+5% +5% +5% if it's possible to implement. An integrated affiliate program is an awesome idea, however, just a simple 1 tier system is more than enough. Also I don't like the paid upgrade idea. keep it simple and rewarding.
edit: they could utilize the current referral model. I'm sure they're keeping track of registered TITANs and Referral IDs
+5% +5% +5% if it's possible to implement. An integrated affiliate program is an awesome idea, however, just a simple 1 tier system is more than enough. Also I don't like the paid upgrade idea. keep it simple and rewarding.
edit: they could utilize the current referral model. I'm sure they're keeping track of registered TITANs and Referral IDs
I think both the paid upgrade and the multi-tier makes it sexy enough to act on now. Someone holding a meetup can make $50 a week. But without those two elements you will make some pennies over a long time. It is not motiviating. Its a nice to have for people that were already excited about bitshares. Paid upgrades and multi tiers make it a business that people can work to retire on in 6 months if they hustle. That brings in series marketers.
I don't like to be pessimistic about this, but the bigger goal of a DAC is to be profitable for shareholders. With this change you either need to raise the transaction fee or accept higher delution (because less fees are burned)
However, I see this make sense if it was a timely limited action or there was some kind of mechanism that allows users to opt-out for 2xtransaction fee ..
Anyway, I like this idea, and I thing there is a old thread about something similar somewhere in the forums.
As far as implementing this though... Would this be something we want before 1.0 or maybe a version afterwards?
ignore my post. I missunderstood the OP!I don't like to be pessimistic about this, but the bigger goal of a DAC is to be profitable for shareholders. With this change you either need to raise the transaction fee or accept higher delution (because less fees are burned)
However, I see this make sense if it was a timely limited action or there was some kind of mechanism that allows users to opt-out for 2xtransaction fee ..
Anyway, I like this idea, and I thing there is a old thread about something similar somewhere in the forums.
Can you elaborate? I can't see how this requires us to raise transaction fees ... how are less fees burned? It would require a new mechanism to pay the $20 out to the network, upline 1 and upline 2, but we would still take the 0.5 bts fee on each $20 sign up.
ignore my post. I missunderstood the OP!I don't like to be pessimistic about this, but the bigger goal of a DAC is to be profitable for shareholders. With this change you either need to raise the transaction fee or accept higher delution (because less fees are burned)
However, I see this make sense if it was a timely limited action or there was some kind of mechanism that allows users to opt-out for 2xtransaction fee ..
Anyway, I like this idea, and I thing there is a old thread about something similar somewhere in the forums.
Can you elaborate? I can't see how this requires us to raise transaction fees ... how are less fees burned? It would require a new mechanism to pay the $20 out to the network, upline 1 and upline 2, but we would still take the 0.5 bts fee on each $20 sign up.
I just upgraded to 8.0 and it took almost a whole day which include countless crashes.
1.) I like the idea of an affiliate program but much less the multi tiered MLM style. See point 2
2.) it would change people's perception of us and I believe that for many this will be towards the negative.
3.) as you wrote in Bitshares 101 the barrier to entry is high at the moment and I don't see this working well until we have a stable mobile wallet. I just upgraded to 8.0 and it took almost a whole day which include countless crashes.Agreed. A quality product is always the most important thing. As a marketer I cant control that. That is in the hands of the gods (read Dev team). As the product improves the power of this and any other marketing strategy will too.
I think the entire idea, overall, is a great one. Ultimately, I think that companies should be the ones running delegates too....providing services and, indirectly, marketing efforts.
The idea of marketing delegates is confusing to me (this is even considering that the beyond bitcoin delegate is considered to be a marketing delegate by many). As far as earning a small % off of every referral for 20 years...that is way too much. I can see, perhaps 3-5 years. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of monopolies coming in and using bitshares to continue being monopolies, with very little chance anyone will hold them accountable. They will collude with others to ensure only the delegates of their choice get into power and then you can see how that entire cycle will go. And before someone says "people can just exit the system"...just look at the US Dollar and how long it is taking people to exit that system.
Just some thoughts on both the positives and negatives, or at least what I perceive them to be :)
QuoteI just upgraded to 8.0 and it took almost a whole day which include countless crashes.
That is very odd because I did the upgrade in 30 minutes with no crashes and a complete re-download of the blockchain.
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
Yep you nailed it all. With no "buy in" it won't work because of the abuse issue.
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
Yep you nailed it all. With no "buy in" it won't work because of the abuse issue.
