0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
An idea: Higher fees for anonymous (stealth and blinded) transactions. Reason: It is a "cost" for the network because voting isnt possible when using these tx types. Thoughts?
Quote from: alt on October 21, 2015, 03:43:03 pmOk, if we must keep high fee, I'll look Bts as an exchange.Hope OL, CCEDK, DACX, TRANSWISER, BLOCKTRADE can do their best.Fees should remain high enough for Bitshares to have enough revenue to fuel it's components. If you want cheaper fees, use ad revenue to pay for it and go with a freemium model.
Ok, if we must keep high fee, I'll look Bts as an exchange.Hope OL, CCEDK, DACX, TRANSWISER, BLOCKTRADE can do their best.
Even if we can resolve this by just voting, the different perspectives shown in this thread work in people minds to enrich their decisions.I do agree that we need to be profitable as a DAC and fees play an critical role.I also don't have the scientific proof that if we lower the fees transfers will climb.(Maybe there is no high amount of transfers because we are not ready (yet) for mainstream users, and bitcoiners don't like us much (yet) ) Having said that $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable.Im pushing Bitshares for a joint effort of two NGOs and the local crypto community which one the objectives is to provide entrepreneurs from marginal economies with a way to use digital cash. (Its a bigger project ex-Worldbank, ex-UN people working on it) Basically they will be moving an IOU, but $3.2 ARS is too much for the average size of that transactions. ($30-$50) One of the founders of http://www.rootstock.io/ is heavily involved in the project also, so that platform is on the table also even if its on alpha stage.Another issue is the order placement fee in the DEX, but i read that with lifetime subscription the fees goes down to something like 2 BTS? So that will be fine to bootstrap the DEX.
Quote from: fav on October 20, 2015, 06:17:01 pmif you lower fees in general there's no need for lifetime accounts. no lifetime accounts no marketers. no marketers, have fun with your low fees, you'll never see more users.things are not so simple, suppose user A do 1 transfer one day under 20BTS fee, but do 10 transfers under 4BTS fee, he will generate 2 times revenue to his referrer in lower fee conditions.and I don't think "We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges" is good idea, we need reasonable fees, it should be high enough, but not too high to get enough transactions.
if you lower fees in general there's no need for lifetime accounts. no lifetime accounts no marketers. no marketers, have fun with your low fees, you'll never see more users.
total costs of bts2/ numbers of transaction =per transaction costnow total costs of bts2 is stable but numbers of transaction is very very very lowI guess the numbers of transaction is less than price feedIt is totally waste!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how many "Shareholders" are complaining? five? six?
The problem is not lack of recommendations, the problem is lack of users.lack of users is because of we never have a usable wallet.now, seems we'll have a usable wallet, but you change the fees to such a high.I doubt who will use such a High-End service.I have followed many users who register by openledger, can't find even 1 transaction. for the guys who wish higher transfer fee, I want ask you, how many transfer fees you will contribute?
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 20, 2015, 06:26:30 pmWe don't really have a great basis for measuring demand other than feedback from shareholders in countries where the fees may effect demand. So far we've had feedback from Poland, China, Argentina and Greece that all say the minimum fee is too high. They're also not saying for them personally but in terms of adoption in their market and some like Elmato are very well placed to make that assessment. (Being someone who promotes BTS to South American customers and has a product, LimeWallet, which would benefit from the referral programme, so would presumably welcome higher fees if he thought they were sellable.) So far I've seen no shareholders outside of Western economies (US/Western Europe) who may not even be our key demographic and historically haven't been, saying the fee is acceptable. Let's remember that people in those countries don't have an access to a global payment network that they can use freely. Transfers are cheap only in the national banks / payment networks. And of course the fee will go always higher when payments are made with other than national currency.Bitshares has several different currencies, it's fast, it has stealth transfers, anybody can open account without any bureaucracy, etc. We should concentrate on the things that make Bitshares valuable and useful and not care so much about lower fees. Customers will always want cheaper stuff, no matter what, so it's usually pointless to ask them if they do want lower fees – of course they want!
We don't really have a great basis for measuring demand other than feedback from shareholders in countries where the fees may effect demand. So far we've had feedback from Poland, China, Argentina and Greece that all say the minimum fee is too high. They're also not saying for them personally but in terms of adoption in their market and some like Elmato are very well placed to make that assessment. (Being someone who promotes BTS to South American customers and has a product, LimeWallet, which would benefit from the referral programme, so would presumably welcome higher fees if he thought they were sellable.) So far I've seen no shareholders outside of Western economies (US/Western Europe) who may not even be our key demographic and historically haven't been, saying the fee is acceptable.
Quote from: liondani on October 20, 2015, 09:47:44 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on October 20, 2015, 08:35:11 pmI don't think Liondani means the LTM membership fee is halved but rather the transfer fees are lower on that day so that they match what LTM members pay for transfers. EXACTLY!That would be interesting.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 20, 2015, 08:35:11 pmI don't think Liondani means the LTM membership fee is halved but rather the transfer fees are lower on that day so that they match what LTM members pay for transfers. EXACTLY!
I don't think Liondani means the LTM membership fee is halved but rather the transfer fees are lower on that day so that they match what LTM members pay for transfers.
Quote from: BTS熊 on October 21, 2015, 05:40:34 amIt is important to make a profit. Yes, it's a profit. But I think it's mostly for WORKERs, not for the network. See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19305.0.html
It is important to make a profit.
how many unique users bitshares really have?
