What does Scale mean in this context?
After the last major debates on what the fees amount should be, The Committee Members, trying to consider all the different wishes and requests expressed by The Community, agreed on the following changes:
-Transfer fee is now 30 BTS (reduced by 25%)
-Account creation fee is now 95 BTS (halved to avoid vesting)
-Scale is now 1 (trying to avoid a possible bug on vested amount from referred LTM upgrade)
These changes will be effective from Thu Nov 19, 2015 14:07 UTC (a little less than 2 days from now)
You can check the proposal here: http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.14
We really hope to have been able to suit everyone for the time being.
Yours,
The Committee Members - bhuz, bitcrab, bitcube, clayop, logxing, mindphlux
After the last major debates on what the fees amount should be, The Committee Members, trying to consider all the different wishes and requests expressed by The Community, agreed on the following changes:
-Transfer fee is now 30 BTS (reduced by 25%)
-Account creation fee is now 95 BTS (halved to avoid vesting)
-Scale is now 1 (trying to avoid a possible bug on vested amount from referred LTM upgrade)
These changes will be effective from Thu Nov 19, 2015 14:07 UTC (a little less than 2 days from now)
You can check the proposal here: http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.14
We really hope to have been able to suit everyone for the time being.
Yours,
The Committee Members - bhuz, bitcrab, bitcube, clayop, logxing, mindphlux
Are any of the committee members actually reading the forums at least. [Apparently they are not reading the parameters they vote on for sure]
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Re: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20069.msg257882.html#msg257882
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
After the last major debates on what the fees amount should be, The Committee Members, trying to consider all the different wishes and requests expressed by The Community, agreed on the following changes:
-Transfer fee is now 30 BTS (reduced by 25%)
-Account creation fee is now 95 BTS (halved to avoid vesting)
-Scale is now 1 (trying to avoid a possible bug on vested amount from referred LTM upgrade)
These changes will be effective from Thu Nov 19, 2015 14:07 UTC (a little less than 2 days from now)
You can check the proposal here: http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.14
We really hope to have been able to suit everyone for the time being.
Yours,
The Committee Members - bhuz, bitcrab, bitcube, clayop, logxing, mindphlux
Are any of the committee members actually reading the forums at least. [Apparently they are not reading the parameters they vote on for sure]
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Re: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20069.msg257882.html#msg257882
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
What are you trying to? Withdrawing your vested balance?
Are any of the committee members actually reading the forums at least. [Apparently they are not reading the parameters they vote on for sure]
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Re: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20069.msg257882.html#msg257882
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Nope... I believe you pay this fee any time you create a vesting balance - aka one of the people you referred upgrades to LTM, or you register an asset and you are LTM :(
I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same. Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same? I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.
...You can in the interim come up with a solution such as percentage payments/merchant identification process that allows you to charge more for payments but less for P2P transfers
Since we set the Scale to 1 (the default value, no shooting in the dark), to not change all the other fees, we had to actually double all the values, that is why you see a lot of changes.
Has anyone looked at the code to confirm what the bug is?
Big mistake. This seems like a half-assed political solution. I like consensus and I'm glad that the committee role functioned well in reaching a decision, but I have a strong feeling this is a temporary solution and we're going to find in a few months that it's wasted precious time. ???
I am NOT convinced that:
(1) the low-fee crowd will be happy enough, given that the fees remain higher than they want for them to spread BitShares' use, or that
(2) the system will be profitable enough to drive any real marketing, or that
(3) we are serious about attracting any meaningful trading business, given the fees there.
I would have suggested picking a side and giving one of these groups what it needs to add a ton more users. We even could have pleased two out of three. Instead, what we have is a compromise that does not give any of these groups the tools it needs to succeed. In a few months, we're going to have to change this again, and by then we might be really sorry we wasted this time.
Hey, what's done is done. Everyone should come together now and help promote BitShares.
Low-fee group, are you happy enough? If so, then get out there and bring us some users! :)
Since we set the Scale to 1 (the default value, no shooting in the dark), to not change all the other fees, we had to actually double all the values, that is why you see a lot of changes.
Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.
Nope... I believe you pay this fee any time you create a vesting balance - aka one of the people you referred upgrades to LTM, or you register an asset and you are LTM :(
If that was the case, I think fav would know.
He did not tell anything about it.
-5% It's good that you guys are trying to compromise, but it's not an improvement imo.+5%
Either you're going to gain traction in the payments business using a circa $0.2 transfer fee, particularly to incentivise merchant adoption & referrals.
Or you going to gain initial traction by attracting a userbase first at a much lower transfer fee, so our Chinese community can spread BTS and where the referral programme will still be lucrative. It would also allow Western users to generate much higher referral numbers using the myriad of opportunities present in social media sharing, donating, gifting and tipping (Sharebots.io - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20007.msg257180.html#msg257180 )
So I predict you will get little to no traction in the next 4-6 months, with the constant excuse, that we're waiting to get the product right.
(Merchant acquisition is unlikely to gain traction until competitive payment processor services are in place - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20023.msg257656.html#msg257656 )
So I would rather get the referral programme and network effect going in China and via social media, thereby generating a useful userbase in the next 4-6 months. (Which will appeal to merchants when everything else is in place. You can in the interim come up with a solution such as percentage payments/merchant identification process that allows you to charge more for payments but less for P2P transfers.)
------------------------------
How is mindphlux a committee member?
Didn't he want to dump his BTS 1.0 on exchanges that hadn't upgraded and on people that obviously weren't aware of the upgrade?