How about buy in 20USD and lock it for 1 year then return it ?
That would prevent abuse and pyramid claims .
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
Yep you nailed it all. With no "buy in" it won't work because of the abuse issue. Are there any other issues you have discovered?
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
Yep you nailed it all. With no "buy in" it won't work because of the abuse issue. Are there any other issues you have discovered?
Instead of paying people from the beginning, would it be possible to instead offer them a % discount on the services provided by a BitShares DAC...scaling up until you begin getting paid?
A model similar to this: http://www.solavei.com/en
To someone elses point, I do not see why fees should increase at all. I would like to learn why you think they should. remember digital currency is very divisible. The 0.5 bts fee can be divided many ways.
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
Why not connect it to Facebook so that you can do it right? Just about everyone is on Facebook now and Facebook checks for ID.
As far as implementing this though... Would this be something we want before 1.0 or maybe a version afterwards?
Why not connect it to Facebook so that you can do it right? Just about everyone is on Facebook now and Facebook checks for ID.
then you buy 10 fb accounts for $5 and it'll help no one. keep it within our resources, and keep it decentralized.
Why not connect it to Facebook so that you can do it right? Just about everyone is on Facebook now and Facebook checks for ID.
then you buy 10 fb accounts for $5 and it'll help no one. keep it within our resources, and keep it decentralized.
Why not connect it to Facebook so that you can do it right? Just about everyone is on Facebook now and Facebook checks for ID.
then you buy 10 fb accounts for $5 and it'll help no one. keep it within our resources, and keep it decentralized.
You can't buy Facebook accounts anymore. They are cracking down making people give their state ID to use Facebook.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/29/absurd-facebook-requesting-government-id-to-unlock-accounts-again/
QuoteI just upgraded to 8.0 and it took almost a whole day which include countless crashes.
That is very odd because I did the upgrade in 30 minutes with no crashes and a complete re-download of the blockchain.
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
+5% +5%
Great ideas Max and this is in line with various ideas that have been floating around our lunch discussions.
The primary challenge we face is that there is nothing stopping everyone from simply "referring themselves" and then using the account N levels down so they get the rebate on all of their transaction fees.
You solve this somewhat with the $20 fee to create a participating account. This fee would prevent all abuse from anyone generating less than $20 in transaction fees per year. 4000 transactions per year at $0.01 per transaction assuming 50% of fees go to the referrer.
I think the $20 fee could be seen as a pyramid scheme where the bottom of the pyramid never makes their money back. On the other hand, if you can convince just 2 people to sign up then your fee is covered. So it seems like a low enough barrier to anyone who is passionate about the concept.
Technically it is all possible.
Ponzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.
This referal program would make it so easy to earn money in a way so different from the original idea of BitShares, that its ponziness would defeat BitShares' original purpose. Yes, it would probably bring many new people to the system. But what kind of people? People, who will suddenly realize how good BitShares are, or people who just want to get rich on the referal program?
From wikipedia:QuotePonzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.
I would prefer to stick to the original values we wanted to promote, not the "get rich fast" values. Once the original ideas get implemented, we will earn profit from the right thing instead of this obscure mechanism.
This referal program would make it so easy to earn money in a way so different from the original idea of BitShares, that its ponziness would defeat BitShares' original purpose. Yes, it would probably bring many new people to the system. But what kind of people? People, who will suddenly realize how good BitShares are, or people who just want to get rich on the referal program?
From wikipedia:QuotePonzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.
I would prefer to stick to the original values we wanted to promote, not the "get rich fast" values. Once the original ideas get implemented, we will earn profit from the right thing instead of this obscure mechanism.
Be careful that we dont look like a ponzi or act like a ponzi.
I can already see DecentralizedEconomics and NewMine's posts in bitcointalk if we do this, accusing Bitshares of being a ponzi scheme just trying to scam people out of money.
This referal program would make it so easy to earn money in a way so different from the original idea of BitShares, that its ponziness would defeat BitShares' original purpose. Yes, it would probably bring many new people to the system. But what kind of people? People, who will suddenly realize how good BitShares are, or people who just want to get rich on the referal program?
From wikipedia:QuotePonzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.
I would prefer to stick to the original values we wanted to promote, not the "get rich fast" values. Once the original ideas get implemented, we will earn profit from the right thing instead of this obscure mechanism.
Be careful that we dont look like a ponzi or act like a ponzi.
I can already see DecentralizedEconomics and NewMine's posts in bitcointalk if we do this, accusing Bitshares of being a ponzi scheme just trying to scam people out of money.
