Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION  (Read 624 times)

Offline topcandle


The 1 Year vesting period for referral fees strikes me as something that could be a dealbreaker for a lot of inquiring companies.  Its a very long time length to prove a business model that might not even work.  And for that one year, its wasted savings that is just sitting , while it could be reinvested elsewhere or put to work.  Most importantly, this long vesting period will hurt smaller, startup type firms who would want fees as quickly as possible to reinvest into their business.

Now I understand the need for the investing period to prevent attacks.  I'm just not convinced it will work out as expected because of this one-year vesting period.  Now for the solution:

Its certainly possible for these referral members to set up a UIA that will source money from the public.  They could offer at a 95% reduction.  So a normal user could pay 95 BTS and within one year get 100 BTS out of the referral member's pool.  Of course, the referral member would never offer more UIA than he has in his fee reserves.  Effectively it will function as a bond.

The one thing I think the dev team could do better to assist the transaction, is make that special reserve acct linked to the UIA.  So at the end of the vesting period, the vested BTS will go directly to the purchaser and not the referral member.  This would alleviate cpty concerns and bring more trust into the system as a whole.  Once then this referral system will really have one to boot! 

Any thoughts?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3390
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 2.0 SmartCoin
  • BTS: fav
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2015, 01:23:44 PM »
The 1 Year vesting period for referral fees strikes me as something that could be a dealbreaker for a lot of inquiring companies.  Its a very long time length to prove a business model that might not even work.  And for that one year, its wasted savings that is just sitting , while it could be reinvested elsewhere or put to work.  Most importantly, this long vesting period will hurt smaller, startup type firms who would want fees as quickly as possible to reinvest into their business.

Now I understand the need for the investing period to prevent attacks.  I'm just not convinced it will work out as expected because of this one-year vesting period.  Now for the solution:

Its certainly possible for these referral members to set up a UIA that will source money from the public.  They could offer at a 95% reduction.  So a normal user could pay 95 BTS and within one year get 100 BTS out of the referral member's pool.  Of course, the referral member would never offer more UIA than he has in his fee reserves.  Effectively it will function as a bond.

The one thing I think the dev team could do better to assist the transaction, is make that special reserve acct linked to the UIA.  So at the end of the vesting period, the vested BTS will go directly to the purchaser and not the referral member.  This would alleviate cpty concerns and bring more trust into the system as a whole.  Once then this referral system will really have one to boot! 

Any thoughts?

 +5% if that's possible. but no need to peg it, let people choose the value of their vest. could make a full market and a very secure investment.

Offline topcandle

Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2015, 01:25:08 PM »
The 1 Year vesting period for referral fees strikes me as something that could be a dealbreaker for a lot of inquiring companies.  Its a very long time length to prove a business model that might not even work.  And for that one year, its wasted savings that is just sitting , while it could be reinvested elsewhere or put to work.  Most importantly, this long vesting period will hurt smaller, startup type firms who would want fees as quickly as possible to reinvest into their business.

Now I understand the need for the investing period to prevent attacks.  I'm just not convinced it will work out as expected because of this one-year vesting period.  Now for the solution:

Its certainly possible for these referral members to set up a UIA that will source money from the public.  They could offer at a 95% reduction.  So a normal user could pay 95 BTS and within one year get 100 BTS out of the referral member's pool.  Of course, the referral member would never offer more UIA than he has in his fee reserves.  Effectively it will function as a bond.

The one thing I think the dev team could do better to assist the transaction, is make that special reserve acct linked to the UIA.  So at the end of the vesting period, the vested BTS will go directly to the purchaser and not the referral member.  This would alleviate cpty concerns and bring more trust into the system as a whole.  Once then this referral system will really have one to boot! 

Any thoughts?

 +5% if that's possible. but no need to peg it, let people choose the value of their vest. could make a full market and a very secure investment.

Agreed.  my main point was that the deposits to the investors account should be automatic and direct. 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline profitofthegods

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2015, 01:31:52 PM »
I would also like to see something like this, with the flexible value as favdesu says, if it is at all possible.

Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2015, 01:58:49 PM »
The 1 Year vesting period for referral fees strikes me as something that could be a dealbreaker for a lot of inquiring companies.  Its a very long time length to prove a business model that might not even work.  And for that one year, its wasted savings that is just sitting , while it could be reinvested elsewhere or put to work.  Most importantly, this long vesting period will hurt smaller, startup type firms who would want fees as quickly as possible to reinvest into their business.

Now I understand the need for the investing period to prevent attacks.  I'm just not convinced it will work out as expected because of this one-year vesting period.  Now for the solution:

Its certainly possible for these referral members to set up a UIA that will source money from the public.  They could offer at a 95% reduction.  So a normal user could pay 95 BTS and within one year get 100 BTS out of the referral member's pool.  Of course, the referral member would never offer more UIA than he has in his fee reserves.  Effectively it will function as a bond.

The one thing I think the dev team could do better to assist the transaction, is make that special reserve acct linked to the UIA.  So at the end of the vesting period, the vested BTS will go directly to the purchaser and not the referral member.  This would alleviate cpty concerns and bring more trust into the system as a whole.  Once then this referral system will really have one to boot! 

Any thoughts?