Big mistake. This seems like a half-assed political solution. I like consensus and I'm glad that the committee role functioned well in reaching a decision, but I have a strong feeling this is a temporary solution and we're going to find in a few months that it's wasted precious time. ???
I am NOT convinced that:
(1) the low-fee crowd will be happy enough, given that the fees remain higher than they want for them to spread BitShares' use, or that
(2) the system will be profitable enough to drive any real marketing, or that
(3) we are serious about attracting any meaningful trading business, given the fees there.
I would have suggested picking a side and giving one of these groups what it needs to add a ton more users. We even could have pleased two out of three. Instead, what we have is a compromise that does not give any of these groups the tools it needs to succeed. In a few months, we're going to have to change this again, and by then we might be really sorry we wasted this time.
Hey, what's done is done. Everyone should come together now and help promote BitShares.
Low-fee group, are you happy enough? If so, then get out there and bring us some users! :)
Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.
So why don't we lower the transfer fee on CNY only and leave transfer fees for other assets as they are?
Nope... I believe you pay this fee any time you create a vesting balance - aka one of the people you referred upgrades to LTM, or you register an asset and you are LTM :(
If that was the case, I think fav would know.
He did not tell anything about it.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19961.0.html
The best compromise is the one where all sides equally unhappy.
Nope... I believe you pay this fee any time you create a vesting balance - aka one of the people you referred upgrades to LTM, or you register an asset and you are LTM :(
If that was the case, I think fav would know.
He did not tell anything about it.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19961.0.html
That is about vesting. (the reason why tried to set the Scale value back to the defaut value: 1)
That does not seem related.
Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.
So why don't we lower the transfer fee on CNY only and leave transfer fees for other assets as they are?
I hate to say it, lil_jay, but you are correct. They have stripped everyone of the tools they need to succeed. They could have picked a side, any side, and yet they price this at dumbest possible price point where no one has what they need to properly sell this thing.
Jakub, I would support your idea, having some different fees for different currency pairs. I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all approach. And if the business gravitates to the low fee areas, then that would be a successful experiment, telling us what we need to know.
Unless I misunderstand something, don't you need majority for this to even pass. I see 33% approval at the moment.
Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.
So why don't we lower the transfer fee on CNY only and leave transfer fees for other assets as they are?
I hate to say it, lil_jay, but you are correct. They have stripped everyone of the tools they need to succeed. They could have picked a side, any side, and yet they price this at dumbest possible price point where no one has what they need to properly sell this thing.
Jakub, I would support your idea, having some different fees for different currency pairs. I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all approach. And if the business gravitates to the low fee areas, then that would be a successful experiment, telling us what we need to know.
The reason you cannot have different fees for different pairs is you destroy all the pairs that are more. In other words, why would I trade in bitUSD pair when trading in bitCNY will be cheaper? Market will respond the same way and only the lower value currencies will have any meaningful volume.
We cannot begin to get into having to geo locate accounts either.
Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.
So why don't we lower the transfer fee on CNY only and leave transfer fees for other assets as they are?
I hate to say it, lil_jay, but you are correct. They have stripped everyone of the tools they need to succeed. They could have picked a side, any side, and yet they price this at dumbest possible price point where no one has what they need to properly sell this thing.
Jakub, I would support your idea, having some different fees for different currency pairs. I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all approach. And if the business gravitates to the low fee areas, then that would be a successful experiment, telling us what we need to know.
The reason you cannot have different fees for different pairs is you destroy all the pairs that are more. In other words, why would I trade in bitUSD pair when trading in bitCNY will be cheaper? Market will respond the same way and only the lower value currencies will have any meaningful volume.
We cannot begin to get into having to geo locate accounts either.
When I mentioned different regions, I just meant the currency pairs that would be most logical in those regions. No geo-locating needed.@donkeypong , why are you taking about currency pairs when the issue here is about transfer fees? The fee for transferring e.g. 100 bitCNY from person A to B. Why would I need a currency pair for that?
It wouldn't bother me at all if certain currency pairs got more business than others due to lower fees. This happens when a store puts items on sale; they usually sell more sale items than non-sale items. It's just smart business: You make money from a higher volume of business or you use the sale for a period of time to attract more customers who hopefully find other things they like and don't mind paying a bit more after a while.
If the lower fee thing really works, we'll find out by trying it, either across the board or in these limited "sales". If the lower fee doesn't attract added business, then we'll be confident that we could go forward with a system that's built for more profitability.
Am I missing something?
When I mentioned different regions, I just meant the currency pairs that would be most logical in those regions. No geo-locating needed.@donkeypong , why are you taking about currency pairs when the issue here is about transfer fees? The fee for transferring e.g. 100 bitCNY from person A to B. Why would I need a currency pair for that?
It wouldn't bother me at all if certain currency pairs got more business than others due to lower fees. This happens when a store puts items on sale; they usually sell more sale items than non-sale items. It's just smart business: You make money from a higher volume of business or you use the sale for a period of time to attract more customers who hopefully find other things they like and don't mind paying a bit more after a while.
If the lower fee thing really works, we'll find out by trying it, either across the board or in these limited "sales". If the lower fee doesn't attract added business, then we'll be confident that we could go forward with a system that's built for more profitability.
Am I missing something?
When I mentioned different regions, I just meant the currency pairs that would be most logical in those regions. No geo-locating needed.@donkeypong , why are you taking about currency pairs when the issue here is about transfer fees? The fee for transferring e.g. 100 bitCNY from person A to B. Why would I need a currency pair for that?
It wouldn't bother me at all if certain currency pairs got more business than others due to lower fees. This happens when a store puts items on sale; they usually sell more sale items than non-sale items. It's just smart business: You make money from a higher volume of business or you use the sale for a period of time to attract more customers who hopefully find other things they like and don't mind paying a bit more after a while.
