Committee Proposal: Network Fee Adjustment 1.10.2657

[vegolino]

@committee it looks like the price has stabilized, please go ahead with the op.

The committee is voting on a fee adjustment proposal: https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.2657

All fees are proposed to be reduced by around 83%, or say around 6x -> 1x.

+5%

[pc]

@committee it looks like the price has stabilized, please go ahead with the op.

The committee is voting on a fee adjustment proposal: https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.2657

All fees are proposed to be reduced by around 83%, or say around 6x -> 1x.

[CastAway33]

I think it would be good to try to lean much more towards the lower side of fees so even if prices go down and fees are lower than 1 cent it's ok.  ... The community was overwhelmingly in support of zero fees + rate limited transactions

Agreed +100%. Every account could receive 10 or 20 trades free trades every day. If you want more, then pay.

[merivercap]

We can probably keep the fees for asset creation, but the psychological appeal of frictionless trading and transfers is incredible.

I assume you mean "frictionless trading" from a user perspective.

What about from a technical perspective?  If it costs me nothing to pound the blockchain with "frictionless trading"... and I'm a black hat (which I am not)... or owner of a botnet with 50,000 slave machines (which I am not)... Now you've just given competitors or blackhats an incentive to come here and use frictionless tactics to overload our blocks with nonsense.

The one thing that stops people from brute forcing garbage into the network is the fact that they'll have to pay BTS to do it.  If you make it free... it's a matter of time until you create a whole new problem that we don't currently have..

I don't care how fast graphene is.... if writing to the blockchain becomes free, you're in for a world of hurt.

Yeah I am speaking from a user perspective.  Rate-limiting is the cost so for bots it's not frictionless and you can't spam the network.   

[paliboy]

In my opinion rate-limited transactions should be for sending transfers, vesting balance and dividends (in future) only.
Rest of the operations should have fee, DEX in particular – a few times smaller than the competition or fixed - which is cool and I like it

+5% +5% +5%

[intelliguy]

We can probably keep the fees for asset creation, but the psychological appeal of frictionless trading and transfers is incredible.

I assume you mean "frictionless trading" from a user perspective.

What about from a technical perspective?  If it costs me nothing to pound the blockchain with "frictionless trading"... and I'm a black hat (which I am not)... or owner of a botnet with 50,000 slave machines (which I am not)... Now you've just given competitors or blackhats an incentive to come here and use frictionless tactics to overload our blocks with nonsense.

The one thing that stops people from brute forcing garbage into the network is the fact that they'll have to pay BTS to do it.  If you make it free... it's a matter of time until you create a whole new problem that we don't currently have..

I don't care how fast graphene is.... if writing to the blockchain becomes free, you're in for a world of hurt.

[fractalnode]

In my opinion rate-limited transactions should be for sending transfers, vesting balance and dividends (in future) only.
Rest of the operations should have fee, DEX in particular – a few times smaller than the competition or fixed - which is cool and I like it

[merivercap]

%-based fees (for smartcoin trading)  are easy to introduce, we just need broader support from the community. We already have 2 levels of accouts - lifetime members have 80% discount from all fees, you just need to do your math if it's worth

We actually also have the code (provided by @abit) .. all it takes is some heavy testing (on the testnet) and a (approved) hardfork of bitshares.

Wrt. rate-limited transactions: The question you need to ask yourself is: Do we want BitShares to be a profitable business that takes a fee for the services it offers, or not? By this, I don't mean that we cannot have some of the transactions be free and others require a fee ... but BitShares is a DAC and most shareholders would be interested in this DAC becoming profitable .. not just through capital appreciation ..

Yeah I think there was a consensus in the community for rate-limited transactions.   We can probably keep the fees for asset creation, but the psychological appeal of frictionless trading and transfers is incredible.  We can think of the Bitshares blockchain as a resource/asset/platform that people need to buy into, instead of an income generating business which demands too much operational expertise to run anyways.  Income is also just burned.  Making the platform a resource/asset creates greater alignment for users of the platform rather than rent-seekers.    Ultimately the greater alignment there is with users, the greater overall value the blockchain will have. 

[merivercap]

Hey all.  I think it would be good to try to lean much more towards the lower side of fees so even if prices go down and fees are lower than 1 cent it's ok.  Right now fees are closer to 10 cents and for a payment business like the one I'm running that's some friction.  The community was overwhelmingly in support of zero fees + rate limited transactions... I think that's the best model because users won't see the fees and the businesses essentially buy bandwidth in the platform.  People will buy BTS as an asset (rather than an income generating business), just like EOS and Steem. 

Zero fees and rate limited transactions are a nice feature, if it would help your business, why don't you create a worker proposal, hire some developers  and implement it in BitShares?

Sure that would be a great long term plan, but it's just much easier to reduce the fees in the short term. 

@abit has developed code for zero fees + rate limited transactions, but there were some design issues @theoreticalbts had about the implementation.  See below:

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/603
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/186

"One of Graphene's design principles is that the fee paid may be calculated based on the operation alone. This greatly simplifies wallet implementation and our wallets heavily rely on it. Adding the operation as a parameter to pay_fee breaks this design principle."

I think it can be done pending this:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/554
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/167

I agree we should find someone to resume the pending issues and can probably get this implemented.  I believe @theoreticalbts is working on Steem right now so we need to find someone else who can work on this. 

[xeroc]

%-based fees (for smartcoin trading)  are easy to introduce, we just need broader support from the community. We already have 2 levels of accouts - lifetime members have 80% discount from all fees, you just need to do your math if it's worth

We actually also have the code (provided by @abit) .. all it takes is some heavy testing (on the testnet) and a (approved) hardfork of bitshares.

Wrt. rate-limited transactions: The question you need to ask yourself is: Do we want BitShares to be a profitable business that takes a fee for the services it offers, or not? By this, I don't mean that we cannot have some of the transactions be free and others require a fee ... but BitShares is a DAC and most shareholders would be interested in this DAC becoming profitable .. not just through capital appreciation ..

[paliboy]

Hey all.  I think it would be good to try to lean much more towards the lower side of fees so even if prices go down and fees are lower than 1 cent it's ok.  Right now fees are closer to 10 cents and for a payment business like the one I'm running that's some friction.  The community was overwhelmingly in support of zero fees + rate limited transactions... I think that's the best model because users won't see the fees and the businesses essentially buy bandwidth in the platform.  People will buy BTS as an asset (rather than an income generating business), just like EOS and Steem. 

Zero fees and rate limited transactions are a nice feature, if it would help your business, why don't you create a worker proposal, hire some developers  and implement it in BitShares?

Someone mentioned % based fees...

Why not have a couple of levels of accounts...

I feel like we should have a basic free account with minimal fees...

I want to Enroll people into OL...

%-based fees (for smartcoin trading)  are easy to introduce, we just need broader support from the community. We already have 2 levels of accouts - lifetime members have 80% discount from all fees, you just need to do your math if it's worth

[edward freeman]

Hello,

People look at FEE's and make decisions based on that...
Someone mentioned % based fees...

Why not have a couple of levels of accounts...

I feel like we should have a basic free account with minimal fees...

I want to Enroll people into OL...

[merivercap]

Hey all.  I think it would be good to try to lean much more towards the lower side of fees so even if prices go down and fees are lower than 1 cent it's ok.  Right now fees are closer to 10 cents and for a payment business like the one I'm running that's some friction.  The community was overwhelmingly in support of zero fees + rate limited transactions... I think that's the best model because users won't see the fees and the businesses essentially buy bandwidth in the platform.  People will buy BTS as an asset (rather than an income generating business), just like EOS and Steem. 

[liondani]

% fees would be optimal

[liondani]

1)fees are still competitive... so no need to change in my opinion.
2)price drops again
3)It gives a motivation to user's to buy a Lifetime membership if they feel the fees are higher than than desired