There is also the concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good By setting the price low you devalue the service we offer. Raising the price means we know what we offer provides value.To state it another way, I am sure Apple could increase market share and user adoption by lowering their prices which have industry leading margins built in. But by doing so they would be undermining their profitability and their share price would suffer.I think that to gain investors we must show profitability and lowering fees will not allow us to show that.
I basically do not oppose pay fee to Tx, not only protect network , but more important system should been a healthy that can gain enough money to supply high level service .but we would consider how high fee can get more .There is a relationship between fee and number of TxVertical axis is number of Tx , and the horizontal axis is fee , so the area is the how many total fee (include referral program income ) system gain.the left drawing show , charge high fee ,but a small number of Tx, so the income of system is small the middle drawing show charge low fee , there a big number of Tx , but the income is also smallthe right drawing show charge fit fee ,and the number of TX is a little lower than system capacity ( bts design is 100,000TPS ) , system get Max income what position we are , I think is left drawing .
By setting the price low you devalue the service we offer. Raising the price means we know what we offer provides value.
which is why we need a big fat graph showing how many bitshares are burned by the second.
Quote from: liondani on October 20, 2015, 07:26:08 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 05:56:27 pmI think we need more information on how fees effect demand.If lowering the fee by 80% only increases demand by 1% then it is a dumb move. If we never TRY higher fees we will never have an opportunity to see how it impacts demands.We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges.can we pick up a day in the week where we promote lifetime membership!!!Like: " Every Wednesday lifetime fees for everybody!!! Feel how it is to be a lifetime member !!!" and reduce every Wednesday the fees for basic user's to lifetime fees.... In that way you will also see how much demand it is for lower fees and what transaction will happen more... (transaction, orders etc.)Not a bad idea, but if it was a predictable schedule then all you would achieve is moving people that would have paid $100 for a LTM to Wednesday when they can pay $50 which will have the effect of making it appear that demand increases dramatically on Wednesday.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 05:56:27 pmI think we need more information on how fees effect demand.If lowering the fee by 80% only increases demand by 1% then it is a dumb move. If we never TRY higher fees we will never have an opportunity to see how it impacts demands.We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges.can we pick up a day in the week where we promote lifetime membership!!!Like: " Every Wednesday lifetime fees for everybody!!! Feel how it is to be a lifetime member !!!" and reduce every Wednesday the fees for basic user's to lifetime fees.... In that way you will also see how much demand it is for lower fees and what transaction will happen more... (transaction, orders etc.)
I think we need more information on how fees effect demand.If lowering the fee by 80% only increases demand by 1% then it is a dumb move. If we never TRY higher fees we will never have an opportunity to see how it impacts demands.We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges.
There is also the concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_goodBy setting the price low you devalue the service we offer. Raising the price means we know what we offer provides value.
APPROACH Respondents were asked the following questions:Q1: At what price would you consider the product to be priced so low that you feel that the quality could be compromised?Q2: At what price would you consider this product to be a bargain?Q3: At what price would you say this product is starting to get expensive that you would have to think before buying it?Q4: At what price would you consider the product to be so expensive that you would not consider buying it?
Quote from: liondani on October 20, 2015, 07:26:08 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 05:56:27 pmI think we need more information on how fees effect demand.If lowering the fee by 80% only increases demand by 1% then it is a dumb move. If we never TRY higher fees we will never have an opportunity to see how it impacts demands.We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges.can we pick up a day in the week where we promote lifetime membership!!!Like: " Every Wednesday lifetime fees for everybody!!! Feel how it is to be a lifetime member !!!" and reduce every Wednesday the fees for basic user's to lifetime fees.... In that way you will also see how much demand it is for lower fees and what transaction will happen more... (transaction, orders etc.)Not a bad idea, but if it was a predictable schedule then all you would achieve is moving people that would have paid $100 for a LTM to Wednesday when they can pay $50 which will have the effect of making it appear that demand increases dramatically on Wednesday.There is also the concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good By setting the price low you devalue the service we offer. Raising the price means we know what we offer provides value.To state it another way, I am sure Apple could increase market share and user adoption by lowering their prices which have industry leading margins built in. But by doing so they would be undermining their profitability and their share price would suffer.I think that to gain investors we must show profitability and lowering fees will not allow us to show that.
Like: " Every Wednesday lifetime fees for everybody!!! Feel how it is to be a lifetime member !!!"
yeap, it was a democratic decision made by the commitee members in 4 minutes if you read the post in the top.
A loss leader (also leader) is a pricing strategy where a product is sold at a price below its market cost to stimulate other sales of more profitable goods or services.
I think we need more information on how fees effect demand.
You can always lower the price, but its difficult to increase the price because don't like to pay more for something. Best to start high then lower based on volume.
Percent based fees are slightly more complex to implement universally, especially with user issued assets for which the network has no idea what the value being transferred is.
这么高的手续费,你自己玩去吧。I transfer 100000bts,cost me 40 bts feeI transfer 1 bts,cost me 40 bts fee,too.why don't adjust by the amount
We have put through a proposal that will adjust the fees to keep them in line with our stated targets of $0.20 per transfer and will continue to adjust the fees to maintain this target as the price of BTS changes.All fees will scale equally so the relative costs will be the same.