If the lower fee thing really works, we'll find out by trying it, either across the board or in these limited "sales". If the lower fee doesn't attract added business, then we'll be confident that we could go forward with a system that's built for more profitability.
Am I missing something?
If bitCNY has 0 fee (just saying) on transfer, people instead of make bitUSD transfers could change their bitUSD to bitCNY and then make the transfer
...You can in the interim come up with a solution such as percentage payments/merchant identification process that allows you to charge more for payments but less for P2P transfers
This is basically the #1 BM's proposal that the community made him to retract.
That could solve all these problems imo
When I mentioned different regions, I just meant the currency pairs that would be most logical in those regions. No geo-locating needed.@donkeypong , why are you taking about currency pairs when the issue here is about transfer fees? The fee for transferring e.g. 100 bitCNY from person A to B. Why would I need a currency pair for that?
It wouldn't bother me at all if certain currency pairs got more business than others due to lower fees. This happens when a store puts items on sale; they usually sell more sale items than non-sale items. It's just smart business: You make money from a higher volume of business or you use the sale for a period of time to attract more customers who hopefully find other things they like and don't mind paying a bit more after a while.
If the lower fee thing really works, we'll find out by trying it, either across the board or in these limited "sales". If the lower fee doesn't attract added business, then we'll be confident that we could go forward with a system that's built for more profitability.
Am I missing something?
If bitCNY has 0 fee (just saying) on transfer, people instead of make bitUSD transfers could change their bitUSD to bitCNY and then make the transfer
...You can in the interim come up with a solution such as percentage payments/merchant identification process that allows you to charge more for payments but less for P2P transfers
This is basically the #1 BM's proposal that the community made him to retract.
That could solve all these problems imo
+5%
I would like to see that proposal. My understanding was BM's input was along the lines of percentage fees/merchant identification is hard to implement and rather than undersell the value of BTS, he was more in favour of maintaining the higher fee and building BitShares around the payments business.
If we can agree that...
BitShares needs a separate pricing solution for P2P transfers and payments, to be successful and that the payments business won't gain traction until competitive payment processor (automated crypto to bank) services are in place. Then we should be able to agree to price BitShares for the P2P transfer market and in the interim come up with a solution for the payments business that involves a higher fee.
That would be great.
Fav pointed out that there seems to be some bug with the amount he received/not received after a lifetime upgrade operation, that means some bug in calculating the right vested amount. This is not related with any fee imo.Nope... I believe you pay this fee any time you create a vesting balance - aka one of the people you referred upgrades to LTM, or you register an asset and you are LTM :(
If that was the case, I think fav would know.
He did not tell anything about it.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19961.0.html
That is about vesting. (the reason why tried to set the Scale value back to the defaut value: 1)
That does not seem related.
Interesting take... 'vesting fee' is not related to vesting in your opinion.
...You can in the interim come up with a solution such as percentage payments/merchant identification process that allows you to charge more for payments but less for P2P transfers
This is basically the #1 BM's proposal that the community made him to retract.
That could solve all these problems imo
+5%
I would like to see that proposal. My understanding was BM's input was along the lines of percentage fees/merchant identification is hard to implement and rather than undersell the value of BTS, he was more in favour of maintaining the higher fee and building BitShares around the payments business.
If we can agree that...
BitShares needs a separate pricing solution for P2P transfers and payments, to be successful and that the payments business won't gain traction until competitive payment processor (automated crypto to bank) services are in place. Then we should be able to agree to price BitShares for the P2P transfer market and in the interim come up with a solution for the payments business that involves a higher fee.
That would be great.
I don't know if BM was really in favor of high fees or it was just caused by the fact that the community seemed really against #1
To me, #1 was pretty good. Low fee (if not 0) for user-to-user transfers, and high fee for user-to-merchant transfers.
That could bring to bigger user adoption, bigger user adoption could bring to more interest from merchant.
Referrers should change a bit tho, above all if the p2p transfer is 0; they should seek for merchant more than regolar users
Maybe we should think more about #1 and bring it back on the table of the discussion
So sorry to see everyone's complaining. Let me share my personal feeling.
Since the launch, we always have increasing fees, from 0.5 to 20, to 40, and now facing to 60 ($0.2). I think we need to see the opposite direction.
As a lower-fee advocate, I still prefer 5-10 BTS. But I don't want to destroy our growing business based on referral system. (While I still think that lower fee can bring more users and profit for referrers). In this dilemma, I had to decide to satisfy only one side with beating the other, or making a compromise.
Decreasing just 25% is obviously not satisfying to both sides. However, IMHO, it does not break this community into pieces. It maybe not a win-win solution, but better than zero-sum approach. I think it's not a final destination. We're still on the way, and if the community makes a consensus, we can move toward it.
Regarding the order creation fee, we haven't discussed yet because BM's proposal is in the pipeline. After the release, we will discuss about lowering the fee.
Thanks for your invaluable inputs and feedback. We're open to any opinions.
Make a thread and propose to restore or at least think about #1 again, I will support that....You can in the interim come up with a solution such as percentage payments/merchant identification process that allows you to charge more for payments but less for P2P transfers
This is basically the #1 BM's proposal that the community made him to retract.
That could solve all these problems imo
+5%
I would like to see that proposal. My understanding was BM's input was along the lines of percentage fees/merchant identification is hard to implement and rather than undersell the value of BTS, he was more in favour of maintaining the higher fee and building BitShares around the payments business.
If we can agree that...