Dangit Ander....Foiled Again!
This referal program would make it so easy to earn money in a way so different from the original idea of BitShares, that its ponziness would defeat BitShares' original purpose. Yes, it would probably bring many new people to the system. But what kind of people? People, who will suddenly realize how good BitShares are, or people who just want to get rich on the referal program?
From wikipedia:QuotePonzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.
I would prefer to stick to the original values we wanted to promote, not the "get rich fast" values. Once the original ideas get implemented, we will earn profit from the right thing instead of this obscure mechanism.
Also anyone using the term Ponzi to describe the OP does not really seem to understand ponzi schemes IMO, and maybe they just don't see how MLM works with value-creating products
Also anyone using the term Ponzi to describe the OP does not really seem to understand ponzi schemes IMO, and maybe they just don't see how MLM works with value-creating products
Pyramid scheme accusations
Amway utilizes a tiered distribution and remuneration model (the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan) that promises to reward participants who grow Amway's market share through a combination of sales and recruitment. This tiered distribution model relies on Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme.
Harvard Business School of Leadership, which described Amway as "one of the most profitable direct selling companies in the world", noted that Amway founders Van Andel and DeVos:
"...accomplished their success through the use of an elaborate pyramid-like distribution system in which independent distributors of Amway products received a percentage of the merchandise they sold and also a percentage of the merchandise sold by recruited distributors. "
The "pyramid-like distribution system" of the Amway business model led to Amway being accused of being a pyramid scheme. A 1979 US Federal Trade Commission ruling established that the Amway business model is not illegal in the United States.[citation needed]
Robert Carroll, of the Skeptic's Dictionary, has described Amway as a "legal pyramid scheme", and has said that the religion-like devotion of its affiliates is used by the company to conceal poor performance rates by distributors.[72]
ASAP but KISS.. and obviously we'll need a league table to see the real impact and learn from who's doing what and how.. kudos can be as valuable as BTS!
Also anyone using the term Ponzi to describe the OP does not really seem to understand ponzi schemes IMO, and maybe they just don't see how MLM works with value-creating products
Be careful that we dont look like a ponzi or act like a ponzi.
I can already see DecentralizedEconomics and NewMine's posts in bitcointalk if we do this, accusing Bitshares of being a ponzi scheme just trying to scam people out of money.
Dangit Ander....Foiled Again!
:P
I'm not aying I dont like it, I do! We just need to do it in a way that people cant realistically accuse it of being a ponzi.
I proposed this in November - generating referral link from within the client. Earn (part of) the fees of whoever signs up via your link.
+5% This is a very good idea
As I've said previously I think BitSapphire & other third party products should incorporate elements of fee sharing too.ASAP but KISS.. and obviously we'll need a league table to see the real impact and learn from who's doing what and how.. kudos can be as valuable as BTS!
+5% This is true
BitShares still unfortunately has the possible Achilles heel of being viewed as a crypto-company vs. a crypto-currency which makes it very hard to build network effect. (A solid crypto-currency is big FU to Governments, banks, central planners and even manipulated precious metals & a no inflation BTSX with funding, rockstar developers & BitAssets was the best crypto-currency on the market & it's constantly growing community & valuation reflected that. I know some people don't grasp how hard it is to build a community around a variable dilution company but hopefully seeing the massive and consistent decline in BitShares value ( >70% in $ & BTC terms) these last 6 months you have at least observed in practice that the valuations & popularity of the the two models are world's apart.)
I think moonstone plus something like this could give BTS a shot, it's just uneccasarily hard work when the $ BTS accesses via dilution at this CAP is less than a no inflation BTSX was getting just from fees.
The classic Amway business model has been around as long as I have... it must work:
Amway was ranked No.114 among the largest global retailers by Deloitte in 2006, and No.25 among the largest private companies in the U.S. by Forbes in 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmwayQuotePyramid scheme accusations
Amway utilizes a tiered distribution and remuneration model (the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan) that promises to reward participants who grow Amway's market share through a combination of sales and recruitment. This tiered distribution model relies on Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme.
