Skip to content

Conversation

@alexwaltz
Copy link
Contributor

This section clarifies why there is almost no profit from being a maker.

@alexwaltz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Giacomo had the following comments via Telegram, current version follows 1) & 2)

Re 3): i also tried to be more clear by saying "There is much more supply than demand for CoinJoins."
Screenshot 2023-01-19 at 22 49 16

Copy link
Contributor

@dergigi dergigi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the contribution!

Would you mind running the addition through Grammarly or similar?

Because of this factor, CoinJoins will start up starting with a pretty big baseline fee which is taken by the miners, so not that much left for the makers.

We can summaries the trade-off between a maker and a taker like so:
- Makers: get kinda-free long term fairly good mixing
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd remove slang terms like "kinda"

Even though most of the times fees seem to be very low, when constructing a CoinJoin the transaction gets big(each input/outputs adds extra data to the transaction).
Because of this factor, CoinJoins will start up starting with a pretty big baseline fee which is taken by the miners, so not that much left for the makers.

We can summaries the trade-off between a maker and a taker like so:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
We can summaries the trade-off between a maker and a taker like so:
We can summarize the trade-off between a maker and a taker like so:

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants