Author Topic: A marketing idea? Whitepaper? Strategy? request? Either way I think its is gold.  (Read 38669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline davidpbrown

Perhaps it doesn't matter what gets us orders of magnitude growth.

The idea of paying transactions fees for referrals, is as attractive as it is simple. It perhaps just needs to be limited and not excessive. The bigger reward should be seeing BitShares grow.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Xeldal

  • Guest
How is it the opposite?.. Transaction fees that would be otherwise be burnt, are instead paid to the promoter;

You're right.

To the extent that the referrer is paid from the fee, it is akin to dilution. Its a little grey though, in my mind, because the transactions may not have occurred without the referral.  In addition, in order for the referrer to get this portion of the fee and it not be destroyed, he would have payed the upgrade fee which could be something like $6 destroyed (~600 tx's worth of fee's) 

If there were 10x as many users/transactions resulting from this program it won't have greater dilution, so its not directly dilutive.  it would, in fact have the opposite effect of dilution.  Its fairly difficult/impossible to say though, that the 10x increase wouldn't have happened anyway, or with a different model. etc in which case we burned less then we could have  ... so perhaps this is not a fair point.

Offline triox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: triox

...all it will take is a big disruption in the financial system (which is definitely coming) and to be there with a solid product and everything we already have in place will be there to catch the influx.

Let us avoid basing our corporate strategy on absolute statements about the future we don't directly control (i.e. soothsaying). Else we run the risk of turning into a bunch of frustrated goldbugs, sitting on our investment for decades  and awaiting the armageddon that will "show them all".

Offline davidpbrown

It's perhaps worth noting, any reward, whether it's from transaction fees or from a delegate, will have have the same effect on BTS value.. it's a dilution. Perhaps it's a small one but the math needs to be considered.

Transactions fees are not dilution.  They are the opposite of dilution.

How is it the opposite?.. Transaction fees that would be otherwise be burnt, are instead paid to the promoter; surely it's the same as paying out to a 100% delegate rather 3% delegate, in the sense that more BTS become available.


I think bringing new users is worth spending on but the balance has to be right and the timing too. If you're getting $1000 for $10 investment, it's worthwhile.

 :-\
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
The question perhaps then should be considered more simply as: how much is a new user worth?

Time to review this old thread :)

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0


Yes... this would be game changing... yes... inflation in this case would yield a net gain for shareholders.

Suppose we already were good friends with people offering such a pre-paid card?
Suppose these friends already owned a large percentage of BTSX?

:o

 :P

If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline fuzzy

Quote
I also remember we toyed around with the idea of issuing bitAssets to new users. I think everyone knows there is an atomic bomb strategy lying around here somewhere, we just need to get it right.

Although the atomic bomb analogy makes me wince, I do agree.  But I think we should really dig deep into this one to make sure it is done right.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
The question perhaps then should be considered more simply as: how much is a new user worth?

Time to review this old thread :)

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
We all agree, and it was a plan from long ago, to implement some type of referral system. If people feel Max's proposal is too shady, then we modify it and make it better.

We are optimists here: problems are soluble.

Just like getting outside prices into the blockchain (bitassets) was a revolutionary idea, getting ID into the blockchain (needed for referral) is another revolutionary idea.

FollowMyVote solves the problem of getting ID into the blockchain without breaking privacy, so you can be a registered voter on the blockchain without exposing which of the registered voters you are.

It is not enough to sign up with facebook etc. as there needs to be someone on the blockchain who signes on the fact that you have been verified. It is most natural is to give Delegates this job.

I also remember we toyed around with the idea of issuing bitAssets to new users. I think everyone knows there is an atomic bomb strategy lying around here somewhere, we just need to get it right.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2015, 02:26:33 pm by CLains »

Offline fuzzy

I find the OP to be a great idea. Do it!

or we can continue this way...


Agreed. You can't expect new users to just come rushing in because they too "believe" in the cause. Just doesn't work that way. Waiting for the organic growth to just kind of happen without some sort of catalyst to spark it is a surefire path to niche obscurity.