Harvard Business School of Leadership, which described Amway as "one of the most profitable direct selling companies in the world", noted that Amway founders Van Andel and DeVos:
"...accomplished their success through the use of an elaborate pyramid-like distribution system in which independent distributors of Amway products received a percentage of the merchandise they sold and also a percentage of the merchandise sold by recruited distributors. "
The "pyramid-like distribution system" of the Amway business model led to Amway being accused of being a pyramid scheme. A 1979 US Federal Trade Commission ruling established that the Amway business model is not illegal in the United States.[citation needed]
Robert Carroll, of the Skeptic's Dictionary, has described Amway as a "legal pyramid scheme", and has said that the religion-like devotion of its affiliates is used by the company to conceal poor performance rates by distributors.[72]
The classic Amway business model has been around as long as I have... it must work:
Amway was ranked No.114 among the largest global retailers by Deloitte in 2006, and No.25 among the largest private companies in the U.S. by Forbes in 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmwayQuotePyramid scheme accusations
Amway utilizes a tiered distribution and remuneration model (the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan) that promises to reward participants who grow Amway's market share through a combination of sales and recruitment. This tiered distribution model relies on Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme.
Harvard Business School of Leadership, which described Amway as "one of the most profitable direct selling companies in the world", noted that Amway founders Van Andel and DeVos:
"...accomplished their success through the use of an elaborate pyramid-like distribution system in which independent distributors of Amway products received a percentage of the merchandise they sold and also a percentage of the merchandise sold by recruited distributors. "
The "pyramid-like distribution system" of the Amway business model led to Amway being accused of being a pyramid scheme. A 1979 US Federal Trade Commission ruling established that the Amway business model is not illegal in the United States.[citation needed]
Robert Carroll, of the Skeptic's Dictionary, has described Amway as a "legal pyramid scheme", and has said that the religion-like devotion of its affiliates is used by the company to conceal poor performance rates by distributors.[72]
I think you're missing the reality of why people do not like marketing of whatever flavour that is:[MLM/ponzi/pyramid/scams/etc]. Only marketeers like MLM because it's a lazy way to a quick profit. Such an approach considers the product as fodder.. single level marketing reward makes more sense here where the product is its own reward. MLM I suspect also fails because people resent earning money for chumps further up the chain. Flat reward is perceived as 100% of the reward to the one who earned it.
I'd suggest that we keep this simple.
There is nothing wrong with a referral fee as reward but that should be a straightforward and time limited - the big long term reward follows from real growth in the value of BitShares. So you could approach it from that direction too.. reward those who do best after the fact.
X% of fees for a year, seems to me really generous as a long standing commitment and if the delegates are widely happy with that, I'd support it.. getting those involve who can create excitement is worth the cost, if it sees a big uptick in userbase.
If X% of fees is not considered enough in the first year, then you could enhance that with a reward based on a league table.. pay to top 10 promoters and celebrate their success each month. There could be a pool account for that or a delegate.. your chance to grab a fraction of a 100% delegate would motivate more than 10 people.
Certainly such an approach as OP, makes more sense than gifting 100% delegates to those who don't deliver. Not having any referral fee, makes no sense.. the more generous that is the more seductive the idea of promoting BitShares.
I think you're missing the reality of why people do not like marketing of whatever flavour that is:[MLM/ponzi/pyramid/scams/etc]. Only marketeers like MLM because it's a lazy way to a quick profit. Such an approach considers the product as fodder.. single level marketing reward makes more sense here where the product is its own reward. MLM I suspect also fails because people resent earning money for chumps further up the chain. Flat reward is perceived as 100% of the reward to the one who earned it.
I'd suggest that we keep this simple.
There is nothing wrong with a referral fee as reward but that should be a straightforward and time limited - the big long term reward follows from real growth in the value of BitShares. So you could approach it from that direction too.. reward those who do best after the fact.
X% of fees for a year, seems to me really generous as a long standing commitment and if the delegates are widely happy with that, I'd support it.. getting those involve who can create excitement is worth the cost, if it sees a big uptick in userbase.
If X% of fees is not considered enough in the first year, then you could enhance that with a reward based on a league table.. pay to top 10 promoters and celebrate their success each month. There could be a pool account for that or a delegate.. your chance to grab a fraction of a 100% delegate would motivate more than 10 people.
Certainly such an approach as OP, makes more sense than gifting 100% delegates to those who don't deliver. Not having any referral fee, makes no sense.. the more generous that is the more seductive the idea of promoting BitShares.
Only marketeers like MLM because it's a lazy way to a quick profit.I've been in many MLM businesses and can attest that *none of them were easy. They all took a great deal of effort for little to no payoff. Generally speaking, to be successful in MLM you have to work extremely hard for no pay, for a long time. with the hope that eventually your work will take on a life of its own. Many may get into MLM looking for quick easy profits, but I guarantee you it is not there. Some do get lucky where their upline builds a network for them, but this is rare.
