Strategy for selling a house - what is the best way to proceed?

I have to disagree with you here: no law states that both parties have to share the broker costs. It only states that the costs for the buyer may not be higher than for the seller.

Let's say: it allows the broker to fleece both sides in full - I probably expressed that awkwardly ;-)
What I mainly wanted to say is: brokers are allowed to bleed both participants of the deal [whether an "although" or a "because" belongs in the sentence, the inclined readers may decide for themselves] even though he offers no added value for both sides (beyond not disturbing their naive belief).

The real estate agent I trust has
- made an initial valuation of the house. From this, "we" then derived a market value
- took perfect photos and videos of the house
- processed these and presented them on various online platforms for marketing (attention costs)
- scheduled and conducted viewing appointments alone (we were able to enjoy wonderful walks during that time).
- summarized the results and handed them over to us
- implemented and led the subsequent auction
- prepared and accompanied the notary appointment

Admittedly, I could have done some things myself, others not.
Admittedly, this was the third house I have sold (plus a few plots of land). The other times the agents only held out their hands.

I want to say: there are also those with added value.

By the way: without added value, there would have been no invoice either - that was agreed.

In most cases where brokers are involved (and co-prisoners, if the other party has engaged the broker), the sole basis of business is the popular misconception that brokers have expertise, market intuition, or even both. And of course, I must apologize to half a percent of brokers for generally portraying the entire profession as good-for-nothings. But as a management consultant, I know that one can get used to this injustice ;-)

I want to say: there are also those with added value.

I believe no one denies that. However, the vast majority of brokers have done very little for their money in recent years. Especially from the buyer's perspective, the service was generally not good. As a buyer, unfortunately, you can't choose the broker and still pay them a fortune for trying to push the price up.

yes, everything is correct. But it's only problematic because they have to disclose their prices. Or do you think the car salesman doesn't get anything from the buyer? He just doesn't tell you that he has a 40% margin. Oh yes, this is not a brokerage business - let's stay in comparison with the insurance broker: he also gets money from the buyer, as well as a commission from the insurance company. or rather the fund manager when buying and selling stocks? Almost everyone in brokerage business gets their money from both sides.

Yes and no. I believe that many sellers would indeed do without brokers if they received the invoice for the full amount. And the rest would place more value on it. The effect has also been seen when the ordering principle was introduced for rental apartments. Of course, it will all be added on in the end, but it would also clarify the positions. The broker is then clearly only responsible for the seller and maximizes their income.

And the other examples:
- Car salespersons are pure sellers. Regardless of whether they are called consultants, no one seriously believes that the Mercedes dealership would suggest a Dacia to the customer.
- Insurances and other financial products are a good example of another market that urgently needs reform because, unlike car dealers, many people here are not aware of how they are being ripped off. The customer is then sold a Germany fund with a 5% front-end load and 2% annually instead of the equivalent DAX ETF with 0.2% annually and no front-end load. Clearly, because the latter pays no commission ;)