What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?

[abit]

So my current standing is that LTM/AM (and/or shorter membership schemes, e.g. monthly, if they get introduced) are the only subject of this proposal.
As for other fees - it could be done but I don't see a reason why we would need it.

Why don't we make it fully consistence at this point?

Let's have the committe decide the basic_fee for every operation.

Then let's allow the registrar to enter a % value that will be added on top of all basic fee.

E.g.
network basic fee:
   -transfer 10 bts
   -account_upgrade 10k bts

Registrar jakub choose 75% for his "costumers" jakub-cost

jakub-cost will pay:
   -transfer 17.5 bts
   -account_upgrade 17.5k bts

Jakub will take the %cut he charged:
   -transfer 7.5 bts
   -account_upgrade 7.5k bts

And where would this registrar's pricing policy be stored?
Any account can be a registrar. So you would need to allow every account to define the pricing policy in case this account becomes a registrar.
It becomes very complex IMO.

Technically, the "policy" can be stored in the faucet which is running by the registrar; then the parameters can be saved to every account registered, just what we're doing right now.

It makes no change to the result. Either competitors competing on a same base price and different on-the-top margins, or on a same end-user price and different discounts.

[Empirical1.2]

My point is that a user who paid the full price will find out the day after he could have gotten the same thing for free. That is the user experience you are advocating.

In the same way my UX is affected when I buy a pair of nice sneakers from a local online shop and three days later I find out that I could've bought them on Alibaba for half the price.
This is the way things are nowadays and people are getting used to it.
Smart people who have the time to hunt for discounts get lower prices than people who don't have time for that.
Take airline tickets as an example.

Yeah, this is just a fact of life.  One could come up with a zillion examples.

When Nike (Sneaker company) wholesales their product to retailers, their marketing costs are included in that wholesale price. (Advertising and Sales commission.) Retailers then compete on price/location/other for the end user.

In the BTS model, the referral programme is a form of sales commission currently included in the wholesale price. This creates a level playing field for your global sales force.

By removing this you lower the wholesale price which is beneficial to some end user businesses but removes the incentive for a large part of your sales force.

Even some end user businesses that engage in BTS marketing like CCEDK will also be less incentivized & have less profit margin to do so because they will have to compete on price with other providers

As mentioned there is a loophole that makes this possible anyway but it does limit BTS's ability to market itself, other than by relying on low costs and word of mouth.

[puppies]

Couldn't registrars or referrers just give a refund out to purchasers of LTM or AM?  Is there a valid reason to go beyond this?  I don't currently see one.

[abit]

Could we have an estimation about time/cost for these changes?
IMO, they are not so "radical" at the end of the day, and would not cost very much, but I would like to hear abit's opinion that would be much more correct than mine. @abit

We need to hear it from abit.

I feel it would be a lot of work. Sorry right now I'm unable to make a detailed estimation.

It gives the registrar/referrer some conveniences and lower barriers, but the result is no change if let committee but not registrars set the lower limits (and I am against the idea that will give out zero cost AM to new users).

[jakub]

So my current standing is that LTM/AM (and/or shorter membership schemes, e.g. monthly, if they get introduced) are the only subject of this proposal.
As for other fees - it could be done but I don't see a reason why we would need it.

Why don't we make it fully consistence at this point?

Let's have the committe decide the basic_fee for every operation.

Then let's allow the registrar to enter a % value that will be added on top of all basic fee.

E.g.
network basic fee:
   -transfer 10 bts
   -account_upgrade 10k bts

Registrar jakub choose 75% for his "costumers" jakub-cost

jakub-cost will pay:
   -transfer 17.5 bts
   -account_upgrade 17.5k bts

Jakub will take the %cut he charged:
   -transfer 7.5 bts
   -account_upgrade 7.5k bts

And where would this registrar's pricing policy be stored?
Any account can be a registrar. So you would need to allow every account to define the pricing policy in case this account becomes a registrar.
It becomes very complex IMO.

[Bhuz]

So my current standing is that LTM/AM (and/or shorter membership schemes, e.g. monthly, if they get introduced) are the only subject of this proposal.
As for other fees - it could be done but I don't see a reason why we would need it.

Why don't we make it fully consistence at this point?

Let's have the committe decide the basic_fee for every operation.

Then let's allow the registrar to enter a % value that will be added on top of all basic fee.

