A marketing idea? Whitepaper? Strategy? request? Either way I think its is gold.

[Xeldal]

I wholly agree, but also am in no way interested personally in a 20 year span for incentives like this.

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.

It really is about as far away from the original philosophy that built DPoS

how?  it doesn't change anything about DPoS.  Saying it "is as far away from the original philosophy" is quite theatrical.

and there is no reason I can see why we shouldn't have a little more patience with the organic growth taking place right now.

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.

feel like maybe a delegate instead of the contract would be something that helps incentivize something less than 20 years on your end and will make more of the people who shared the vision of DPOS a bit happier.

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 mean is it true you will receive nothing if bitshares' marketcap is t at least 160 mil in the next 14-16 months?

... why not 250 mil,  or 500 mil,  or 2 mil, 10 mil,  ...   RndNum()

In my opinion we should all be working off the same incentive structure or it is going to unnecessarily divide the efforts of people already working on the project.

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.   

I'm strongly interested in bitshares remaining based in the philosophy of grass roots while we get merchants to sign on and feel that sadly this contract was constructed without the knowledge or input of the community. 

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.

[fuzzy]

Max I love your input and enthusiasm for this concept and this "brainstorming" session, led by you,  has brought up many good points.
Are you now saying that under a 1 tiered system it would not motivate anyone? The big affiliate marketers that you wrote about would no longer be interested? As part of the "white paper" some  more number crunching with realistic figures and examples needs to be done.

Yes number crunching is key.  Can we make it enough to be motivating enough for people who dont care about bitshares to act?  that is the question  Multi tier or single tier does not change the payout. It not more or less attractive. Just more or less attractive to different people. As a business we would decide.  eg: we could say lets  60% of the fees we are already collecting for referrals.   We then design a compensation plan that incentivizes the best behavior.  For example, we go just one tier.  This appeals to internet marketer types I would imagine. Perhaps email your mailing list. But they will have little incentive to teach people about the business. Only the product. (of course the $12 compared to maybe money in the future is pretty big incentive but compared to...)  A multi tier system, still paying out a total of 60% of fees, pays 50% to the first tier, 7% to the 2nd tier and 3% to the 3rd tier.   Now an affiliate is motivated (moreso) to teach his underlings about the business opportunity. He is motivated to train them in the best approaches he has discovered, etc... It becomes a very nurturing environment.   Once again I am not longer advocating multi tier. I just want to impress upon everybody that we get to incentivize whatever behavior we want.   We design what gets rewarded and what does not.

Thanks to the TITAN system this is now possible.  I am convinced that the first chain to include an internal compensation plan that is motivating enough for people to act will crush it.   Can we come up with it or will someone else?

I wholly agree, but also am in no way interested personally in a 20 year span for incentives like this.  It really is about as far away from the original philosophy that built DPoS and there is no reason I can see why we shouldn't have a little more patience with the organic growth taking place right now.  I mean, what was bitcoins marketcap when it was 18 months old?

I can see how this would be very beneficial even with a shorter duration of fee based payments.  It also makes sense considering the incentive structure of your contract, but feel like maybe a delegate instead of the contract would be something that helps incentivize something less than 20 years on your end and will make more of the people who shared the vision of DPOS a bit happier.   Please don't take it wrong. ..I think this incentive structure is probaby painful for you too at this point in time.  I mean is it true you will receive nothing if bitshares' marketcap is t at least 160 mil in the next 14-16 months?

Have you considered running a delegate in lieu of that contract?   In my opinion we should all be working off the same incentive structure or it is going to unnecessarily divide the efforts of people already working on the project.  I'm strongly interested in bitshares remaining based in the philosophy of grass roots while we get merchants to sign on and feel that sadly this contract was constructed without the knowledge or input of the community.  This plan is really intelligently constructed, but I wonder if we are moving too far from the founding principles that made bts so awesome in the first place.  Otherwise, I'll go back to it and say 3-5 years should more than suffice if we must go down this road--definitely not 20.

[Globally Distributed]

Max I love your input and enthusiasm for this concept and this "brainstorming" session, led by you,  has brought up many good points.
Are you now saying that under a 1 tiered system it would not motivate anyone? The big affiliate marketers that you wrote about would no longer be interested? As part of the "white paper" some  more number crunching with realistic figures and examples needs to be done.

