Failed transactions do not have a fee on Radix (related to the double spend problem). We can look at adding a cancelation fee, but that would have to be no more than the cost of a normal transaction because if it was bigger I would likely use the double spend consensus prevention to cancel the order instead. That fee size means that inserting and removing a significant trade a few hundred or thousand times is not likely to be much of a cost. I know there are a few different methods you could use here, but the underlying issue here is that with anything deterministically random related to money adds an inherently gameable aspect of the system, and while you can go down the anti-game rabbit hole, you will always be doing that at the expense of ease of use, low friction, and adding system complexity.
Depends if I want to use the Rad, or I am just playing the market. If I want to use the Rad, it isn’t at a loss, just the best possible price. It just pushes the surplus to be essentially negligible.
Oh - in that case, it doesn’t really solve the problem? It just means the value of the Rad can periodically push higher than Pmax. I thought the issue that was being looked at here was market makers sitting between Pmin and Pmax and thus reducing the likelihood of the ECA entering the market?
I’m no longer clear which issue is being solved by this proposal.