<![CDATA[Should we change the percentage that the later bidder pays for the earlier bidder?]]>The current auction mechanism requires us, bidders, to pay 5% for the earlier bidder. In my view, the 5% pretty falls from my expectation since I understand here that this mechanism is to incentivize the first bidder of one auction session.

I think this percentage should be set higher to give more incentive for the first bidder and to kick-start the auction, attracting more other later bidders. The percentage I suggest here is 6% that the later bidder needs to pay the earlier bidder. I hope the team will consider it.

]]>https://gov.trava.finance/topic/13/should-we-change-the-percentage-that-the-later-bidder-pays-for-the-earlier-bidderRSS for NodeMon, 09 Mar 2026 21:40:02 GMTMon, 18 Apr 2022 15:07:54 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Should we change the percentage that the later bidder pays for the earlier bidder? on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:47:52 GMT]]>Hello @victoriaph.
The mechanism does not incentivize the first bidder. The mechanism incentives previous bidder. Please read the rule of Auction mechanism below:

  • The most important rule: 5% of the price increase for each bid is distributed to the previous bidder, and the remaining 95% would be the income of the auction publisher if it’s the last bid or returned to the bidder when it’s outbid.

More bids from users will keep increasing the assembled Trava Knight evaluation while auction is live. Since each bid price will be increased by at least 5% of the previous one. The incentive for previous bidder is set at 5% as well.

But of course the percentage is up for discussion/debate. 👍

]]>https://gov.trava.finance/post/114https://gov.trava.finance/post/114Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:47:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Should we change the percentage that the later bidder pays for the earlier bidder? on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:09:05 GMT]]>Well, I think 5% is enough, otherwise it could discourage the later bidders and the auction will not attract as much participants as the team expected

]]>https://gov.trava.finance/post/113https://gov.trava.finance/post/113Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:09:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Should we change the percentage that the later bidder pays for the earlier bidder? on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:05:08 GMT]]>@victoriaph Couldn’t agree more, the 5% doesn’t sound so attractive IMO, if the team wants more bidders, they should offer a higher rate

]]>https://gov.trava.finance/post/112https://gov.trava.finance/post/112Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:05:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Should we change the percentage that the later bidder pays for the earlier bidder? on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:56:33 GMT]]>@anhhm000259 Agree! Ifthis rate is too high, the auction publisher might not earn the money that they want, especially when there are not many bidders who pay for the items.

]]>https://gov.trava.finance/post/111https://gov.trava.finance/post/111Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:56:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Should we change the percentage that the later bidder pays for the earlier bidder? on Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:33:36 GMT]]>@victoriaph hmmm I dont think so, I think the percentage should be lower (about 3%) to keep the stable interests for auction publisher.

]]>https://gov.trava.finance/post/107https://gov.trava.finance/post/107Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:33:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Should we change the percentage that the later bidder pays for the earlier bidder? on Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:28:09 GMT]]>@victoriaph I am also having the same thought, the percentage should be higher in order to encourage the first bidder.

]]>https://gov.trava.finance/post/106https://gov.trava.finance/post/106Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:28:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Should we change the percentage that the later bidder pays for the earlier bidder? on Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:05:44 GMT]]>I think 5% is fine, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder 😉

]]>https://gov.trava.finance/post/69https://gov.trava.finance/post/69Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:05:44 GMT