BitShares needs a separate pricing solution for P2P transfers and payments, to be successful and that the payments business won't gain traction until competitive payment processor (automated crypto to bank) services are in place. Then we should be able to agree to price BitShares for the P2P transfer market and in the interim come up with a solution for the payments business that involves a higher fee.
That would be great.
I don't know if BM was really in favor of high fees or it was just caused by the fact that the community seemed really against #1
To me, #1 was pretty good. Low fee (if not 0) for user-to-user transfers, and high fee for user-to-merchant transfers.
That could bring to bigger user adoption, bigger user adoption could bring to more interest from merchant.
Referrers should change a bit tho, above all if the p2p transfer is 0; they should seek for merchant more than regolar users
Maybe we should think more about #1 and bring it back on the table of the discussion
+5%
Even a very low user-to-user transfer fee could still make the referral programme lucrative in China, considering many Chinese supporters were creating great BTS content & promoting it for free , getting tens of thousands of views in the process.
(http://ww2.sinaimg.cn/mw690/6d09b435jw1eogf6rsthfj20xb0drq70.jpg)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13497.msg176293.html#msg176293
We can also then spread BTS via tipping/donating/sharing on social media using Sharebits.io to literally tens of thousands of libertarian and pro financial independence users & other possible demographics. Whereas the current transfer fee makes this use case cost prohibitive, both for this market and referrers seeking to exploit it.
With all those threads about fees it seemed quite urgent for the community, but anyway.So sorry to see everyone's complaining. Let me share my personal feeling.
Since the launch, we always have increasing fees, from 0.5 to 20, to 40, and now facing to 60 ($0.2). I think we need to see the opposite direction.
As a lower-fee advocate, I still prefer 5-10 BTS. But I don't want to destroy our growing business based on referral system. (While I still think that lower fee can bring more users and profit for referrers). In this dilemma, I had to decide to satisfy only one side with beating the other, or making a compromise.
Decreasing just 25% is obviously not satisfying to both sides. However, IMHO, it does not break this community into pieces. It maybe not a win-win solution, but better than zero-sum approach. I think it's not a final destination. We're still on the way, and if the community makes a consensus, we can move toward it.
Regarding the order creation fee, we haven't discussed yet because BM's proposal is in the pipeline. After the release, we will discuss about lowering the fee.
Thanks for your invaluable inputs and feedback. We're open to any opinions.
What was so urgent about making an immediate decision that no one likes? I definitely think the committee members could have suspended the meeting long enough to come back to the community and said "Here is what we're looking at; what do you think?" Or "There's not enough support for this proposal. What about a midway compromise instead?"
And we would have told you straight up that no, this was not a wise choice for any of the parties concerned.
Unless you think that the lower fee is now low enough that you can get some traction in your home country or in China. In which case, I say 'go for it'. You wanted the lower fees, you've got them (at least in a half-assed sort of way). The pricing structure does not work well in first world countries where we were trying to fund some marketing, so if this is what you wanted, it's now your turn to show us what you can do. Bring us some volume.
Because bitshares didn't gain a flood of new users due to a buggy interface and lack of upgrades from exchanges, plus all the regular holders who were unable to import their wallets, we decided to butcher the fee structure on a reactionary whim.
All this based off one month of live data while still in beta testing mode... dumbest thing I have ever been around. From what I have seen, these committee members have no business sense or patience whatsoever.
I agree with Donkeypong that we need stability, but this half ass rushed through shit compromise is terrible and now were stuck with it.
The general idea must be - we lower the fees to practically zero so they come in bunches, some of them start to trade and we earn trading fees from the volume traders. Do not get me wrong, the trading fees can and should be vastly improved as a design.
The problem with this logic is that this assume they have not come yet, because of the "high" fees. Which is totally not the reason why, im[not so]ho.
There are a ton of other far more important factors - being way too yearly, hard to transfer accounts [why did you not spend the time to have o.9.x export keys that take 30 sec to import, instead of days to move to 2.0???]; Not only poorly documented API but one missing essential functions for the simplest bot, and that when we needed one so powerful that everybody can as easily as possible make his version of a wallet or integrate/move his exchange on the BTS blockchain ; I will not talk about the badly reinvented margin call rules, here... although they do no faviours to liquidity to such extend that having those rules mean never having liquidity; Having an 'official' gui that is missing so much important functions - why for example one cannot yet claim his vested balances? It is a button and calling one api function, isn't it?
And after all this and more essential stuff is missing, we will have a worker proposal, so we can jump and pivot and spend 6 mo. fighting the imaginary main cause of all ills? Because after 3 days we discovered that the high fees are the main reason for no instant adoption?
Because bitshares didn't gain a flood of new users due to a buggy interface and lack of upgrades from exchanges, plus all the regular holders who were unable to import their wallets, we decided to butcher the fee structure on a reactionary whim.
All this based off one month of live data while still in beta testing mode... dumbest thing I have ever been around. From what I have seen, these committee members have no business sense or patience whatsoever.
I agree with Donkeypong that we need stability, but this half ass rushed through shit compromise is terrible and now were stuck with it.
well, you say if you agree with me or if I agree with you?
Me, about 10 days agoThe general idea must be - we lower the fees to practically zero so they come in bunches, some of them start to trade and we earn trading fees from the volume traders. Do not get me wrong, the trading fees can and should be vastly improved as a design.
The problem with this logic is that this assume they have not come yet, because of the "high" fees. Which is totally not the reason why, im[not so]ho.