Our biggest problem hasn't really been that though.  It has been a very buggy client that has caused some people to lose a good bit of confidence in the project overall. 

Does anyone have new user stats of bitcoin at BitShares' current stage of adoption?  Not sure why anyone seems to feel we are bleeding to death...all it will take is a big disruption in the financial system (which is definitely coming) and to be there with a solid product and everything we already have in place will be there to catch the influx.  Just my opinion. 
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
I find the OP to be a great idea. Do it!

or we can continue this way...


Agreed. You can't expect new users to just come rushing in because they too "believe" in the cause. Just doesn't work that way. Waiting for the organic growth to just kind of happen without some sort of catalyst to spark it is a surefire path to niche obscurity.

chryspano

  • Guest
I find the OP to be a great idea. Do it!

or we can continue this way...

Xeldal

  • Guest
Quote
The idea is, that nothing changes for people who don't care for it.  You don't have to participate at all, and bts as you know it will continue w/ the exact same function that you know and love.  This is simply a referral mechanism.
interesting.      "Eliminate the need to pay any marketing delegates through dilution." <---this says otherwise in my mind and I know of people who are considered marketing delegates who are doing some pretty cool stuff.  Robrigo and Matt608 come to mind at present, who run local meetup groups.  BitScape and Roadscape who are currently on the Peer-to-Peer road trip to make a BitShares MiniDocumentary.  Are you saying that Eliminating the need to pay these people would change nothing?
You don't eliminate marketing delegates
You eliminate the need for them, because anyone involved in marketing is receiving ample compensation via referral.  Its a more direct and clear compensation.  There would be no need for these 'contracts' based on market cap either.   You could still have marketing delegates, why not?

Quote
Forcing people to use bitCNY feels a little bit like a departure from voluntarily usage.   

The example is a private business owner, he can do whatever he wants with his business.  You can voluntarily work there or not.  There is no "force" involved here. 

Quote
Should I not post my concerns here? 

come on,  I've done what I can to not personally attack you. I'm critical of what you said and I believe it misrepresents bitshares as well as this idea.  You have to expect someone may disagree with you. 

Quote
My primary concern is the incentive for Large Organizations like mentioned above forcing people to use our system so they can get a cut for 20 years.  This just screams at me *danger*

No one is being forced to use anything.


Quote
I have thrown some numbers around (but you have ignored them for some reason...can i ask why?) 3-5 years seems to be plenty. 

what I mean is, 20 years may be arbitrary.  Its important to calculate what an average user of this program might earn, and adjust the numbers to offer a fair incentive for the lowest cost. 

Quote
If Max has a contract like the one above, and other delegates are marketing BitShares based off of a completely different incentive structure...it necessarily changes the dynamics so Max has to consider options that are quite a bit more controversial than the marketing delegates do.  This in my mind actually puts Max in a worse position than those running delegates without contracts like Max's.  If you have two people doing the same job with completely different incentives, I don't see how there can be complete harmony.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I'm open to suggestions...

I may have misinterpreted your post here.   I have to disagree with your conclusion though.  Im quite content that someone would need to think outside the box and come up with controversial ideas.  That's exactly what I would like to see!  If the ideas have any merit they will speak for themselves.  I don't care how they were got.  If you chain Max up in a basement and threatened to cut his toes off if he didn't come up with something, and he tells you about this referral program....  great!!  I'll take it.  I think its a fantastic idea.

I'm not a fan of these market cap based contracts, because max wouldn't necessary have to do anything, and the cap could rise to that level.  This referral program is a great way to eliminate the need for them.  It makes everyone a marketer and everyone's pay is based on there effort. 

It's perhaps worth noting, any reward, whether it's from transaction fees or from a delegate, will have have the same effect on BTS value.. it's a dilution. Perhaps it's a small one but the math needs to be considered.

Transactions fees are not dilution.  They are the opposite of dilution.

Offline davidpbrown

How much is a new user worth?

I think this is then a very important consideration that @bytemaster @stan and others need to consider carefully. The cost of marketing will follow from that. The method of compensation to whoever is doing the marketing is to my mind incidental.

