Yes I think this is an option to consider.
I personally really don’t like our competitors non-symmetric approach towards users because I think it just allows a hidden way to charge users without mentioning it at order placement.
I think the situation is different in CoW Swap because after a winning solution is picked, users cannot incur negative slippage, so not giving them the positive slippage makes more sense. (basically eliminating the rewards but also the RISKS for our users)
So yeah, it does make sense that solvers are responsible for both downside risk and upside reward of execution.
This means protocol revenue will require an up front stated fee to be taken from the user. That’s completely fair and fine.
The problem that I see is a bit more of a product/business problem.
We obviously want that users will be able to compare quotes with competitors and (ideally) see that the quote on CoW Swap is better or at least as-good.
But reality is a bit different:
- CoW Swap users are getting a better product that eliminates hard-to-manage risks
- They are presented with a protocol fee when placing their order
- Actual execution price is expected to be better on CoW Swap as users are not exposed to execution risks/rewards at all while on competition they are exposed just to execution risk without reward
- This means the quotes will seem worse on CoW Swap compared to competition that expose users to above-mentioned risks and charge their revenue from positive slippage (something that is not incorporated into their quote)
So overall I’m not agains the proposal of symmetric slippage for solvers.
Just wanted to point out this interesting point and start a discussion around it