There are a ton of other far more important factors - being way too yearly, hard to transfer accounts [why did you not spend the time to have o.9.x export keys that take 30 sec to import, instead of days to move to 2.0???]; Not only poorly documented API but one missing essential functions for the simplest bot, and that when we needed one so powerful that everybody can as easily as possible make his version of a wallet or integrate/move his exchange on the BTS blockchain ; I will not talk about the badly reinvented margin call rules, here... although they do no faviours to liquidity to such extend that having those rules mean never having liquidity; Having an 'official' gui that is missing so much important functions - why for example one cannot yet claim his vested balances? It is a button and calling one api function, isn't it?
And after all this and more essential stuff is missing, we will have a worker proposal, so we can jump and pivot and spend 6 mo. fighting the imaginary main cause of all ills? Because after 3 days we discovered that the high fees are the main reason for no instant adoption?
Because bitshares didn't gain a flood of new users due to a buggy interface and lack of upgrades from exchanges, plus all the regular holders who were unable to import their wallets, we decided to butcher the fee structure on a reactionary whim.
All this based off one month of live data while still in beta testing mode... dumbest thing I have ever been around. From what I have seen, these committee members have no business sense or patience whatsoever.
I agree with Donkeypong that we need stability, but this half ass rushed through shit compromise is terrible and now were stuck with it.
well, you say if you agree with me or if I agree with you?
Me, about 10 days agoThe general idea must be - we lower the fees to practically zero so they come in bunches, some of them start to trade and we earn trading fees from the volume traders. Do not get me wrong, the trading fees can and should be vastly improved as a design.
The problem with this logic is that this assume they have not come yet, because of the "high" fees. Which is totally not the reason why, im[not so]ho.
There are a ton of other far more important factors - being way too yearly, hard to transfer accounts [why did you not spend the time to have o.9.x export keys that take 30 sec to import, instead of days to move to 2.0???]; Not only poorly documented API but one missing essential functions for the simplest bot, and that when we needed one so powerful that everybody can as easily as possible make his version of a wallet or integrate/move his exchange on the BTS blockchain ; I will not talk about the badly reinvented margin call rules, here... although they do no faviours to liquidity to such extend that having those rules mean never having liquidity; Having an 'official' gui that is missing so much important functions - why for example one cannot yet claim his vested balances? It is a button and calling one api function, isn't it?
And after all this and more essential stuff is missing, we will have a worker proposal, so we can jump and pivot and spend 6 mo. fighting the imaginary main cause of all ills? Because after 3 days we discovered that the high fees are the main reason for no instant adoption?
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Because bitshares didn't gain a flood of new users due to a buggy interface and lack of upgrades from exchanges, plus all the regular holders who were unable to import their wallets, we decided to butcher the fee structure on a reactionary whim.
All this based off one month of live data while still in beta testing mode... dumbest thing I have ever been around. From what I have seen, these committee members have no business sense or patience whatsoever.
I agree with Donkeypong that we need stability, but this half ass rushed through shit compromise is terrible and now were stuck with it.
I wish you guys had been this vocal about regime uncertainty (https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Regime_uncertainty ) prior to the merger :)
I believe that we need to give businesses that will rely on this transfer fee the chance to be built.
China and US are different, you can see that eBay and alibaba have different charging policies, users in China used to enjoy free/low fee fundamental services, even 8BTS fee is hard to accept for them
high fees will make unexpected trouble, for me, 41 new accounts are created for CDP after import, to close these accounts I need to pay many BTSs. not sure whether other unexpected trouble will come.
as Elmato said, $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable. for my project - the gateway transwiser.com, it is still viable, but I feel I need to do some change, I need to get at least 2 lifetime members and change some rules, even so I think some customers will leave because the high fee.
we are doing our best to work out a fee-mitigation method that works for everyone, but in the end it will probably come down to the BTS network fee its self needing to be changed.
$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.
Has anyone looked at the code to confirm what the bug is?
BM has not replied yet.
Jakub, I would support your idea, having some different fees for different currency pairs. I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all approach. And if the business gravitates to the low fee areas, then that would be a successful experiment, telling us what we need to know.
To me, #1 was pretty good. Low fee (if not 0) for user-to-user transfers, and high fee for user-to-merchant transfers.
I believe that we need to give businesses that will rely on this transfer fee the chance to be built.
There are businesses being damaged, which have already been built in good faith, that were relying on a competitive user to user transfer fee. As well as exciting newly built businesses like sharebits.io which would benefit from the lower fee.
BitCrab's Transwiser https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19968.msg256407.html#msg256407China and US are different, you can see that eBay and alibaba have different charging policies, users in China used to enjoy free/low fee fundamental services, even 8BTS fee is hard to accept for themhigh fees will make unexpected trouble, for me, 41 new accounts are created for CDP after import, to close these accounts I need to pay many BTSs. not sure whether other unexpected trouble will come.
as Elmato said, $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable. for my project - the gateway transwiser.com, it is still viable, but I feel I need to do some change, I need to get at least 2 lifetime members and change some rules, even so I think some customers will leave because the high fee.
Sharebits.io http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2015/11/15/sharebits-ios-launch-bringing-crypto-technology-to-mass-market-solutions/we are doing our best to work out a fee-mitigation method that works for everyone, but in the end it will probably come down to the BTS network fee its self needing to be changed.
Elmato's Limewallet https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17900.0.html
$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.
So sorry to see everyone's complaining. Let me share my personal feeling.
Since the launch, we always have increasing fees, from 0.5 to 20, to 40, and now facing to 60 ($0.2). I think we need to see the opposite direction.
As a lower-fee advocate, I still prefer 5-10 BTS. But I don't want to destroy our growing business based on referral system. (While I still think that lower fee can bring more users and profit for referrers). In this dilemma, I had to decide to satisfy only one side with beating the other, or making a compromise.
