328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0

[speedy]

Thanks I just learnt in another thread that webwallet Deposits are actually working for everyone expect me/Firefox users.

[dannotestein]

Makes sense.

We need to take away some of those juicy fees from the exchanges. I really hope we can do that when Blocktrades finally gets their TRADE.BTC deposit integration in the webwallet.

Lets say that among the supporters of BitShares here on these forums we together have 1000 BTC on Poloniex. We could all pull that out of Poloniex and into TRADE.BTC and pay the network the fees instead. That would definitely make us profitable again.

TRADE.BTC integration is complete now in the webwallet (although I hope in the future the webwallet's support will allow for direct conversions other than just BTC/TRADE.BTC, such as BTC/BitBTC, BTC/BTS, etc). From what I hear, OpenLedger will also be active soon as well.

[Empirical1.2]

To decrease the supply, we need to attract more users fr the traditional exchanges. In this stage, profit is not important than expansion of the user base, IMHO.

Yes but fees can't be too cheap because we still want the referral programme to work & we don't want BTS to be very inflationary. So it's hard to balance.

[clayop]

To decrease the supply, we need to attract more users fr the traditional exchanges. In this stage, profit is not important than expansion of the user base, IMHO.

[speedy]

Makes sense.

We need to take away some of those juicy fees from the exchanges. I really hope we can do that when Blocktrades finally gets their TRADE.BTC deposit integration in the webwallet.

Lets say that among the supporters of BitShares here on these forums we together have 1000 BTC on Poloniex. We could all pull that out of Poloniex and into TRADE.BTC and pay the network the fees instead. That would definitely make us profitable again.

[Empirical1.2]

The transfer fee is still 40 BTS I think, they haven't decreased it.

Are you saying the BTS asset page is not showing the correct supply / isnt up to date?

No. I'm saying I know you were in favour of keeping the transaction fee high so we could keep BTS profitable.
However it's seems even with the high fee the supply has increased. So perhaps that is not the key.

I think we just had an initial burst of people claiming balances and moving them to exchanges and so were forced to pay the fee, but now that is largely over I think a large portion of the market, particularly China, will avoid BTS transfers where possible and so income will go down.

[speedy]

The transfer fee is still 40 BTS I think, they haven't decreased it.

Are you saying the BTS asset page is not showing the correct supply / isnt up to date?

[Empirical1.2]

And we're inflationary again:

18/10/2015:     2,533,418,358
19/10/2015:     2,533,393,609
20/10/2015:     2,533,385,809
21/10/2015:     2,533,348,217
22/10/2015:     2,533,245,397
23/10/2015:     2,533,228,861
24/10/2015:     2,533,262,319

Wonderful.

The transfer fee is still 40 BTS I think, they haven't decreased it.

[speedy]

And we're inflationary again:

18/10/2015:     2,533,418,358
19/10/2015:     2,533,393,609
20/10/2015:     2,533,385,809
21/10/2015:     2,533,348,217
22/10/2015:     2,533,245,397
23/10/2015:     2,533,228,861
24/10/2015:     2,533,262,319

Wonderful.

[tonyk]

yes

[Ander]

Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?

On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what  Empirical said becomes more true.

Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.

Is that what this worked does?  That sounds like the worst idea ever.

Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.

This worker will have very good uses in the future, as it will be the eliminator of half ass proposals from him down vote-wise, that the people do not want to be paid.

But for it to work right now, for anything else but the negative perception we need:

1. A burning worker - it does not have to be huge - 10K seems enough, imo.
2.  BM needs to vote for the burning worker with 100% of his stake and for the recycling worker with 90% of his stake.
3. We generally should follow similar voting pattern for those 2, and vote "Yes" for all other workers we do like to be paid, of course.

That makes a lot of sense.  I like it.

So, we need the recycling worker to prevent random people's worker proposals from getting paid?

[tonyk]

Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?

On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what  Empirical said becomes more true.

Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.

Is that what this worked does?  That sounds like the worst idea ever.

Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.

This worker will have very good uses in the future. It will be the eliminator of half ass proposals from him down [vote-wise], proposals that the people do not want to be paid.

But for it to work right now, for anything else but the negative perception, we need:

1. A burning worker - it does not have to be huge - 10K seems enough, imo.
2.  BM needs to vote for the burning worker with 100% of his stake and for the recycling worker with 90% of his stake.
3. We generally should follow similar voting pattern for those 2, [and vote "Yes" for all other workers we do like to be paid, of course].

[Ander]

Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?

On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what  Empirical said becomes more true.

Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.

Is that what this worked does?  That sounds like the worst idea ever.

Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.

[bytemaster]

What we are saying is "we reserve the right to issue up to 3.7" not that we "want to issue 3.7". 

All shareholders want to avoid issuing new shares and to be profitable.   These same shareholders value the OPTION to dilute if necessary to save the business.   

The option to dilute is very valuable, more valuable than having a rigid system with no ability to ever raise money again.

[tonyk]

Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?

On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what  Empirical said becomes more true.

Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.

Oh I didn't get it the first time. I thought every BTS burnt would go to a reserve pool by default, but that only happens because of that worker?

It will go back without the worker - but it will be temporary default behavior. With the worker we are actively with our vote more or less saying - we don not want a decrease in supply we want one day it to be at 3.7bil .