BSIP 27: OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds

[vikramrajkumar]

From @xeroc on March 4, 2016 20:13

Two points about the fee pool:

• The fee pool of an asset can be drained by anyone that has a share in that asset by creating an order paying the fee in that asset and cancelling the order again. He gets refunded 90% in BTS not the asset.
• When creating a new asset, the fee pool is prefunded by 50% of the fee. This fee is deducted from the basic member fee. Recently @rune has bought a 3-letter symbol (MKR) and payed quite a bit for it with the expectation of a 80% refund after 90 days! He won't get 80% after 90 days but only 40% because the fee pool funds have been deduced from the total amount! He could now drain the fee pool him self (which is cumbersome and time consuming) or we offer a way to collect all of them instantly.

This should really exist as there is no real reason (AFAIK) that should prevent the issuer of an asset to also full control funds in the fee pool.

I propose a new claim_pool_balance_operation that takes

• the asset,
• the amounts of BTS to claim, and
• the account to credit

as arguments.

I consider this high priority to get this included in the next hard fork (if by any means possible)

Copied from original issue: cryptonomex/graphene#608

[vikramrajkumar]

From @abitmore on March 4, 2016 20:55

Assume the core exchange rate of the asset is 1 asset = 1 CORE, assume there is X CORE in fee pool, the issuer can claim funds from fee pool easily with following steps as a work around, no matter how much CORE is in the fee pool:

1. issue X assets to herself
2. craft an limit_order_create_operation which will never be filled, set the fee field to X assets, sign & broadcast it
3. cancel the order

I believe @xeroc can make a python script to batch these operations, no need to write C++ code.

[vikramrajkumar]

From @xeroc on March 5, 2016 18:56

@abitmore
The approach you describe is exactly what I meant by "pool draining" in the OP.
I see it as a hacky solution that cannot be used if you have your asset traded already.

[vikramrajkumar]

From @abitmore on March 7, 2016 13:40

@xeroc what did you mean "have your asset traded already"? IMO the issuer can withdraw from fee pool with that approach at any time, anyone else can do that as well if have enough issued assets.

[vikramrajkumar]

From @abitmore on March 7, 2016 13:44

The approach I provided is just not too "cumbersome and time consuming" as you said in OP.

[jonnybitcoin]

i need help draining my fee pools. I tried method above, but I can't enter a custom fee in the GUI.

[pmconrad]

Which asset, which account?

[xeroc]

@pmconrad I managed to help @jonnybitcoin out ..
We can still need a distinct operation for the issuer to make it simpler

[pmconrad]

It would be even more simple to halve the asset creation fee and leave the fee pool empty after creation.

[abitmore]

This is BSIP 27: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0027.md

[abitmore]

PR #572 merged, closing.