Decreasing just 25% is obviously not satisfying to both sides. However, IMHO, it does not break this community into pieces. It maybe not a win-win solution, but better than zero-sum approach. I think it's not a final destination. We're still on the way, and if the community makes a consensus, we can move toward it.
Regarding the order creation fee, we haven't discussed yet because BM's proposal is in the pipeline. After the release, we will discuss about lowering the fee.
Thanks for your invaluable inputs and feedback. We're open to any opinions.
What was so urgent about making an immediate decision that no one likes? I definitely think the committee members could have suspended the meeting long enough to come back to the community and said "Here is what we're looking at; what do you think?" Or "There's not enough support for this proposal. What about a midway compromise instead?"
And we would have told you straight up that no, this was not a wise choice for any of the parties concerned.
Unless you think that the lower fee is now low enough that you can get some traction in your home country or in China. In which case, I say 'go for it'. You wanted the lower fees, you've got them (at least in a half-assed sort of way). The pricing structure does not work well in first world countries where we were trying to fund some marketing, so if this is what you wanted, it's now your turn to show us what you can do. Bring us some volume.
Big mistake. This seems like a half-assed political solution. I like consensus and I'm glad that the committee role functioned well in reaching a decision, but I have a strong feeling this is a temporary solution and we're going to find in a few months that it's wasted precious time. ???a profitable system is needed , but not now , it is in future , BTS have potential profitable capacity, do you know Amazon? I think you must know ; this company had been loss for many year , but it had about 100~200 B US dollar market value,
I am NOT convinced that:
(1) the low-fee crowd will be happy enough, given that the fees remain higher than they want for them to spread BitShares' use, or that
(2) the system will be profitable enough to drive any real marketing, or that
(3) we are serious about attracting any meaningful trading business, given the fees there.
low fee is a not a sufficient condition to get more user, just a requirement.
I would have suggested picking a side and giving one of these groups what it needs to add a ton more users. We even could have pleased two out of three. Instead, what we have is a compromise that does not give any of these groups the tools it needs to succeed. In a few months, we're going to have to change this again, and by then we might be really sorry we wasted this time.
Hey, what's done is done. Everyone should come together now and help promote BitShares.
Low-fee group, are you happy enough? If so, then get out there and bring us some users! :)
Bitcrab and BTSdac, what about making BitCNY transfers much cheaper? Would that help?
I agree, the imaginary new customers are more important.
"imaginary new customers"
where would we be without them?
I would imagine way lower...if they can imagine what they are getting into.
One of the truest criticisms of bts to date has been the constant change preventing businesses from being built atop it.
Fixes fee scale.
Big mistake. This seems like a half-assed political solution. I like consensus and I'm glad that the committee role functioned well in reaching a decision, but I have a strong feeling this is a temporary solution and we're going to find in a few months that it's wasted precious time. ???a profitable system is needed , but not now , it is in future , BTS have potential profitable capacity, do you know Amazon? I think you must know ; this company had been loss for many year , but it had about 100~200 B US dollar market value,
I am NOT convinced that:
(1) the low-fee crowd will be happy enough, given that the fees remain higher than they want for them to spread BitShares' use, or that
(2) the system will be profitable enough to drive any real marketing, or that
(3) we are serious about attracting any meaningful trading business, given the fees there.
investor is not for current profitable but for potential profitable, it is so difficult to understand many fans of BTS want BTS is profitable currently . I think the only reason is lack business common sense.
we can increase the fee to 0.2$ when the TPS reach to 200, it will been profitable , but not current ,
low fee is a not a sufficient condition to get more user, just a requirement.
I would have suggested picking a side and giving one of these groups what it needs to add a ton more users. We even could have pleased two out of three. Instead, what we have is a compromise that does not give any of these groups the tools it needs to succeed. In a few months, we're going to have to change this again, and by then we might be really sorry we wasted this time.
Hey, what's done is done. Everyone should come together now and help promote BitShares.
Low-fee group, are you happy enough? If so, then get out there and bring us some users! :)
Because bitshares didn't gain a flood of new users due to a buggy interface and lack of upgrades from exchanges, plus all the regular holders who were unable to import their wallets, we decided to butcher the fee structure on a reactionary whim.
All this based off one month of live data while still in beta testing mode... dumbest thing I have ever been around. From what I have seen, these committee members have no business sense or patience whatsoever.
I agree with Donkeypong that we need stability, but this half ass rushed through shit compromise is terrible and now were stuck with it.
Fixes fee scale.
Regarding fixing the scale parameter, can someone explain the following?
(1) Why does this proposal halve some of the values (e.g. "call_order_update") but leave other unchanged (e.g. "asset_update_feed_producers")?
(2) Assuming that the scale factor is a shortcut for multiplying all other values: Why in the current configuration we have "scale = 2" and "transfer fee = 40 BTS" and we still pay 40 BTS for transfer, not 2*40=80 BTS?
It makes sense to lower the cny transfer fee since we have a functional cny bridge but no(?) such service in other currencies. If the committee decided, witnesses could set core_exchange_rate of cny to a higher value so that cny transfers will get a discount if fees are paid in cny. But I'm not sure whether the market fees will be affected by doing so.Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.
So why don't we lower the transfer fee on CNY only and leave transfer fees for other assets as they are?
I hate to say it, lil_jay, but you are correct. They have stripped everyone of the tools they need to succeed. They could have picked a side, any side, and yet they price this at dumbest possible price point where no one has what they need to properly sell this thing.
Jakub, I would support your idea, having some different fees for different currency pairs. I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all approach. And if the business gravitates to the low fee areas, then that would be a successful experiment, telling us what we need to know.