Such an approach considers the product as fodder.. single level marketing reward makes more sense here where the product is its own reward.I don't think its made fodder. The most successful MLM'er's truly believe in the product they are selling and have a story of how the product has changed their life. There are many different people who will find appealing different aspects of a story. Sometimes its the product, sometimes its the money/opportunity. In my experience the products offered in these systems are generally of very high quality and do actually work.
MLM I suspect also fails because people resent earning money for chumps further up the chain. Flat reward is perceived as 100% of the reward to the one who earned it.MLM is no failure. Its proven to be an extremely effective approach
As far as I can tell, there is a strong hunger in the crypto community for something (mining! clicking ads! anything!) that the average Joe can do to participate in the crypto gold rush. Those blessed with exceptional abilities build little things and hope to profit from the resulting exponential growth. Max's MLM model (really just self-funded teaching and technical support) is something everybody can do to build their own dream financial empire. Lets not deny the average Joe the chance to live the same dream!
+5% This is a very good idea
As I've said previously I think BitSapphire & other third party products should incorporate elements of fee sharing too.ASAP but KISS.. and obviously we'll need a league table to see the real impact and learn from who's doing what and how.. kudos can be as valuable as BTS!
+5% This is true
BitShares still unfortunately has the possible Achilles heel of being viewed as a crypto-company vs. a crypto-currency which makes it very hard to build network effect. (A solid crypto-currency is big FU to Governments, banks, central planners and even manipulated precious metals & a no inflation BTSX with funding, rockstar developers & BitAssets was the best crypto-currency on the market & it's constantly growing community & valuation reflected that. I know some people don't grasp how hard it is to build a community around a variable dilution company but hopefully seeing the massive and consistent decline in BitShares value ( >70% in $ & BTC terms) these last 6 months you have at least observed in practice that the valuations & popularity of the the two models are world's apart.)
I think moonstone plus something like this could give BTS a shot, it's just uneccasarily hard work when the $ BTS accesses via dilution at this CAP is less than a no inflation BTSX was getting just from fees.
Every Silicon Valley startup works the same way we do - pay early employees with stock to conserve liquid cash.
BitShares is structured for growth into the general population where its self-funding model will enable exponential growth unimpeded by old school crypto-think. I agree it makes that big old engine a little harder to start among the small crypto investor community, but that's just one of many steely-eyed tradeoffs we have to make when thinking bigger.
At first I wasn't sure if this was a good idea but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
We know that a lot of bitcoiners and altcoiners think btsx is a "crapcoin" and a ponzi scheme. So why do we really care what they say about us diluting btsx? Many of them are set in stone and won't "convert". This is why they aren't a target demographic for btsx. Our time, money and energy should be focused on people outside the crypto sphere. Those people don't care how it works, but if it works.
I think as long as this is well thought out and all other options are exhausted that we should go for it.Kind of reminds me of the famous five monkeys experiment.
Nobody in those communities is willing to go for the bananas any more
but no one remembers why.;)(http://blog2.id.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Monkeys-300x199.jpg)
http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place (http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place)
Kind of reminds me of the famous goose that laid the golden eggs.
(http://motivatedmormon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Dont-Kill-the-Goose-2.jpg)
,,,
Tier 1: 100 people :: everyone holds 1000 bitUSD (100*1000 = 100.000 bitUSD) :: 5% are 5.000 bitUSD and 10% for the affiliates are 500 bitUSD :: i will get 40% so 200 bitUSD
Tier 2: 200 people :: everyone holds 200 bitUSD (200*200 = 40.000 bitUSD) :: 5% are 2.000 bitUSD and 10% for the affiliates are 200 bitUSD :: i will get 30% so 60 bitUSD
Tier 3: 200 people :: everyone holds 100 bitUSD (100*200 = 20.000 bitUSD) :: 5% are 1.000 bitUSD and 10% for the affiliates are 100 bitUSD :: i will get 30% so 30 bitUSD
so 290 bitUSD sounds maybe not much, but you should consider it is "as long as the account is used" and the considered invested amounts are not really big!
is this better?
As long as we stay away from MLM "downlines" and just do one-off rewards, ref= links and qr codes, that should be sufficient.
As long as we stay away from MLM "downlines" and just do one-off rewards, ref= links and qr codes, that should be sufficient.
I agree with this. Referral systems and giving a reward for getting a referral (a percentage of fees of your referee, and maybe a bonus), is great. We have all read the story of how Paypal went into massive growth with its referral program.