So, my reaction to the idea of MLM, besides its reputation, is simply that it costs more because you not only need enough to attract the first level activity but you also need to compensate the ancestors. It might make sense but for the wider reaction to that relative to the value of a principal being communicated clearly.

Personally, I think that we are at a point where the voice of bytemaster has been more valuable than any marketing. I'm not knocking Max's effort, which are important but marketing is a tool; and that tool will work when there is natural traction. Take MaidSafe as example, their attraction right now is 100% idea and allusion to capability. When they launch they likely will explode without much effort from sales but a gentle push from marketing that gets the message out.

So, perhaps put effort to make the message simple.. Privacy; Freedom; Security, is taken my MaidSafe but Freedom; Flexibility; Confidence perhaps could be BitShares or any other that reflects the initial idea.

I've done sales before but I'm no expert marketeer; I just know what I value. BitShares is valuable and has great potential. So, I'm not against paying for new users but perhaps paying too little, might work best? Those who have voice and can bring large number will get a fair return on that? Perhaps a separate reward for the pros who evidence that they have brought volume=numbers*value..and perhaps that is only evidenced by the marketcap rising.. but the market cap will not rise, if we dilute too strong and get too focuses only on the numbers of users and not the value of BitShares.

 8)
« Last Edit: March 28, 2015, 10:37:03 am by davidpbrown »
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline davidpbrown

It's perhaps worth noting, any reward, whether it's from transaction fees or from a delegate, will have have the same effect on BTS value.. it's a dilution. Perhaps it's a small one but the math needs to be considered.

The question perhaps then should be considered more simply as: how much is a new user worth?


The method of compensating for the action that brought them here, is a separate issue but also an interesting one to consider.

There are activities that contribute for zero cost.. the community; the communication of principal from those core to BitShares; those who give their time freely at meetups etc, those are valuable and will become more effective closer to 1.0.


Paying for new users is expensive. Don't mistake my posts here, we're all on the same side but we need to avoid making rash moves that we might regret or that are made too early. Is there more that can be done for free, before we start throwing BTS around to attract more users?


More core to the reality of BitShares then is where does it draw its strength from .. I would argue it's the potential, the idea - not the BTS that we can print for free. Which is why I have argued against the moves to hear less from bytemaster and other devs.. that voice from them is valuable in the same way as gifting BTS to promoters is rather than burning those BTS.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline fuzzy

Quote
The idea is, that nothing changes for people who don't care for it.  You don't have to participate at all, and bts as you know it will continue w/ the exact same function that you know and love.  This is simply a referral mechanism.
interesting.      "Eliminate the need to pay any marketing delegates through dilution." <---this says otherwise in my mind and I know of people who are considered marketing delegates who are doing some pretty cool stuff.  Robrigo and Matt608 come to mind at present, who run local meetup groups.  BitScape and Roadscape who are currently on the Peer-to-Peer road trip to make a BitShares MiniDocumentary.  Are you saying that Eliminating the need to pay these people would change nothing?

Quote
A factory owner in say China says to his workers…. From now on I am paying you all in bitCNY.  I have purchased a bitshres ATM and placed it in the lobby so everyone can redeem their pay for cash when ever they want. The factory owner makes money on the ATM spreads, and the fees generated by his employees for 20 years, but that that will take too long.  He holds a meeting for his employees and explains the Earner status option. His profits from the signups pay for the ATM in the first week and he now has an army of employees who are out introducing bitshares to local merchants so they can spend their wages their and so they can earn commissions.
Quote
how?  it doesn't change anything about DPoS.  Saying it "is as far away from the original philosophy" is quite theatrical.
I don't understand why you think my opinion is theatrical, but you are welcome to your opinion!  Forcing people to use bitCNY feels a little bit like a departure from voluntarily usage.   
Should I not post my concerns here?  Oh and btw...I DID recognize that this would be very effective in another post here...so don't think I'm just trying to rag on the idea!  I'm actually very glad to have Max thinking about these things!  Plus he is good at it!
Not only have I agreed with the value of a system that does this, I have directed everyone to see a system that is very similar and would not look like a pyramid scheme because it cuts the "pyramid" at 3 deep.  If we are worried about negative PR (which lord knows these days we apparently are walking on egg-shells), then we should be very careful how "competitors" might use this against us.  Of course, if it is effective then I say let them say whatever they want....


