Reduce Marketplace Fees to 1%

This is a proposal to reduce the Universe Marketplace fees from 1.69% to 1%.

Let’s talk about it!

4 Likes

Hey! Whats the primary rationale behind this? My guess is to attract more users…

I dont think the fee decrease will have much effect on user numbers. Sellers are happy to take sometimes 5-25% hits to ensure their NFT sells. I think this would only reduce revenue from this source and not benefit the project.

1 Like

check out the post here for better ideas about how to improve brand awareness.

1 Like

I am a proponent of this because since day one Universe has strived to create a friendly marketplace for all artists. Big time artists may not be impacted much by a higher fee, but smaller artists who’s pieces sell for less can be stifled by marketplace fees on selling their works.

Aside from the Artist perspective, a lower fee means that we will be more attractive to users of protocols like gem & genie which has proven to be where a large % of volume comes from at least recently.

Appreciate your thread on brand awareness, but I think this change is less about branding and more about being an artist friendly platform.

4 Likes

Yea so the big thinking behind this is we are working on Whitelabel solutions for the marketplace and we need to incentive other UI’s that want to plug into our backend to be able to a take a finder’s fee for their website. Universe FE will always be the defacto UI to interact with the Universe Protocol but if we want to create a spiderweb of FE’s that connect to our Universe Backend/Protocol we need to incentivize them and they also need to be able to take a cut.

We have already had major interest in this idea and I personally think this is mission critical for the protocol and will have the full support of my voting power along with Graviton’s.

This plays directly into the long term value of what Universe is creating which is an open protocol that anyone can plug into and use on their website. We have a bunch of code we are going OS or put behind a very specific license that will help facilitate this. IMO this is the killer product we have been aiming for.

5 Likes

Gotcha, thank you for clarifying that. tough for me to comment on that but makes sense from a purely artist perspective.

3 Likes

I agree with this and my view is quite similar— I spend some time collecting and I’d prefer to see more of the money I spend going directly towards artists.

Around 25-30% of my collection are friends, family and smaller independent artists. Often they have troubles finding the right market for their works. A lot of people do consider the overall cost and a little bit more fees on a transaction may cause someone to simply not send it.

I for one disregard the network fees and platform fees for art that I want and to support artists I adore.

Not everyone carries the same sentiment when they collect. This is the right step imo <3

5 Likes

Hey all - in short we are going to launch an ability for anybody, as easy as an HTML embed, to present NFTs and full marketplace capabilities with a finders fee, allowing them to take a percentage themselves.

We want to incentivize the world to use our solutions and for them to be able to take reasonable cuts for using Universe for their in-house solutions

4 Likes

I do not see this as an issue but I also will not hold my breath on this having a major impact. For those of us who would rather spin this into other issues and things… just don’t.

I cannot (personally) think of how this will help my situation or others when we are comparing ourselves to such “dog water” projects. A simple reduction in fee’s and fixing all bugs in the marketplace would be a good start.

Even, I can no longer ignore these technical issues when comparing Universe to other more frivolous projects. This is a good idea and everything helps when setting these foundational pieces.

4 Likes

“we need to incentive other UI’s that want to plug into our backend to be able to a take a finder’s fee for their website”

Could we just lower the fee for this to being under 1% rather than adjusting the fee on our marketplace as well?

3 Likes

In my opinion it makes sense for us to lower the marketplace fee if community is requesting it but I don’t think it is something urgent. If it is something that needs to happen for projects to feel more comfortable integrating universe’s backend as apposed to building their own then we should lower it separate from the marketplace fee to match the appropriate % from an economics standpoint. I think something even lower than 1% could make sense for projects integrating. I agree with the prior posts that mention it likely wont have a large impact on our marketplace.

4 Likes

we need to lower the fee to allow adequate room for others to tack on finders fees where they see fit.

it’s more of, let’s lower the marketplace fee so that others will be more attracted to the upcoming whitelabel product and being able to take finder fees by hosting listings on their own platform by tapping into Universe’s liquidity layer.

2 Likes

it will be separate, lowering the marketplace fee makes it so the combination of both the finders fee and the marketplace fee isn’t outrageous.

2 Likes

To me it seems like a better solution than lowering the marketplace fee to 1.69% is leaving the marketplace fee at 1.69% and lowering the fee for projects that integrate our backend to being lower than 1%.

2 Likes

I second this! Great idea to incentive projects to integrate with us. The marketplace fees could also be reduced to 1% and still implement this idea but than there is much less tolerance for us to work with in regards to incentivizing up and coming projects. :thinking:

1.69>1

2 Likes

yeah, sadly this would still demand a contract upgrade.

1 Like

This is giga brain level 1000%…if you can’t see what Tim is talking about here probably best to excuse yourself from this conversation because you never really understood what Universe was building in the first place.

We aren’t an Open Sea clone, it’s a lot fucking bigger than that.

2 Likes

Yes, I generally support this.

Ideally this news is coupled with the next release of the marketplace, a notable mint, and/or a notable project/marketplace plugging into the back-end. We need several quality anchors that then drives long-term goal of quantity. Pareto of Pareto for each anchor type. x-copy / killer acid / other mint, looks plugs in, fluf plugs in.

General observations.
x2y2 had a slight uptick in listings during no fee April, but trader consensus was it was not enough to escape the blackhole of OS.

Looks seems to have decent traction. I’m a proponent of them plugging in.

Doodles speculation that they are building out an irl marketplace with shopify: possible candidate for solid web3 ethos team.

Gem maybe a good in for OS plug-in.

Pillheads launching a generative 10k project. Big community of artists. Would love if they minted on universe.

And so forth.

1 Like

How are projects charged for integrating with Universe?
One time fee, some form of ongoing/recurring rev?

When I look at Gem, all of the floor listings are coming from OS. Even looking at Polymorph owners. You have to scroll past 80 OS/LR listings before you see a single Universe listing. If all of those Polymorph owners were listing on Universe instead of OS, wouldn’t that help with exposure? I know that everyone doesn’t use Gem, but it definitely helps.