Anyone else have Annual Membership small fees don't show at all

[hcf27]

I have same issue, do we know if its going to get fixed anytime soon?

Will the fees be returned?... I have spent around 400 on fees plus the 4.000 of the membership, this is my account:

http://cryptofresh.com/u/hcf27

Hi hcf27
I have spoke to Ronny who has agreed that i should be refunded for Annual Membership not sure about the fees as i just took it as a loss.
Thanks

Hello,

Yeah, I dont mind the fees, but I paid 4.000 bts for something I didnt get which is kind of annoying, I will see if I can get a refund too, seems fair.

Thanks for letting me know about that possibility.

[woodygar]

I have same issue, do we know if its going to get fixed anytime soon?

Will the fees be returned?... I have spent around 400 on fees plus the 4.000 of the membership, this is my account:

http://cryptofresh.com/u/hcf27

Hi hcf27
I have spoke to Ronny who has agreed that i should be refunded for Annual Membership not sure about the fees as i just took it as a loss.
Thanks

[abit]

We are going to disable annual member upgrade in the GUI

When will it be disabled? @valzav
I thought you were going to do it in 2.0.160208.

[valzav]

We are going to disable annual member upgrade in the GUI

[abit]

@ccedk @dannotestein @valzav Currently OpenLedger set "referrer_rewards_percentage" to 0% for new accounts who referred by nobody. It effectively causes 0% cash-back if the the account is upgraded to annual member. Please check. Maybe you need to temporarily disable the "upgrade to annual member" feature in your hosted wallet.

Today another account "dstnsn" is upgraded to annual member, and will be affected by this issue.

BlockTrades isn't involved in any of the referral stuff, but I'll double check when I see Valentine tomorrow to make sure he knows about it.

Thanks.

[dannotestein]

@ccedk @dannotestein @valzav Currently OpenLedger set "referrer_rewards_percentage" to 0% for new accounts who referred by nobody. It effectively causes 0% cash-back if the the account is upgraded to annual member. Please check. Maybe you need to temporarily disable the "upgrade to annual member" feature in your hosted wallet.

Today another account "dstnsn" is upgraded to annual member, and will be affected by this issue.

BlockTrades isn't involved in any of the referral stuff, but I'll double check when I see Valentine tomorrow to make sure he knows about it.

[abit]

@ccedk @dannotestein @valzav Currently OpenLedger set "referrer_rewards_percentage" to 0% for new accounts who referred by nobody. It effectively causes 0% cash-back if the the account is upgraded to annual member. Please check. Maybe you need to temporarily disable the "upgrade to annual member" feature in your hosted wallet.

Today another account "dstnsn" is upgraded to annual member, and will be affected by this issue.

[abit]

The code is doing the "right" thing in this way:
"an annual subscriber will earn up to 50% cash back and qualify for up to 50% of the fees paid by anyone they refer", but the real number depends on the registrar who registered her (50% if referrer_rewards_percentage set to 100%, 0% if referrer_rewards_percentage set to 0%).

Where did you get that quote? Does it really say "up to"? In that case the code would be correct indeed. Only the UI should display the exact percentages.

But it's always been my understanding that annual membership gives you exactly 50% cashback, in which case the code would be wrong.

The first "up to" is added by me, the second is on https://bitshares.org/referral-program/. I mean the code is acting this way, which imo is wrong. A membership with "up to" 50% cashback won't worth 5000 BTS especially when most time it's 0%.

[pc]

The code is doing the "right" thing in this way:
"an annual subscriber will earn up to 50% cash back and qualify for up to 50% of the fees paid by anyone they refer", but the real number depends on the registrar who registered her (50% if referrer_rewards_percentage set to 100%, 0% if referrer_rewards_percentage set to 0%).

Where did you get that quote? Does it really say "up to"? In that case the code would be correct indeed. Only the UI should display the exact percentages.

But it's always been my understanding that annual membership gives you exactly 50% cashback, in which case the code would be wrong.

[abit]

The code is doing the "right" thing in this way:
"an annual subscriber will earn up to 50% cash back and qualify for up to 50% of the fees paid by anyone they refer", but the real number depends on the registrar who registered her (50% if referrer_rewards_percentage set to 100%, 0% if referrer_rewards_percentage set to 0%).

[bytemaster]

The accounts have the wrong percentage set for "referrer" and so the code is doing the right thing, but the faucet and genesis accounts are wrong.   We are looking into solutions.

[hcf27]

I have same issue, do we know if its going to get fixed anytime soon?

Will the fees be returned?... I have spent around 400 on fees plus the 4.000 of the membership, this is my account:

http://cryptofresh.com/u/hcf27

[pc]

Filed a report at github: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/539

[pc]

I'm confused about what the behaviour should be.

There is this: https://bitshares.org/referral-program/ (1)
which refers to this: https://bitshares.org/referral-program-terms-and-conditions/ (2)
which states that the source code is authoritative. :-/ That's technically correct, but I'm pretty sure that the source code does not implement the *intended* behaviour.

The documents cited above are confusing because (1) does not mention registrars at all, while (2) distinguishes between registrars and referrers but ignores annual membership.
(1) states that "The Annual Member becomes its own Referrer for one year.", which seems to match what OP's account looks like. However, (2) states that "When a User account upgrades they become their own Registrar and Referrer." which makes sense wrt the way the source code distributes the fees between network, registrar, referrer and lifetime referrer.

IMO the correct behaviour would be what (2) says, i. e. A's registrar and referrer should both be set to A. This would result in A receiving 50% cashback (which matches my original expectations). Once the membership expires lifetime_referrer would receive 80% of A's fees (which matches what (1) says about lifetime membership).

[abit]

Are we talking about the woodygar-1 account?

I can see it has 1 year membership but no cashback-vesting-balance object attached. Not sure if that's how it's supposed to be.

Code Select Expand


get_account woodygar-1
{
  "id": "1.2.93566",
  "membership_expiration_date": "2017-01-23T12:18:24",
  "registrar": "1.2.90713",
  "referrer": "1.2.93566",
  "lifetime_referrer": "1.2.90713",
  "network_fee_percentage": 2000,
  "lifetime_referrer_fee_percentage": 3000,
  "referrer_rewards_percentage": 0,
  "name": "woodygar-1",
  "owner": { ... },
  "active": { ... },
  "options": { ... },
  "statistics": "2.6.93566",
  "whitelisting_accounts": [],
  "blacklisting_accounts": [],
  "blacklisted_accounts": []
}


The statistics object doesn't show any pending fees although it seems you're quite active. Strange. I was probably looking at the wrong moment.

Hm, looking at the code it seems that your referrer_rewards_percentage is the problem. The network gets 20% of your fees, the lifetime referrer gets 30% and the remaining 50% is split between you and the registrar according to the referrer_rewards_percentage.

This might be a bug. @bytemaster ?

Imo the design/implementation of annual membership is probably wrong.

Assume account A is registered by account B (the registrar), and referred by account C (the referrer).

Before A upgraded to annual member, when A pays a fee, it splits for example as 20% network + 25% registrar + 55% referrer.

After A upgraded to annual member, when A pays a fee, it should split as 20% network + 50% A + (1-20%-50%)*25%/(1-20%)=9.375% registrar + (1-20%-50%)*55%/(1-20%)=20.625% referrer.

I remember in the code there are "lifetime referrer", "registrar", "referrer", imo they should all be different in this scenario. Imo "lifetime referrer" should be A, and "registrar" and "referrer" should be whatever unchanged.

Will re-read the code when have time.