Yes number crunching is key.  Can we make it enough to be motivating enough for people who dont care about bitshares to act?  that is the question  Multi tier or single tier does not change the payout. It not more or less attractive. Just more or less attractive to different people. As a business we would decide.  eg: we could say lets  60% of the fees we are already collecting for referrals.   We then design a compensation plan that incentivizes the best behavior.  For example, we go just one tier.  This appeals to internet marketer types I would imagine. Perhaps email your mailing list. But they will have little incentive to teach people about the business. Only the product. (of course the $12 compared to maybe money in the future is pretty big incentive but compared to...)  A multi tier system, still paying out a total of 60% of fees, pays 50% to the first tier, 7% to the 2nd tier and 3% to the 3rd tier.   Now an affiliate is motivated (moreso) to teach his underlings about the business opportunity. He is motivated to train them in the best approaches he has discovered, etc... It becomes a very nurturing environment.   Once again I am not longer advocating multi tier. I just want to impress upon everybody that we get to incentivize whatever behavior we want.   We design what gets rewarded and what does not.

Thanks to the TITAN system this is now possible.  I am convinced that the first chain to include an internal compensation plan that is motivating enough for people to act will crush it.   Can we come up with it or will someone else?

I hope to goodness gracious that Dan implements the capability for MLM.  Don't get me wrong, I'm with Max that single layer is good, .. really good, but two layers would be astronomical.

[bitmarket]

Max I love your input and enthusiasm for this concept and this "brainstorming" session, led by you,  has brought up many good points.
Are you now saying that under a 1 tiered system it would not motivate anyone? The big affiliate marketers that you wrote about would no longer be interested? As part of the "white paper" some  more number crunching with realistic figures and examples needs to be done.

Yes number crunching is key.  Can we make it enough to be motivating enough for people who dont care about bitshares to act?  that is the question  Multi tier or single tier does not change the payout. It not more or less attractive. Just more or less attractive to different people. As a business we would decide.  eg: we could say lets  60% of the fees we are already collecting for referrals.   We then design a compensation plan that incentivizes the best behavior.  For example, we go just one tier.  This appeals to internet marketer types I would imagine. Perhaps email your mailing list. But they will have little incentive to teach people about the business. Only the product. (of course the $12 compared to maybe money in the future is pretty big incentive but compared to...)  A multi tier system, still paying out a total of 60% of fees, pays 50% to the first tier, 7% to the 2nd tier and 3% to the 3rd tier.   Now an affiliate is motivated (moreso) to teach his underlings about the business opportunity. He is motivated to train them in the best approaches he has discovered, etc... It becomes a very nurturing environment.   Once again I am not longer advocating multi tier. I just want to impress upon everybody that we get to incentivize whatever behavior we want.   We design what gets rewarded and what does not.

Thanks to the TITAN system this is now possible.  I am convinced that the first chain to include an internal compensation plan that is motivating enough for people to act will crush it.   Can we come up with it or will someone else?

[clayop]

Great idea! 

[Troglodactyl]

A single tier implementation is a great way to test the waters.

I think the $20 fee was perhaps just a round number - some calcs might be helpful in determining a number with an attractive ROI.

If, and I say if, the single tier program is successful and the PR is not a nightmare, a multi-tier system could be floated.

Or perhaps the single tier and 1.0/gateways gets BTS over the hump and we don't mess with it further.

Bottom line is that BTS needs marketing badly and this is a great way to leverage to the BTS tech to market itself.

I think introducing this single tier built into the first mobile wallet would be best.  I think it would be best not to clutter the core protocol with it, both for PR and future flexibility.

[oldman]

A single tier implementation is a great way to test the waters.

I think the $20 fee was perhaps just a round number - some calcs might be helpful in determining a number with an attractive ROI.

If, and I say if, the single tier program is successful and the PR is not a nightmare, a multi-tier system could be floated.

Or perhaps the single tier and 1.0/gateways gets BTS over the hump and we don't mess with it further.

Bottom line is that BTS needs marketing badly and this is a great way to leverage to the BTS tech to market itself.

[Empirical1.2]

I would suggest in promoting this, that the tone should be noting the principal motivation is all about promoting BitShares and attracting those who understand its potential and become active users themselves, rather than this being considered just "the next big thing" for marketeers to leech dry.

The only way it could be leeched dry is if we use the delegate model you are suggesting which pays more in commissions than we take in in revenue.
We want this to be seen as the next big thing.  We want martketers to come from far and wide and use their skills promoting this because it is such a good opportunity.  I dont understand peoples mentality that it will attract the wrong type of use.  How can you be the wrong type of user of a currency?