Quote
Wait for what? This is about as grassroots/organic as you can get.  To me, saying that, is the equivalent of saying don't build a bitshares website because we want to wait for some grassroots, or don't tell your neighbors about bitshares because we're waiting on grassroots, don't do meetups or advertise yet... just wait for the grassroots.
See above. Like Max said, he invites open discussion!  Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean it is right.  It also doesn't mean I'm going to be afraid to state it.  I'd rather state it and be wrong than not state it and be right---my history in BitShares has taught me that lesson more than once now.  My primary concern is the incentive for Large Organizations like mentioned above forcing people to use our system so they can get a cut for 20 years.  This just screams at me *danger*


Quote
Again I don't think this changes anything remotely core w/ DPoS. 
I don't think the delegate is necessary.   
The 20 years can be debated, throw some numbers around, see what happens. Someone mentioned perhaps a $1 per year up to $20 for 20 years, I thought that was interesting.
I have thrown some numbers around (but you have ignored them for some reason...can i ask why?) 3-5 years seems to be plenty. 

Quote
... why not 250 mil,  or 500 mil,  or 2 mil, 10 mil,  ...   RndNum()
Max's contract is that he gets a % of BitShare's marketcap increases everytime the marketcap doubles.  Unfortunately, when Max signed this contract our marketcap was probably somewhere around 60 million, which would mean that he will only get paid when BitShares' marketcap is 120 million.  @Max if this is incorrect please let me know. 
This means that literally everything Max has been doing has been completely out of pocket.  Considering his contract was not an indefinite one (it will end at some point), if the marketcap does not go up by that time he will have lost money for working for the BitShares blockchain for the duration of the contract.  I do not know all the details of said contract, so I can't be certain all the way, but the reason I mentioned this was because the more I think about it, the more I feel bad for the situation Max is in.  Max is part of our community, and I care about our community.  That is the basis for what I said. 

Quote
I don't think this divides anyone working on the project over incentives.  Nobody would be forced to use it.  Everyone could use it if they so desired.  How is that dividing. 
We all have access to the same platform, we are all able to do anything any other user is able to.  The incentives are the same for everyone. (with the exception of someone who simply does not have access to that kind of start-up capital [$20] ) This is like saying adding a mail client in bitshares unnecessarily divides the community because we should all use the memo field and wall burn to keep us all on the same page.   
If Max has a contract like the one above, and other delegates are marketing BitShares based off of a completely different incentive structure...it necessarily changes the dynamics so Max has to consider options that are quite a bit more controversial than the marketing delegates do.  This in my mind actually puts Max in a worse position than those running delegates without contracts like Max's.  If you have two people doing the same job with completely different incentives, I don't see how there can be complete harmony.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I'm open to suggestions...


Quote
This is as grass roots as it gets.  Nothing will happen if nobody decides to use it.
No reason to stop getting merchants to sign on,  keep doing that.
"constructed without the knowledge or input of the community"  --  This is nothing official, its just an idea.  We are here now talking about it in the "community"... Welcome.
I am not altogether against this and it is awesome Max is the kind of person who is open to hearing opinions.  I am actually giving them in hopes of trying to help all parties walk away happy.  My biggest concern is the idea that someone should earn tx fees from a person for 20 years if they referred them.  That is a very very long time.  Of course, Max's point here is pretty valid:
Quote
You put a pile of bananas in the middle of the room the monkeys will grab for them.. you could create a lot of excitement off the back of it. What's to lose?
,and Solavei's model:

seems to really make it possible to "ethically" keep that payout flowing indefinitely (as opposed to 3, 5, 10, 20 years...etc) and really quells some of my original fears...which is why I pointed it out earlier.   
« Last Edit: March 28, 2015, 06:59:51 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D