must be subsidized with liquidity. The between 33% - 66% of this liquidity gets lost as the market comes to conclusion based on how thinly the market is traded. And if the market moves only in one direction, then almost all of the liquidity is lost.

Wanted to be prepared for the user created markets - by adding fees and fine tuning it to optimal level so that the user is incentivized to create markets.

Next we also wanted to get ready to allow 3rd party to provide liquidity with an incentive to earn fees. There will be no motivation to provide any liquidity without the potential to earn some fees.

view all 2 replies

65 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 5h

Do these fees feel fair?

Fee is the ante. This is what you ultimately bet against. I'm not sure about the win fee.

Is 1% too high or too low for Sell/Win?

Too high for win, on the high end for sell but doable. I'd recommend lowering the win fee to perhaps half of this.

Would you prefer another structure?

No, but don't forget to charge withdrawal fees. I haven't checked what you have right now.

Re: your "user created markets" idea. I think this is a good idea. Since you can't prevent someone opening a second account (as you do yourself with the "bot") just let the market creator enter on their markets? Just have to know who created a market so that we can spot fishy markets

101 sats \ 2 replies \ @BlokchainB 7h

For this to be a lightning native product I still don’t understand why you have to go with full percentages 100 basis points? Why not try to use 10 or 20? What’s the point of using lightning when the fee structure is just like fiat?

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @mega_dreamer OP 7h

Thanks - I think you're right about lightning native and must be way lower than fiat.

Another reason that prompted me to go with such fees structure was that I started to take User Created Markets into considerations. With thinly traded markets - as we have now, it would be impossible get back the liquidity you inject in the market at the time of market creation. In an LMSR market - you must by rule have to inject some liquidity to create a market. If the fees are not enough, the market creator will loose the liquidity that was provided at the time of market creation. Thus less incentive to create a market, until and unless you're willing to let go of the liquidity - in seeking the information from the market. In other words you pay with liquidity to seek some future information.

I hope I was able explain my motivation with regards to user created markets.

We can definitely start with 20 basis points - and for the purpose of being transparent, we can publish the liquidity injected, fees collected and final profit/loss for the market creator. This will probably explain about the market dynamics and why adequate fees are required in LMSR.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 1h

I think by using lightning the better tech should win. Better tech should provide more value to both business owners and consumers. It shouldn’t be zero sum. If you can compete with fees (like Robinhood did with stock trading) you can attract more users to the platform.

Market making is a hard business and without a huge liquidity provider you can bankrupt yourself especially with the scammers gaming the system but slapping massive fees to stop bad behavior punishes honest actors.

134 sats \ 4 replies \ @Coinsreporter 9h

I think it's fair. A 0% fee on buying is essential for growth and it should remain close to it. 1% for sell is ok for me. 1 to 2% on the winning is also ok.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @mega_dreamer OP 9h

Thanks for the feedback, lets see what other have to say. Apologies not having this discussion before implementing fees.

101 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 9h

No problem. I think others will also like it now considering it's essential for the sustainability of Predyx and LPs.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 8h

Come to think of it — yes, it's the buying fee that troubles me most. Barrier to betting.

Selling fee, I'd anything, just incentivizes me to stay in the bet. Make more long-term, targeted bets rather than trade around.

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 7h

Thanks, what I hear is:

Win fee should be less than sell fee, for people to stay in for long term.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 1h

I am good with this fee structure. Let's see how it goes. I like the idea of no fee to make a buy. I wish stock brokerages did that.

At some point you could have tiered fees where the fee drops the more you are betting or the more you bet overall. My online stock brokerage gives me free trades if I make 30 buys or sells a month but less than that it is 4.99 per trade. Just something to think about for the future.

Eventually you might need to institute minimum bets because this beautiful money and network we use allows for micro betting so I can put 10 sats on an outcome. That's an amazing feature but maybe just creates problems for you guys especially as it grows.

📣 Community Feedback Requested: Predyx Fee Structure

💡 Our Proposal (Open to Feedback)

🧮 Why This Matters

💬 We’d Love Your Input