# XCP Fee on numeric assets

**URL:** <https://forums.counterparty.io/t/xcp-fee-on-numeric-assets/2445>\
**Category:** Development\
**Created:** [November 1, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://forums.counterparty.io/t/xcp-fee-on-numeric-assets/2445 "2016-11-01T17:04:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jdogresorg](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex004/user_avatar/forums.counterparty.io/jdogresorg/32/1349_2.png) [@jdogresorg](https://forums.counterparty.io/u/jdogresorg)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://forums.counterparty.io/t/xcp-fee-on-numeric-assets/2445/1 "2016-11-01T17:04:55Z")

</div>

A topic of discussion among the community the past few months has been wether or not to enforce an anti-spam XCP fee on numeric assets. For those who would like to know more about this topic, Bitcoin Uncensored recently discussed this topic [here](https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/e48-libertarian-nonsense-machine-092116#t=3:01:55)

After much discussion with many members of the CP community, it _seems_ that the majority are in favor of adding an XCP cost to numeric asset registrations. This thread is to discuss the following topics.

**What is a fair price for a numeric asset registrations?**

_Poll ([view on site](https://forums.counterparty.io/t/xcp-fee-on-numeric-assets/2445/1))_

**When should the numeric fee be activated on mainnet?**

_Poll ([view on site](https://forums.counterparty.io/t/xcp-fee-on-numeric-assets/2445/1))_

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![something](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex004/user_avatar/forums.counterparty.io/something/32/240_2.png) [@something](https://forums.counterparty.io/u/something)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2016, 11:33am UTC](https://forums.counterparty.io/t/xcp-fee-on-numeric-assets/2445/2 "2016-11-02T11:33:36Z")

</div>

1. 30, 60, 90 days any will do. Now is as good as ever, 30 days. But there has to be a release that puts this in motion, or… Do you mean “activated” as in “concluded” or “activated on mainnet”?

I’m for 0.1 XCP first but I’d prefer to vote - if you had a real poll in there 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jdogresorg](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex004/user_avatar/forums.counterparty.io/jdogresorg/32/1349_2.png) [@jdogresorg](https://forums.counterparty.io/u/jdogresorg)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2016, 6:02pm UTC](https://forums.counterparty.io/t/xcp-fee-on-numeric-assets/2445/3 "2016-11-02T18:02:46Z")

</div>

Poll created… vote away 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JPJA](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex004/user_avatar/forums.counterparty.io/jpja/32/1324_2.png) [@JPJA](https://forums.counterparty.io/u/JPJA)\
**Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 9:01am UTC](https://forums.counterparty.io/t/xcp-fee-on-numeric-assets/2445/4 "2016-11-03T09:01:46Z")

</div>

The fees look fine.

- High enough to limit spam
- Low enough for anyone, anywhere to register an asset
- Even if the XCP price were to go up tenfold, the asset creation fees in USD would still be reasonable
- Should XCP really take off, say a hundredfold, then (probably?) the server load would be so high that a $30-$150 fee would make sense. Of course, by that point a discussion regarding lowering the XCP fees will happen.

* * *

I’m all in favor of implementing all the “low hanging fruits” at the same time. I’m not a core developer, so I don’t know how much time it will take, but maybe subassets (CIP4) . divisibility reset (CIP3), BVAM (CIP7) and pure op\_return send can be included in the next update? Of course, it will be nice to see multisig support (addresses begining with “3”) and payment channels, but these are difficult to implement, right?