Hi ItsJake
Thank you for your comment and very interesting questions.
Would a fee prevent issuers from on-boarding because it disrupts their business model?
1a. I believe Kevin from Blocktower brought this up briefly.
I think this is not the case and Issuers will be able to include this fee in the business plan. In comparison with other Protocols, that are working with RWA, (Goldfinch - +10%,Maple 0.99%,Credix performance fee 10%, Ribbon Finance takes 10% performance fees and 2% management fees, Truefi: 0.50%) the proposed fee is the smallest one.
Before starting the RFC we had a discussion about this argument with the Community and the Issuers and we received positive feedback from the Issuers.
Is the fee only for issuers?
Yes, for now, the fee that we propose in this proposal is for Issuers only.
Or would dapps built on Centrifuge somehow incur the same fee
What about the second part of your question I think that the fee structure for dApps built on Centrifuge could be discussed in the future
I know there was some discussion on this, but what is a comparable protocol incurring fees in a similar structure.
How does the fee compare to fees in traditional TradFi? Does this fee undermine the value prop of “lower cost of capital” to issuers after the fee is extracted?
Securitizations frequently cost between 0.5% and 2% annually in fees charged by various intermediaries (fund administration, payment agents, calculation agents etc.). The Centrifuge will replace the vast majority of these intermediaries with the lowest fee. 