This is why I like the “speed premium” concept, people wouldn’t be forced to use it but there’s a risk of not using it, just like there’s a risk of using CowSwap under high volatility (for pairs not very liquid).
Anyway, one of the features I like in CoWSwap is the ability to put multiple orders at once. Meaning people can always make a regular trade (without the “speed premium”) and if the transaction takes to long they can put another one with the “speed premium”. This isn’t an issue if we want to sell more than 50% of a token (it will make the pending order expire, at some point) but if we want to sell less than 50% we can always cancel the pending order first and set a new order with the “speed premium” (or implement some sort of boost/replace pending order).
Whatever the COW Reward is, I do believe Solvers will focus more on settling pairs of trades if they only get 30/35 COW per trade. If they only get 30/35 COW in a batch they probably will focus more on merging the risk of execution into batches with at least 2 or more trades (60/70COW or more). As previously mentioned, Solvers risk increases with the amount of Batches and trade value plus market conditions. My concern now is do Solvers want to settle batches for merely 60/70 COW? So far, no one publicly complained about the 100 COW per batch and while I think they may be fine settling batches for 80 COW (2 trades would be 40COW / trade) I’m not sure if they are willing to go lower??
So far we have 86% for “Per Trade Reward Tier (with trade size tiers)” but the “Do not Cap” is gaining more votes. I suggest we make a quick temp. check for the total allocation for the next 12 months? “12M COW for 12months” Yes/No?
Just to make sure people don’t want the weekly cap but are fine (or not) with the 12M allocation?