The reason you cannot have different fees for different pairs is you destroy all the pairs that are more. In other words, why would I trade in bitUSD pair when trading in bitCNY will be cheaper? Market will respond the same way and only the lower value currencies will have any meaningful volume.
We cannot begin to get into having to geo locate accounts either.
But why are you talking about currency pairs?
This is about transfer fees, not trading fees.
What I advocate is very simple: when I transfer bitCNY I pay e.g. the equivalent of $0.10. But when I transfer bitEUR I pay the equivalent of $0.20.
Clean and simple.
It just requires the witnesses to configure asset fee pools differently for bitCNY and differently for bitUSD and bitEUR.
The only "problem" is that transfers on bitUSD and bitEUR will "subsidize" transfers on bitCNY, but I think this is the least bad solution.
The alternative is to have a bad compromise which makes both sides unhappy.
So is 1.10.15 the new 1.10.14 and did anyone mention this anywhere? or is this just how we can expect the committee to operate?
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.15
So is 1.10.15 the new 1.10.14 and did anyone mention this anywhere? or is this just how we can expect the committee to operate?
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.15
watching it the whole day and waiting for somebody else to ask... real sad day indeed - 1st Having to take my vote off ALL current non-init committee members...2nd BM screwing the account that created Greenies. [Greenie's they way brownies should have been]
I've been fuming all day, wrote up 4 or 5 scathing posts but I can't bring myself to post any of them, as I can't calm down enough to know they are rational and founded.
So is 1.10.15 the new 1.10.14 and did anyone mention this anywhere? or is this just how we can expect the committee to operate?
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.15
I've been fuming all day, wrote up 4 or 5 scathing posts but I can't bring myself to post any of them, as I can't calm down enough to know they are rational and founded.
You sound like a candidate for : Tuck & Tony's Complaint Symposium
Ticket pricing starts at 100 bitUSD and includes the following classes ...
- How To Alienate Yourself From 99% of the Forum in 5 Post or Less.
- How To Cope with a 750,000 BTS Loss Due to No Fault of Your Own.
- Using Alcohol and Drugs To Fight the Rage.
- 5 Reasons Why Everyone Is Ignoring Me.
- Lunch Break (The Standard 2.5 Hours).
- How To Be Treated Like an Imaginary User.
- Beginner Emoticons 101 - How to Mask Your Rage and Save Your Reputation.
- Expert Emoticons 101 - Fuck My Reputation!
- Brownie.PTS? Brownie.PTS? We're Talking about Brownie.PTS?!
If you'd like to sign up, just pm one of us and we'll save you a seat. Tickets can be paid for at the event. Seating is limited, so act now!
I've been fuming all day, wrote up 4 or 5 scathing posts but I can't bring myself to post any of them, as I can't calm down enough to know they are rational and founded.
You sound like a candidate for : Tuck & Tony's Complaint Symposium
Ticket pricing starts at 100 bitUSD and includes the following classes ...
- How To Alienate Yourself From 99% of the Forum in 5 Post or Less.
- How To Cope with a 750,000 BTS Loss Due to No Fault of Your Own.
- Using Alcohol and Drugs To Fight the Rage.
- 5 Reasons Why Everyone Is Ignoring Me.
- Lunch Break (The Standard 2.5 Hours).
- How To Be Treated Like an Imaginary User.
- Beginner Emoticons 101 - How to Mask Your Rage and Save Your Reputation.
- Expert Emoticons 101 - Fuck My Reputation!
- Brownie.PTS? Brownie.PTS? We're Talking about Brownie.PTS?!
If you'd like to sign up, just pm one of us and we'll save you a seat. Tickets can be paid for at the event. Seating is limited, so act now!
I never voted for 1.10.14. When I looked into it there seemed to be some issues, and those issues were verified by others. When 1.10.15 was created I didn't repost, since 1.10.15 did exactly what I had stated 1.10.14 was supposed to do. I verified that 1.10.15 did what I had stated I intended to do, and added my approval.
I don't understand why anyone is angry about 1.10.14 and 1.10.15. I seriously am not trying to be obtuse. I do not understand and would appreciate an explanation.
Feel free to unvote dele-puppy as a committee member. I do not want to be a committee member, and am doing this short term until someone else can take my place. If you feel that you could do a better job, please create a committee member, and state your case. You will probably have my vote.
I never voted for 1.10.14. When I looked into it there seemed to be some issues, and those issues were verified by others. When 1.10.15 was created I didn't repost, since 1.10.15 did exactly what I had stated 1.10.14 was supposed to do. I verified that 1.10.15 did what I had stated I intended to do, and added my approval.
I don't understand why anyone is angry about 1.10.14 and 1.10.15. I seriously am not trying to be obtuse. I do not understand and would appreciate an explanation.
Feel free to unvote dele-puppy as a committee member. I do not want to be a committee member, and am doing this short term until someone else can take my place. If you feel that you could do a better job, please create a committee member, and state your case. You will probably have my vote.
There seems to be some confusion between what community members can do, and what requires a worker proposal and a change in the code.
People also seem to be very upset that this proposal does not solve all of their problems with bts. I haven't had the time to look at it with a fine tooth comb, and I am not currently a committee member, so it doesn't really matter too much, but here is my thinking regarding this proposal.
There appears to be a bug in referral income with a scale greater than 1.
190BTS to create an account is too high, and vests for too long. Openledger is often running out of faucet funds.
40bts vs 30bts will likely be largely revenue neutral for referrers.