E.g.
network basic fee:
   -transfer 10 bts
   -account_upgrade 10k bts

Registrar jakub choose 75% for his "costumers" jakub-cost

jakub-cost will pay:
   -transfer 17.5 bts
   -account_upgrade 17.5k bts

Jakub will take the %cut he charged:
   -transfer 7.5 bts
   -account_upgrade 7.5k bts

[jakub]

You should realize that IF "the committee manages to push through flat transfer fees at around $0.02" does it really MEANS the shareholders push it through with their votes.
So, IF the shareholders do not want to save the baby, it is not on the Committee.

I agree with that, I could have worded it more precisely.
The only reason I expressed it in this way, is because I'm afraid it might happen that "the baby's killing" gets bundled with other valuable fee adjustments and thus obfuscate the choice for the shareholders.

Is it correct that the shareholders/network/committee would end up setting the basic/lower_limit fee, and each registrars would *add* another fee *on top of the basic one*?

That's correct.
But please note that the main purpose of this idea is this: in case of AM (and/or shorter subscriptions) to allow setting this lower limit at a level close to zero.
This would allow some registrars to give it away for free *if* they really needed this for their customers (no income lost for the network, as those customers would not have bought AM anyway).

Is this limited to LTM-fee, or it would work for *every fee* on the platform?

Initially I meant it for LTM only.
Then I realized that AM (Annual Membership) and also shorter membership schemes would do the same job even better.
So my current standing is that LTM/AM (and/or shorter membership schemes, e.g. monthly, if they get introduced) are the only subject of this proposal.
As for other fees - it could be done but I don't see a reason why we would need it.

Could we have an estimation about time/cost for these changes?
IMO, they are not so "radical" at the end of the day, and would not cost very much, but I would like to hear abit's opinion that would be much more correct than mine. @abit

We need to hear it from abit.

[Bhuz]

So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.
* no vesting on cash-backs.

I'll support it.

Yes, that's a very good summary.
I'd be happy to make a BSIP out of it but the current situation with the committee does not encourage me to do so.

If the committee manages to push through flat transfer fees at around $0.02, I cannot see much need for this concept.
My goal was to offer a sensible alternative which allows us to save the baby (i.e. keep flat transfer fees at the current level).
When the baby is killed, there is little need to have the alternative.

You should realize that IF "the committee manages to push through flat transfer fees at around $0.02" does it really MEANS the shareholders push it through with their votes.
So, IF the shareholders do not want to save the baby, it is not on the Committee.


If I correctly understood the proposal, I would support it.

Is it correct that the shareholders/network/committee would end up setting the basic/lower_limit fee, and each registrars would *add* another fee *on top of the basic one*?

Is this limited to LTM-fee, or it would work for *every fee* on the platform?


Could we have an astimation about time/cost for these changes?
IMO, they are not so "radical" at the end of the day, and would not cost very much, but I would like to hear abit's opinion that would be much more correct than mine. @abit

[jakub]

It's actually not exactly what we have now.  What we have now is a mandatory $100 fee for LTM.  If the business wants to opt out (fully or partially), they have to wait for the 80% share to vest and then split those funds up and send a portion to the referrer and a portion back to the user (or they can reimburse the user immediately and pay themselves back after vesting). 

It's quite inconvenient in terms of technical execution and vesting but nevertheless even now we have this: a registrar can sell LTM for any price between $20 and $100 and offer the referrer as a reward for her efforts anything between $0 to $80.

Also, as it stands, the lifetime membership and referrer program are mashed together and some people can't wrap their heads around giving 80% of the LTM fee to a referrer and only 20% to the network.  That does seem a little odd and I never liked it myself (mostly because it obfuscates the actual costs of each component).  Instead, the proposal I described, the LTM fee is the LTM fee and the network collects it no matter what.  Then, separately, there's the referral program that is optional and it's up to the business to charge their user the additional fee or not.  Doing it this way, no one should have any problem with 100% of that fee being used by the referral program.   So I think what we currently have is totally different than what I was proposing (which was actually just a combination of what you originally proposed and what Xeldal proposed). 

So what you propose is this: arrange things is such a way that there is a clear picture for the user who gets what.
You do not propose to change the financial situation of any party involved (i.e. the network, the user, the referrer and the registrar) but just want to make it clear, simple & easy.
Is it correct?

[abit]

So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.
* no vesting on cash-backs.