I think he means how MLM could effect the BTS brand image to the point that it does more harm than good in terms of adding value and users. MLM already has some negative perceptions and it's one thing to do it for make-up and kitchenware but perhaps another for financial products especially when unregulated digital shares are already viewed with scepticism, especially ours, with our variable supply rules being decided by a tiny largely unknown, unaccountable group of early adopters. 

For example you thought dilution would be a good idea, allowing more resources to be directed at attracting users and be received well by the market but this has so far clearly not been the case.

While I think the MLM concerns are valid, the seeming unstoppable BTC downtrend that BTS has been on since it's suggestion and creation puts it on suicide watch,  so its' the strategically correct time for throwing some hail Mary's. Also it doesn't require dilution which is promising. At the very least, the lessons we learn here and the products developed can only help further the industry as a whole. 

[fav]

Exactly, by legitimate users I meant not just signups that are recorded and forgotten, but people who actually use BitAssets and the network and thus occasionally generate fees for the network and their referrer.

Marketers only earn from active users. They (we, as I'm one of them) would make sure to keep the users active. Also, $6 of $20 upgrade fee would be burned.

This is a win-win in my opinion, however, it must be clearly visible that upgrading is optional. 

[Troglodactyl]

I would suggest a simplified and softened version with no protocol level enforcement.

Currently the minimum fee is 0.1 BTS and the default is 0.5.  Some of the light wallets are already boosting this fee slightly to pay for their development.  I suggest that some wallets could support defaulting to add an additional 0.1-0.5 BTS fee for every transaction, payed to the account that payed the registration fee for that wallet installations first account.  The idea here is that our grassroots marketers introduce people to BitShares, set up their wallets and register them, and receive transaction fees until the new user either stops using the network or changes the default settings.

This way there's no controversial protocol level enforcement pushed by the network as a whole, and marketers are incentivized to get legitimate users, because they're only rewarded if the user transacts.

I dont mind this option... Its a lot safer but a lot less powerful for a bunch of reasons.   But I am confused by this term "legitimate users"  What is a legitimate bitUSD user if it is not someone who holds bitUSD. Earns interest on bitUSD. Receives his income in bitUSD. Purchasers products with bitUSD, and trades in and out of bitUSD for fiat with his network of fellow bitUSD holders?   I don't think it gets any more legitimate than that.

An interesting mental exercise.  Imagine John Q Public clones bitshares and builds bitsharesMLM. He honors 100% bitshares holders so you have the same stake. He has a built in marketing system as described in the OP and limits the number of 100% delegates to 5 as that is ample to support the tech requirements of the chain.  which chain are you more excited about?

Exactly, by legitimate users I meant not just signups that are recorded and forgotten, but people who actually use BitAssets and the network and thus occasionally generate fees for the network and their referrer.

Ok so you mean the $20 signup fee?  Wasn't that needed for the multi-tier plan?  I think a signup fee would be a difficult sell.   Why not just have the transaction fee system without the $20 up front. 

I think purchase transaction volume will be a lot lower.  5 transactions per day is too high.  Paypal users avg 26 transactions per year so at 1 penny it's 26 cents per year and over 20 yrs that's $5.20.  Taking 60% of that is around $3 without taking into consideration time value of money.  The incentive is not that great, but at least it's something. 

20$ sign up fee or some variation of that is needed for all plans multi-tier or not.   It is optional. You only pay it if you want to earn commissions. Otherwise normal process 0.5 bts for non commission earning TITAN account.

You are correct. The numbers are weak. Thanks for the Paypal stat. I wouldn't bother signing up for this, even though I intend to do the work anyway for ideological reasons.  Hardly motivational for people to treat it as a business opportunity.

My plan wouldn't require an initial fee, because there's nothing to be gained trying to scam it since it doesn't modify the existing network fee system.  It can be dodged of course, but given how many people haven't dropped their fee from the default 0.5 to 0.1 I bet a lot of new users wouldn't dodge it; fees are still very low.

[cusknee]

Ok so you mean the $20 signup fee?  Wasn't that needed for the multi-tier plan?  I think a signup fee would be a difficult sell.   Why not just have the transaction fee system without the $20 up front. 

I think purchase transaction volume will be a lot lower.  5 transactions per day is too high.  Paypal users avg 26 transactions per year so at 1 penny it's 26 cents per year and over 20 yrs that's $5.20.  Taking 60% of that is around $3 without taking into consideration time value of money.  The incentive is not that great, but at least it's something. 