Perhaps there could be "marketing accounts" that include additional set up of a UIA representing the referral income vesting account. These UIAs are tied directly to the referral funds and when released they pay out proportionally to all UIA holders. Of course the "marketing account" could hold 100% of the UIA to be paid out as normal, but they can sell any portion as a kind of bond.
I think the UIA should be directly linked to the funds and not based on trust of the marketer.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline topcandle

Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2015, 04:15:23 PM »
@BM will you consider this?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline theoretical

Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2015, 07:28:30 PM »

Only fees above a certain threshold defined by consensus must vest.   This means that in practice only the following fees require vesting:

1. Premium Name Registration
2. Lifetime and Annual Memberships
3. Large Data Transactions
4. Symbol Name Registration

Other fees (transfers, market orders, etc) will be below the threshold and thus vest immediately.
BTS- theoretical / PTS- PZxpdC8RqWsdU3pVJeobZY7JFKVPfNpy5z / BTC- 1NfGejohzoVGffAD1CnCRgo9vApjCU2viY / the delegate formerly known as drltc / Nothing said on these forums is intended to be legally binding / All opinions are my own unless otherwise noted / Take action due to my posts at your own risk

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3390
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 2.0 SmartCoin
  • BTS: fav
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2015, 07:38:59 PM »

Only fees above a certain threshold defined by consensus must vest.   This means that in practice only the following fees require vesting:

1. Premium Name Registration
2. Lifetime and Annual Memberships
3. Large Data Transactions
4. Symbol Name Registration

Other fees (transfers, market orders, etc) will be below the threshold and thus vest immediately.

but those are the ones with the highest value

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2015, 08:04:20 PM »
Great minds think alike :)

I had described just this last night to CryptoPromethius

This should be seriously done.

 +5%
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline bytemaster

Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2015, 08:07:32 PM »

Only fees above a certain threshold defined by consensus must vest.   This means that in practice only the following fees require vesting:

1. Premium Name Registration
2. Lifetime and Annual Memberships
3. Large Data Transactions
4. Symbol Name Registration

Other fees (transfers, market orders, etc) will be below the threshold and thus vest immediately.

but those are the ones with the highest value

And the ones that are most at risk for being abused.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bitmarket

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
    • View Profile
    • BitShares TV
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2015, 08:17:11 PM »
By making the referal fees liquid you undo the attack defense.
Host of BitShares.TV and Author of BitShares 101

Online Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BTS: shentist
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2015, 08:24:32 PM »
By making the referal fees liquid you undo the attack defense.

which attack vector do the vesting balance prefent? I don't get it yet.

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2015, 08:27:15 PM »
The 1 Year vesting period for referral fees strikes me as something that could be a dealbreaker for a lot of inquiring companies.  Its a very long time length to prove a business model that might not even work.  And for that one year, its wasted savings that is just sitting , while it could be reinvested elsewhere or put to work.  Most importantly, this long vesting period will hurt smaller, startup type firms who would want fees as quickly as possible to reinvest into their business.

Now I understand the need for the investing period to prevent attacks.  I'm just not convinced it will work out as expected because of this one-year vesting period.  Now for the solution:

Its certainly possible for these referral members to set up a UIA that will source money from the public.  They could offer at a 95% reduction.  So a normal user could pay 95 BTS and within one year get 100 BTS out of the referral member's pool.  Of course, the referral member would never offer more UIA than he has in his fee reserves.  Effectively it will function as a bond.

The one thing I think the dev team could do better to assist the transaction, is make that special reserve acct linked to the UIA.  So at the end of the vesting period, the vested BTS will go directly to the purchaser and not the referral member.  This would alleviate cpty concerns and bring more trust into the system as a whole.  Once then this referral system will really have one to boot! 

Any thoughts?

Jonathan (@DSN) and I were discussing a similar (more trustless option than the OP) idea last night. We were wondering if it would be technically possible to create/sell a bond using vested shares as collateral. The reason I didnt post the idea is because I thought of a rebuttal:

The reason for vesting (most) of the large fees associated with the referral program is because of the "attack" that exists where someone might choose to set up a registrar/hosted walet that immediately returns the $80 of the $100 fee to the account holder, thus undermining the whole referral program. If it was possible to sell bonds collateralized with vested shares, the potential for this "attack" still exists, it just might include a small fee margin.

For example, the registrar might advertise "Register your BTS account Here and we immediately refund $70 of the $100 fee". They could then turn around and create a bond with over 5% Guaranteed interest by using $75 of the vested BTS from the registration fee, and then keep the extra $5 as their margin. The above is just one example, but in fact this "attack" could be done with any combination of "cashback offered", fee taken and bond sold.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 08:30:22 PM by CryptoPrometheus »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Dating & Relationship Advice For Smart Women
  • BTS: methodx
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2015, 08:32:27 PM »
By making the referal fees liquid you undo the attack defense.

which attack vector do the vesting balance prefent? I don't get it yet.

Someone can create a wallet and sign people up for free (auto refund registration fee). I'm not convinced this would be a problem in practice. I say go with no vesting and if it ends up being more than a purely theoretical problem, implement vesting.

Edit: Why was a year chosen as the vesting period? Seems like we could start off with a LOT less than this. I'd say at most 6 months should be sufficient and in reality I'd say 2 months is enough to prevent an "attack".
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 08:39:46 PM by Method-X »

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: Concerns over 1 year vesting period and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2015, 08:39:41 PM »
By making the referal fees liquid you undo the attack defense.

which attack vector do the vesting balance prefent? I don't get it yet.

Someone can create a wallet and sign people up for free (auto refund registration fee). I'm not convinced this would be a problem in practice. I say go with no vesting and if it ends up being more than a purely theoretical problem, implement vesting.

It would definitely be a problem in practice because you wouldnt necessarily have to refund the full $80. Any amount refunded would give an edge over other registrars.  It might start out with "get $10 back" or "get $20 back" but eventually  competition would push it higher and higher until we have a situation like I describe above (two posts back.)
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

 

Google+