Making it multi-level and rewarding for referrals of your referrals screams 'scam' and 'stay away' to EVERYONE.
Please do not all hastily rush to turn Bitshares into an MLM scheme, lose the following of most of our remaining die hards, and cause yet another 75% price drop. Just because some initial posts on the forum go "yay, this is great! Bitshares will go up and I will make money!". We made this mistake already in november, and it lost us most of the support of the chinese community.
You really need to realize that if Bitshares goes MLM, there are going to be 1 million people screaming in every thread in bitcointalk that it is a scam, and every single person is going to see the MLM scheme, and pattern match it to other scams, and think "yep, Bitshares is now confirmed to be a scam".
In fact, I am surprised that NewMine and DecentralizedEconomics havent ALREADY made posts saying this, even though it is just people talking about it.
Please consider just doing a referral plan and rewarding people for referring their plans, and not going full pyramid scheme and turning Bitshares from a wonderful idea into the spawn of evil.
Look do we believe in BitShares or not? Do we have patience or not? Please can we allow some organic growth to arrive from all the hard work that is going on.......
This referal program would make it so easy to earn money in a way so different from the original idea of BitShares, that its ponziness would defeat BitShares' original purpose. Yes, it would probably bring many new people to the system. But what kind of people? People, who will suddenly realize how good BitShares are, or people who just want to get rich on the referal program?
From wikipedia:QuotePonzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.
I would prefer to stick to the original values we wanted to promote, not the "get rich fast" values. Once the original ideas get implemented, we will earn profit from the right thing instead of this obscure mechanism.
+5%
I agree. I was hoping people would come to BitShares because their own search for integrity led them here. The principals on which BitShares has been built is of vital importance. Then the other reason would be the incredible utility of BitShares which simply makes it the market choice....this point doesn't feel so far away.
This referal program would make it so easy to earn money in a way so different from the original idea of BitShares, that its ponziness would defeat BitShares' original purpose. Yes, it would probably bring many new people to the system. But what kind of people? People, who will suddenly realize how good BitShares are, or people who just want to get rich on the referal program?
From wikipedia:QuotePonzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.
I would prefer to stick to the original values we wanted to promote, not the "get rich fast" values. Once the original ideas get implemented, we will earn profit from the right thing instead of this obscure mechanism.
Ever used Venmo? When they started if I signed up via my friend's link, then my friend got $5. Then the app asked me to send a link to all my friends. Every friend of mine that signed up via my link earned me $5. The app has so much utility now because all my friends are signed up and we can send each other money instantly.
An MLM program should work the same way for bitshares except that bitshares will not only grab the global peer to peer payments network effect for bitusd, it will also encourage merchant adoption, and employer to employee payments, which an app like Venmo will never be able to do.
My point being ... Venmo never seemed like a pyramid scheme because the app is solid gold in terms of utility. BitUSD will eventually be solid gold in terms of utility, so any users brought in by a referral/rewards/MLM program would likely use the app IMO.
Also, we are having trouble signing up enough new users when it is free and there is a faucet to pay the 0.5 BTS referral fee for you.No the $20 is only if you want to participate in the affiliate program(as an upgraded account). Everything else would remain the same. For a normal user not interested in the affiliate program there would be no difference. Still free etc..
And in this thread people want to charge people $20 to sign up.
I am sure that will be GREAT for the size of our userbase!
As long as we stay away from MLM "downlines" and just do one-off rewards, ref= links and qr codes, that should be sufficient.
I agree with this. Referral systems and giving a reward for getting a referral (a percentage of fees of your referee, and maybe a bonus), is great. We have all read the story of how Paypal went into massive growth with its referral program.
Making it multi-level and rewarding for referrals of your referrals screams 'scam' and 'stay away' to EVERYONE.
Please do not all hastily rush to turn Bitshares into an MLM scheme, lose the following of most of our remaining die hards, and cause yet another 75% price drop. Just because some initial posts on the forum go "yay, this is great! Bitshares will go up and I will make money!". We made this mistake already in november, and it lost us most of the support of the chinese community.
You really need to realize that if Bitshares goes MLM, there are going to be 1 million people screaming in every thread in bitcointalk that it is a scam, and every single person is going to see the MLM scheme, and pattern match it to other scams, and think "yep, Bitshares is now confirmed to be a scam".
In fact, I am surprised that NewMine and DecentralizedEconomics havent ALREADY made posts saying this, even though it is just people talking about it.