20$ sign up fee or some variation of that is needed for all plans multi-tier or not.   It is optional. You only pay it if you want to earn commissions. Otherwise normal process 0.5 bts for non commission earning TITAN account.

You are correct. The numbers are weak. Thanks for the Paypal stat. I wouldn't bother signing up for this, even though I intend to do the work anyway for ideological reasons.  Hardly motivational for people to treat it as a business opportunity.

Max I love your input and enthusiasm for this concept and this "brainstorming" session, led by you,  has brought up many good points.
Are you now saying that under a 1 tiered system it would not motivate anyone? The big affiliate marketers that you wrote about would no longer be interested? As part of the "white paper" some  more number crunching with realistic figures and examples needs to be done.

[davidpbrown]

Users can't dodge anything.  Transaction fees are the same whether you are referred by someone or not. the only difference is who gets them?  100% network or 40/60 network referrer.

It doesn't take much imagination to start a new wallet.

Lastly, I don't see why the reward for bringing new users could not be topped up from a delegate.. ...

It would be abused and people would bleed the system dry.

There's no reason it should be abused anymore than a delegate that doesn't perform. 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? If it's clear the market cap isn't rising relative to the numbers of new accounts or if new accounts are making no transactions, then discount those. I don't know, there's no magic bullets, it's just a thought that marketing should create excitement on all levels in all directions. Giving a sense of opportunity beyond just getting new users might be useful too.. have a vote on which non-delegates have made the biggest contribution.. that could be a draw into them becoming a full delegate. 2¢

[fav]

I would suggest in promoting this, that the tone should be noting the principal motivation is all about promoting BitShares and attracting those who understand its potential and become active users themselves, rather than this being considered just "the next big thing" for marketeers to leech dry.

The only way it could be leeched dry is if we use the delegate model you are suggesting which pays more in commissions than we take in in revenue.
We want this to be seen as the next big thing.  We want martketers to come from far and wide and use their skills promoting this because it is such a good opportunity.  I dont understand peoples mentality that it will attract the wrong type of use.  How can you be the wrong type of user of a currency?

Again I'll suggest, I wonder a short burst reward will drive this as hard as any MLM motivation. A short perhaps 1 year - 18 months time limit, will avoid unanticipated regret via compounding complexity etc; and will avoid new users resenting payments to a point they might just opt to start a new account and dodge that.

Users can't dodge anything.  Transaction fees are the same whether you are referred by someone or not. the only difference is who gets them?  100% network or 40/60 network referrer.

Lastly, I don't see why the reward for bringing new users could not be topped up from a delegate.. obviously, we want to avoid too much dilution and rewarding false accounts but where it is clear accounts were real and actively turning over transaction fees, the promoter who brought them in could claim their reward relative to that, after a time. Afterall, delegates get their profit from the transactions, so I don't see why a delegate couldn't be assigned to support this effort and perhaps other marketing, whatever else is seen to be making a positive contribution - though I can't think of any better atm than attracting active users. Just need to find the right balance that makes the effort worthwhile and yet see the benefits flow into BitShares rather than simply into the pockets of ambitious marketing types who adopt BitShares only for that $"opportunity".

It would be abused and people would bleed the system dry.

 

I'd rather be employed by the blockchain than to be depending on a delegate.

[bitmarket]

Ok so you mean the $20 signup fee?  Wasn't that needed for the multi-tier plan?  I think a signup fee would be a difficult sell.   Why not just have the transaction fee system without the $20 up front. 

I think purchase transaction volume will be a lot lower.  5 transactions per day is too high.  Paypal users avg 26 transactions per year so at 1 penny it's 26 cents per year and over 20 yrs that's $5.20.  Taking 60% of that is around $3 without taking into consideration time value of money.  The incentive is not that great, but at least it's something. 

20$ sign up fee or some variation of that is needed for all plans multi-tier or not.   It is optional. You only pay it if you want to earn commissions. Otherwise normal process 0.5 bts for non commission earning TITAN account.

You are correct. The numbers are weak. Thanks for the Paypal stat. I wouldn't bother signing up for this, even though I intend to do the work anyway for ideological reasons.  Hardly motivational for people to treat it as a business opportunity.

[mf-tzo]

might be irrelevant or not to this discussion but thought to post this anyway...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/30g0z1/coinbase_referral_program_reveals_names_of_new/