Fees for taking prices before the game have been eliminated. A big negative reaction from high volume traders and in-gamers found on this thread, and understandably so.
But I think there's a shot for liquidity to increase, as the costs are all back-ended both into time and into the winners, which should draw more trades and larger pre-game positions, as well as more newbies, whose losses will be a little less painful. It's one of those bets that only someone with access to TS' audited financial statements could settle, though. Here was my 2 cents:
. . . I agree that the expected value of each contract's return has become more negative by 2 cents. It is a minimum 0.4% inflation. Of course that is a disincentive, but frankly, the only way for fees to be reduced for us is if a worthy competitor to TS steps up and we are compelled to move our business to them.
Other than that, I believe that the market equilibrium will recalibrate to adjust for the payout scheme. More so, I believe that, since winners will be subsidizing losers, more newbies would come in, and they would last a little longer. And as long as the winners are still winning, they won't quit trading.
Finally, while liquidity in-game could be markedly reduced, liquidity before the game could be increased greatly. People would not be guaranteed to lose 4 cents everytime they took a price. They could thus move in and out of contracts in greater volume, and if larger resultant positions were established before the game, then TS wins.
I still think that multiple market makers would be the best way to improve liquidity. The Nasdaq model is superior to the NYSE model.