Please consider just doing a referral plan and rewarding people for referring their plans, and not going full pyramid scheme and turning Bitshares from a wonderful idea into the spawn of evil.
this +5%
Look do we believe in BitShares or not? Do we have patience or not? Please can we allow some organic growth to arrive from all the hard work that is going on.......
But the point is that "all the hard work that is going on" is being done by very few people, and they are not being adequately compensated. Yet those doing nothing, or only trading and trying to profit while others do the work, or even doing nothing but COMPLAINING - they all expect to reap the rewards of those actually working to create and grow the system.
Max's idea, all though it needs careful consideration and refining, will benefit all those who actually do the work of introducing and explaining BitShares to the public. It is not easy money or a rip off. And the expected benefits to those jumping on the opportunity, digging in, and doing the marketing will be like the expected benefits to any early investor in a startup.
A single level referral system would also reward those doing the work, without screaming "scam" to everyone. Or alienating half of the current Bitshares community.
But the point is that "all the hard work that is going on" is being done by very few people, and they are not being adequately compensated. Yet those doing nothing, or only trading and trying to profit while others do the work, or even doing nothing but COMPLAINING - they all expect to reap the rewards of those actually working to create and grow the system.
Max's idea, all though it needs careful consideration and refining, will benefit all those who actually do the work of introducing and explaining BitShares to the public. It is not easy money or a rip off. And the expected benefits to those jumping on the opportunity, digging in, and doing the marketing will be like the expected benefits to any early investor in a startup.
A single level referral system would also reward those doing the work, without screaming "scam" to everyone. Or alienating half of the current Bitshares community.
lol it begins I guess...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1003837.0
who the hell's centralizedeconomics?
Still think it's a good idea though; just needs more fleshing out so everyone can come to a consensus on what would work best.
There are some benefits that come with the multi-tiered approach. When my potential income is augmented by the production of those I introduce, there is a natural incentive for me to then support those that I introduce(that also elect to upgrade).
As long as we stay away from MLM "downlines" and just do one-off rewards, ref= links and qr codes, that should be sufficient.
I agree with this. Referral systems and giving a reward for getting a referral (a percentage of fees of your referee, and maybe a bonus), is great. We have all read the story of how Paypal went into massive growth with its referral program.
Making it multi-level and rewarding for referrals of your referrals screams 'scam' and 'stay away' to EVERYONE.
Please do not all hastily rush to turn Bitshares into an MLM scheme, lose the following of most of our remaining die hards, and cause yet another 75% price drop. Just because some initial posts on the forum go "yay, this is great! Bitshares will go up and I will make money!". We made this mistake already in november, and it lost us most of the support of the chinese community.
You really need to realize that if Bitshares goes MLM, there are going to be 1 million people screaming in every thread in bitcointalk that it is a scam, and every single person is going to see the MLM scheme, and pattern match it to other scams, and think "yep, Bitshares is now confirmed to be a scam".
In fact, I am surprised that NewMine and DecentralizedEconomics havent ALREADY made posts saying this, even though it is just people talking about it.
Please consider just doing a referral plan and rewarding people for referring their plans, and not going full pyramid scheme and turning Bitshares from a wonderful idea into the spawn of evil.
this +5%
Look do we believe in BitShares or not? Do we have patience or not? Please can we allow some organic growth to arrive from all the hard work that is going on.......
But the point is that "all the hard work that is going on" is being done by very few people, and they are not being adequately compensated. Yet those doing nothing, or only trading and trying to profit while others do the work, or even doing nothing but COMPLAINING - they all expect to reap the rewards of those actually working to create and grow the system.
Max's idea, all though it needs careful consideration and refining, will benefit all those who actually do the work of introducing and explaining BitShares to the public. It is not easy money or a rip off. And the expected benefits to those jumping on the opportunity, digging in, and doing the marketing will be like the expected benefits to any early investor in a startup.
Egad Brain!
Those are all good points, but the A-word and the P-word will be applied to us by the trolls no matter what we do now.
Let's not let them set the agenda.
There are some benefits that come with the multi-tiered approach. When my potential income is augmented by the production of those I introduce, there is a natural incentive for me to then support those that I introduce(that also elect to upgrade).
erm.. I wonder you are missing the obvious.. your potential income is augmented - by the rise in real value of BitShares.
+5%Look do we believe in BitShares or not? Do we have patience or not? Please can we allow some organic growth to arrive from all the hard work that is going on.......
Indeed. What we need is organic growth of actual users, trading bitassets on the decentralized exchange.