I'll support it.

Yes, that's a very good summary.
I'd be happy to make a BSIP out of it but the current situation with the committee does not encourage me to do so.

If the committee manages to push through flat transfer fees at around $0.02, I cannot see much need for this concept.
My goal was to offer a sensible alternative which allows us to save the baby (i.e. keep flat transfer fees at the current level).
When the baby is killed, there is little need to have the alternative.

I'd rather wait for the committee to publish their proposal first, which is said to be done in next week.
An good pricing strategy is important for the platform.

[jakub]

So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.
* no vesting on cash-backs.

I'll support it.

Yes, that's a very good summary.
I'd be happy to make a BSIP out of it but the current situation with the committee does not encourage me to do so.

If the committee manages to push through flat transfer fees at around $0.02, I cannot see much need for this concept.
My goal was to offer a sensible alternative which allows us to save the baby (i.e. keep flat transfer fees at the current level).
When the baby is killed, there is little need to have the alternative.

[abit]

So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.
* no vesting on cash-backs.

I'll support it.

//Update:
After more thinking, now I tend to leave the design of vesting period on large amount of cash-backs unchanged.
So I will still support the 1st and 2nd proposals above, but against the 3rd.

[tbone]

@jakub: I think you're starting to over-complicate it now with AM vs. LTM.  What's this LTM loophole you're concerned about?

Why do you say it's more complicated now?
It's the same idea but I now propose to use AM instead of LTM.
Nothing else changes. Just replace LTM with AM.

The loophole is this: if a user buys LTM (for whatever price) she can then generate other accounts by making herself the registrar and setting the price for upgrading to 0.
This way she could end up with 100 (or more) LTM accounts and only 20% (of the price she paid for the first one) has gone to the network. The network gets nothing from the other 99 accounts.

With AM this situation is not possible as AM does not give you the possibility to create further accounts (as far as I know).

But I thought you agreed with Xeldal's proposal to enforce a $20 fee to the network for every LTM account created.  Wouldn't that solve the problem you're talking about?  So now, by essentially separating the network fee from any referral fee, we can have the optional referral program you were proposing. 

To elaborate, the $20 upfront fee is what the network gets in exchange for offering lower fees and losing its cut of the otherwise higher fees.  So that is mandatory (until we're ready and able to lower fees to $0 per today's mumble).  Beyond the network's mandatory $20, businesses can charge ANY additional amount IF they wish to utilize the built-in referral program.  Businesses that utilize the referral program will attract referrers who would get paid for distributing a URL that points to the wallet of that business.  Businesses that do not use the program will not attract such referrers.  So everyone gets what they need.  Am I missing  something?

What you described above is exactly what we have now.
Currently OpenLedger has the option to offer a refund:
- up to $12 for every AM bought, thus effectively selling it at $4 (as that's the minimum price required by the network for AM).
- up to $80 for every LTM bought, thus effectively selling it at $20 (as that's the minimum price required by the network for LTM).
Obviously OL is not doing this for a very simple reason - there is no competition on the hosted wallet market.

The core of my proposal is to push it a bit further in case of AM: to allow OL (and similar business) to effectively sell AM for $0 (so *no* minimum price would be required by the network when AM is sold).

I appreciate Xeldal's proposal *despite* him enforcing the $20 minimum price for LTM (or $4 minimum price in case of AM) because in Xeldal's world a business can access the lowest prices without using AM/LTM altogether. So in this respect, our proposals are different but the end result is very similar, both for businesses and the network.

My only concern with his proposal is that his model relies on the GUI to calculate the right fee. Anybody who can hack the GUI, can game the hosted wallet business and pay only the minimum fees required by the network. That's a big downside of his approach.

It's actually not exactly what we have now.  What we have now is a mandatory $100 fee for LTM.  If the business wants to opt out (fully or partially), they have to wait for the 80% share to vest and then split those funds up and send a portion to the referrer and a portion back to the user (or they can reimburse the user immediately and pay themselves back after vesting).  The proposal I described above would allow businesses to determine their level of participation and then let the blockchain handle the rest, so the user is charged the right amount (if anything) from the start and the referrer also gets their proper share, if applicable. 