This proposal fixes the scale of fees (we launched with a scale of 1, and that scale was doubled by BM when he changed transfer fee from 20 to 40 bts) and sets the account creation fee to 95bts, where it was intended to be. (because we were getting spammed, remember that) and we get the support of the low fee proponents by reducing the transfer fee to only 30bts.
This is not an attempt to fix all fee problems with bts. this is not the final end all solution for bts fees. This is a single proposal that does only 3 things.
Fixes fee scale.
changes account creation fee to 95bts
changes transfer fee to 30bts.
If you would like to see other changes that is great, and we can all discuss that. If you are opposed to any of these changes, a clear explanation of what you are opposed to and why you are opposed to it would be appreciated.
I am of the opinion that we should keep transfer fees above 20bts (the price that we launched at). I believe that we need to give businesses that will rely on this transfer fee the chance to be built. I am supportive of a change to 30bts, because it is still higher than what we launched at, and I think we need to show the chinese community that we are listening to them, and care about what they think, while still maintaining a revenue stream for businesses hoping to build upon bitshares. Ultimately I think the fee just needs to be high enough to promote lifetime membership signups. I am not of the opinion that we should attempt to fix our fees to a fiat price. I am of course willing to listen to any reasonable arguments.
I think the current 1.10.15 proposal is a good compromise. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it is a start.
Lowering the account creation fee back to 95BTS like it was originally voted by the community is a good thing.
Many (asian) people want to lower the transaction fee to <5 BTS, and the (western) crowd is against it because it hurts the referral program. Lowering it by 25% is a compromise.
Fav has encountered problems with not receiving lifetime upgrade referral fees, so we're setting the scale to 1 in an attempt to fix exactly that issue.
I agree communication could have been better.
I have voted for this proposal.
Other than that, I hope that these commitee proposals will slow down a bit in the future, it felt rushed this time. The proposal was created within an hour and was bugged. Someone from the team needs to announce these changes before hand to the community and get feedback. The thing is that not everyone can be pleased and people will ALWAYS disagree.
I wouldn't change the scale until the vesting issue is looked at.. feels like shooting in the dark otherwise
Honestly I don't know how the committee ideally should do things and in what manner etc., so I don't really blame or fault anyone here. (this, i think is why i didn't post earlier) but I think we will figure it out.
I hope not to discourage anyone from continuing with their committee seat, its not a desirable position to hold but it is needed. We just need to slow down and do things properly. Whatever that means.
I for one feel like a proud papa to see my baby grow up and start working without me.
I think that it is great that these changes can be made without me. I will sit this round out because I would rather prove things are decentralized than overrule the committee decisions with my influence.
This didn't get approved right?
@Op:
I would recommend to write a lengthy article and describe your choice for ALL fees as well as add a discussion of advantages and disadvantages ..
Putting the new fees online without proper justification will result (as we see here) and many people complaining that don't understand the difficulties of the optimization you are trying to achieve
@Op:
I would recommend to write a lengthy article and describe your choice for ALL fees as well as add a discussion of advantages and disadvantages ..
Putting the new fees online without proper justification will result (as we see here) and many people complaining that don't understand the difficulties of the optimization you are trying to achieve
Yes, fully agree!
This was a horrible way of doing committee work. Of course this is just a baby-DAC taking its first steps, but I would have hoped a little more mature behavior here.
Why cant we have it like Ripple? I dont know what algorithm/tech they use but https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/Once again, that was basically what the #1 bm's proposal could do. The one that the community made him to retract.
The current transaction cost required by the network is typically 0.01 XRP (10,000 drops), although it sometimes increases due to network load.
I mean, they're costumers are different than ours I believe, they serve a different purpose like providing services for big FI. But do you think users wouldn't like that? It also depends on how it would be implemented.
I for one feel like a proud papa to see my baby grow up and start working without me.
I think that it is great that these changes can be made without me. I will sit this round out because I would rather prove things are decentralized than overrule the committee decisions with my influence.
Why cant we have it like Ripple? I dont know what algorithm/tech they use but https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/Once again, that was basically what the #1 bm's proposal could do. The one that the community made him to retract.
The current transaction cost required by the network is typically 0.01 XRP (10,000 drops), although it sometimes increases due to network load.
I mean, they're costumers are different than ours I believe, they serve a different purpose like providing services for big FI. But do you think users wouldn't like that? It also depends on how it would be implemented.
I admit I didn't understand the first proposal so I didnt give any input on it. But I would support that. Community probably just doesn't think it's worth the money asked? Maybe if Dan proposed the first one again with a different wording and in more detail people could understand it (asssuming it was not just me).
Unless that proposal also meant lowering fees? Or would just work on top of already existing fees?
I admit I didn't understand the first proposal so I didnt give any input on it. But I would support that. Community probably just doesn't think it's worth the money asked? Maybe if Dan proposed the first one again with a different wording and in more detail people could understand it (asssuming it was not just me).
Unless that proposal also meant lowering fees? Or would just work on top of already existing fees?
The proposal tried to achieve a differentiation between p2p transfers and user-to-merchant transfers.
IIRC
The goal was to allow p2p transfers to have 0/low fee while keeping the user to merchant transfers with higher fee (the user would not see any fee, it would be on merchant side, tempting him to became a lifetime member to vest the fees from the users who purchase from him)
I have to say that I was fine with low or even 0 p2p transfer fee, since if I imagine bitshares used by the masses, I see the users utilizing it more for trades or for purchase from merchant than for moving money around from friends to friends...
In case of network spamming (high TPS in the last hour) the p2p fee would be higher (it would not be refunded to the user)
Edit: anyway the fees involved would be changeable by the committee as usual