234 BTS for issue/burn asset?!?!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Thanks for your fast response - metaexchange has now re-enabled our IOU markets:

https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.BTC/BTC
https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.ETH/ETH
https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.NXT/NXT

  .. Time for Metaexchange volume to go TO THE MOON!

[monsterer]

Thanks for your fast response - metaexchange has now re-enabled our IOU markets:

https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.BTC/BTC
https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.ETH/ETH
https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.NXT/NXT

[Shentist]

I made a new proposal https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.100 which will only make changes to asset_issue and asset_reserve operations (according to last BTS price). In contrast https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.99 makes changes to all fees according to newest BTS price.

Erm... you really took much care to define a process for changing fees where everyone's input is considered and can be discussed at length. I think that was exactly the right way to handle such things.

And now you're going to throw all of that out of the window because a single user complained about a single fee?

i think, this is just a point everybody missed. we missed it, the committee missed it and the community missed it, how this will impact services like metaexchange if we issue and burn our UIAs instantly and not creating in bulk.

so we are thankful, that the committee can react fast and you should just think bigger. What would you do if metaexchange would be poloniex and they are running their business on bitshares. You would just say "sorry, guys. You had your chance now live with it?".

issuing and burning assets are transfering assets from one person to another person, so the fees should be realivly the same.

we thanks for the fast reactions, so we have not the need to change our codebasis and in the future we hope to find this issues before they are happen.

[xeroc]

And now you're going to throw all of that out of the window because a single user complained about a single fee?

The committee has discussed it quite a bit and we know that it has a bad taste ..
but we have the obligation to ensure operations of core technology partners and simply missed the use-case of just-in-time issuing and burning of assets.
Leaving those fees at $1 for the next 6 months would ruining them or force them to implement an alternative method to keep supply consistent with debt.
But we prefer the just-in-time use-case because of all-time-match of supply and thus felt the need to support this use-case.

We hesitated to change the fee as well and we will certainly discuss these particular fees in future ..

I appreciate your criticism still!

[pc]

I made a new proposal https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.100 which will only make changes to asset_issue and asset_reserve operations (according to last BTS price). In contrast https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.99 makes changes to all fees according to newest BTS price.

Erm... you really took much care to define a process for changing fees where everyone's input is considered and can be discussed at length. I think that was exactly the right way to handle such things.

And now you're going to throw all of that out of the window because a single user complained about a single fee?

[abit]

I made a new proposal https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.100 which will only make changes to asset_issue and asset_reserve operations (according to last BTS price). In contrast https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.99 makes changes to all fees according to newest BTS price.

The command used to create this proposal is:

Code: [Select]

propose_fee_change abit "2016-03-09T11:59:00" {"14":{"fee":420955,"price_per_kbyte":233864},"15":{"fee":23386}} true


[xeroc]

Most of the committee seems to be fine with reducing issuer/burn fees out of schedule to support our existing business partners. We are evaluating out options

Take your future business partner's needs into account as well; any cross blockchain IOU issuing will struggle on bitshares with perception and trust issues with this new fee schedule.

I personally don't care much about potential future business but prefer to do what is needed to keep existing ones first ..

Anyway .. a few of the committee members have come up with an update and we will try to convince sufficient committee members to approve aswell

the proposal would change the asset_reserve to anti-spam ($0.001c) and asset_issue to the same amount as a simple transfer!

[monsterer]

Most of the committee seems to be fine with reducing issuer/burn fees out of schedule to support our existing business partners. We are evaluating out options

Take your future business partner's needs into account as well; any cross blockchain IOU issuing will struggle on bitshares with perception and trust issues with this new fee schedule.

[xeroc]

Most of the committee seems to be fine with reducing issuer/burn fees out of schedule to support our existing business partners. We are evaluating out options

[cube]

i think this shows a potential risk, we need to consider more. I am not full aware which fees are connected to our business. and to expect a
proposal to lower fees to come out this way is ......, but as i said i would probably missed this point anyway.

So, i think the "issuing" assets should be in the same category as "transfering" something, then in reality it is the same.

which fees do we have to consider?

- transfer fees
- issuing fees

we use daily and with coded programs.

- creating and updaten assets , somedays

i do believe this covers every fee we have to consider?

I am aware you are busy with your business/work and you may have missed the recent fee change.  You may be worrying its impact on your business.  But fret not, the committee is actively discussing this issue and it has been positive so far.

Frankly, when you are doing your business on top of bitshares, you DO need to know bts fee structure well. Your business depends on it!  The committee can only make sound decisions with active feedbacks from its community and business partners.  I hope to hear valuable feedback from you.

[abit]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

I agree, if you have an asset issued in two different places, ie.. Ethereum and BTS, if you want to keep them inline it will be great that it will be minimal the readjustment of assets issued / burning.

May I ask what's the cost of issuing an asset in Ethereum?

To create an asset, it will be the cost of deploying a contract, depends on how complex is your contract. ~ $1 for the standard token. To burn, change supply it will be  ~ the same cost as a transaction.

Thanks! But sorry I didn't understand.

So $1 for creating a new type of asset, or creating some amount of an already existed asset type? "Standard" means transferable only? Looks like it's much cheaper than in BitShares.

How about trading between assets? What's "the same cost as a transaction"?

[Shentist]

@monsterer @Shentist

I would like to point out that we give almost a month to evaluate the fee schedule.

We repeatedly asked for community review and comments.
We repeatedly bumped the thread about the fee schedule.

Do not follow a discussion about fee that obviously could impact your business, above all when we make clear we needed review from the community and business partners, is a bit strange and not a good behaviour for your business itself, imo.


Anyway, we are already discussing about it, and I personally hope we would be able to push this change asap.

I personally like more the on-demand issue/burn scheme than the pre-issue one.

we had the same discussions a while ago, i think, and our community can not expect that everyone is following how everything is handled here.

i think this shows a potential risk, we need to consider more. I am not full aware which fees are connected to our business. and to expect a
proposal to lower fees to come out this way is ......, but as i said i would probably missed this point anyway.

So, i think the "issuing" assets should be in the same category as "transfering" something, then in reality it is the same.

which fees do we have to consider?

- transfer fees
- issuing fees

we use daily and with coded programs.

- creating and updaten assets , somedays

i do believe this covers every fee we have to consider?

[betax]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

I agree, if you have an asset issued in two different places, ie.. Ethereum and BTS, if you want to keep them inline it will be great that it will be minimal the readjustment of assets issued / burning.

May I ask what's the cost of issuing an asset in Ethereum?

To create an asset, it will be the cost of deploying a contract, depends on how complex is your contract. ~ $1 for the standard token. To burn, change supply it will be  ~ the same cost as a transaction.

[monsterer]

Anyway, we are already discussing about it, and I personally hope we would be able to push this change asap.

I personally like more the on-demand issue/burn scheme than the pre-issue one.

I'm glad you are considering revising these fees; it will be much better for bitshares as a platform to have issue/burn fees the same as transfer, so that exchanges/bridges can move onto bitshares without friction.

[Bhuz]

@monsterer @Shentist

I would like to point out that we give almost a month to evaluate the fee schedule.

We repeatedly asked for community review and comments.
We repeatedly bumped the thread about the fee schedule.

Do not follow a discussion about fee that obviously could impact your business, above all when we make clear we needed review from the community and business partners, is a bit strange and not a good behaviour for your business itself, imo.


Anyway, we are already discussing about it, and I personally hope we would be able to push this change asap.

I personally like more the on-demand issue/burn scheme than the pre-issue one.