Also, as it stands, the lifetime membership and referrer program are mashed together and some people can't wrap their heads around giving 80% of the LTM fee to a referrer and only 20% to the network.  That does seem a little odd and I never liked it myself (mostly because it obfuscates the actual costs of each component).  Instead, the proposal I described, the LTM fee is the LTM fee and the network collects it no matter what.  Then, separately, there's the referral program that is optional and it's up to the business to charge their user the additional fee or not.  Doing it this way, no one should have any problem with 100% of that fee being used by the referral program.   So I think what we currently have is totally different than what I was proposing (which was actually just a combination of what you originally proposed and what Xeldal proposed). 

See what I mean?

[jakub]

@jakub: I think you're starting to over-complicate it now with AM vs. LTM.  What's this LTM loophole you're concerned about?

Why do you say it's more complicated now?
It's the same idea but I now propose to use AM instead of LTM.
Nothing else changes. Just replace LTM with AM.

The loophole is this: if a user buys LTM (for whatever price) she can then generate other accounts by making herself the registrar and setting the price for upgrading to 0.
This way she could end up with 100 (or more) LTM accounts and only 20% (of the price she paid for the first one) has gone to the network. The network gets nothing from the other 99 accounts.

With AM this situation is not possible as AM does not give you the possibility to create further accounts (as far as I know).

But I thought you agreed with Xeldal's proposal to enforce a $20 fee to the network for every LTM account created.  Wouldn't that solve the problem you're talking about?  So now, by essentially separating the network fee from any referral fee, we can have the optional referral program you were proposing. 

To elaborate, the $20 upfront fee is what the network gets in exchange for offering lower fees and losing its cut of the otherwise higher fees.  So that is mandatory (until we're ready and able to lower fees to $0 per today's mumble).  Beyond the network's mandatory $20, businesses can charge ANY additional amount IF they wish to utilize the built-in referral program.  Businesses that utilize the referral program will attract referrers who would get paid for distributing a URL that points to the wallet of that business.  Businesses that do not use the program will not attract such referrers.  So everyone gets what they need.  Am I missing  something?

What you described above is exactly what we have now.
Currently OpenLedger has the option to offer a refund:
- up to $12 for every AM bought, thus effectively selling it at $4 (as that's the minimum price required by the network for AM).
- up to $80 for every LTM bought, thus effectively selling it at $20 (as that's the minimum price required by the network for LTM).
Obviously OL is not doing this for a very simple reason - there is no competition on the hosted wallet market.

The core of my proposal is to push it a bit further in case of AM: to allow OL (and similar business) to effectively sell AM for $0 (so *no* minimum price would be required by the network when AM is sold).

I appreciate Xeldal's proposal *despite* him enforcing the $20 minimum price for LTM (or $4 minimum price in case of AM) because in Xeldal's world a business can access the lowest prices without using AM/LTM altogether. So in this respect, our proposals are different but the end result is very similar, both for businesses and the network.

My only concern with his proposal is that his model relies on the GUI to calculate the right fee. Anybody who can hack the GUI, can game the hosted wallet business and pay only the minimum fees required by the network. That's a big downside of his approach.

[tbone]

@jakub: I think you're starting to over-complicate it now with AM vs. LTM.  What's this LTM loophole you're concerned about?

Why do you say it's more complicated now?
It's the same idea but I now propose to use AM instead of LTM.
Nothing else changes. Just replace LTM with AM.

The loophole is this: if a user buys LTM (for whatever price) she can then generate other accounts by making herself the registrar and setting the price for upgrading to 0.
This way she could end up with 100 (or more) LTM accounts and only 20% (of the price she paid for the first one) has gone to the network. The network gets nothing from the other 99 accounts.

With AM this situation is not possible as AM does not give you the possibility to create further accounts (as far as I know).

But I thought you agreed with Xeldal's proposal to enforce a $20 fee to the network for every LTM account created.  Wouldn't that solve the problem you're talking about?  So now, by essentially separating the network fee from any referral fee, we can have the optional referral program you were proposing. 

To elaborate, the $20 upfront fee is what the network gets in exchange for offering lower fees and losing its cut of the otherwise higher fees.  So that is mandatory (until we're ready and able to lower fees to $0 per today's mumble).  Beyond the network's mandatory $20, businesses can charge ANY additional amount IF they wish to utilize the built-in referral program.  Businesses that utilize the referral program will attract referrers who would get paid for distributing a URL that points to the wallet of that business.  Businesses that do not use the program will not attract such referrers.  So everyone gets what they need.  Am I missing  something?