And not a pyramid scheme of MLM marketers trying to convince people to spend $20 to sign up, so that they can get a cut of it.
1 level referral plan sounds great to me, with no large signup fee, simply giving a referral bonus of some portion of fees generated (from actual trading use of bitshares!) by the referrer. Go beyond that and we look like a bunch of people who are really desperate to make a buck off people in whatever way we can.
A round up of ideas so far.
1. A fee to upgrade to earner status is important because it stops people signing up under themselves and abusing the system. It is a must.
2. We get called scammers and MLM'ers all the time now by some retarded bitcoiners. Bitcoiners get called drug dealers by some retarded people all the time too. You can't base your life and your business on what dumb people call you. We already get called names. True with a 1 tier referral system we will get more of it. From a multi-tier system we will get even more of it again. We all had the intelligence and the integrity to repell accusations of being drug dealers because we were involved in crypto. Hopefully we have the intelligence and integrity to repell these accusations too.
3. For those that have the Pavlovian response to MLM, I say get educated first. A pyramid/ponzi has 2 defining characteristics. 1. There is no product and 2. It is impossible to earn more than your referrer. We obviously have a great product, but thee is an easy way to put this fear to bed. Simply have more non-income earning customers than income earning customers. You achieve that by making the business opportunity less attractive. eg: Payout a smaller percentage of fees as rewards and/or increase the upgrade fee. And by structuring the tiers so that the first tier gets a much higher percentage than the other tiers you easily guarantee that producers get paid the most and free loaders get paid the least. ie: people can out earn their referer.
4. Now that you know what an MLM is and is not, know that some of the largest companies in the world are MLM and billions of dollars are generated from MLM each year. It is just a marketing structure. That is all. One that lends itself perfectly to blockchain technology I would think.
5. Because we need to have an upgrade fee to be an earner (point 1) we will never be a nice neat and clean referrel program like Paypal was. Even a single tier program will get called a scam.... a lot.
6. This is not an act of desperation in anyway. One way or another bitshares will have a multi billion dollar market cap because the product is that good. It can change lives for better and by a lot. The question is... What is the most effective way to get the word out.
7. Quote from world famous marketer Jay Abraham. "If your marketing doesn't make you uncomfortable you are doing it wrong"
A round up of ideas so far.
1. A fee to upgrade to earner status is important because it stops people signing up under themselves and abusing the system. It is a must.
..
1. A fee to upgrade to earner status is important because it stops people signing up under themselves and abusing the system. It is a must.
..
by the way
best discussion in a while :D
2. We get called scammers and MLM'ers all the time now by some retarded bitcoiners. Bitcoiners get called drug dealers by some retarded people all the time too. You can't base your life and your business on what dumb people call you. We already get called names. True with a 1 tier referral system we will get more of it. From a multi-tier system we will get even more of it again. We all had the intelligence and the integrity to repell accusations of being drug dealers because we were involved in crypto. Hopefully we have the intelligence and integrity to repell these accusations too.
3. For those that have the Pavlovian response to MLM, I say get educated first. A pyramid/ponzi has 2 defining characteristics. 1. There is no product and 2. It is impossible to earn more than your referrer. We obviously have a great product, but thee is an easy way to put this fear to bed. Simply have more non-income earning customers than income earning customers. You achieve that by making the business opportunity less attractive. eg: Payout a smaller percentage of fees as rewards and/or increase the upgrade fee. And by structuring the tiers so that the first tier gets a much higher percentage than the other tiers you easily guarantee that producers get paid the most and free loaders get paid the least. ie: people can out earn their referer.
4. Now that you know what an MLM is and is not, know that some of the largest companies in the world are MLM and billions of dollars are generated from MLM each year. It is just a marketing structure. That is all. One that lends itself perfectly to blockchain technology I would think.
5. Because we need to have an upgrade fee to be an earner (point 1) we will never be a nice neat and clean referrel program like Paypal was. Even a single tier program will get called a scam.... a lot.
7. Quote from world famous marketer Jay Abraham. "If your marketing doesn't make you uncomfortable you are doing it wrong"
by the way
best discussion in a while :D
2. We get called scammers and MLM'ers all the time now by some retarded bitcoiners.
6. This is not an act of desperation in anyway. One way or another bitshares will have a multi billion dollar market cap because the product is that good. It can change lives for better and by a lot. The question is... What is the most effective way to get the word out.
7. Quote from world famous marketer Jay Abraham. "If your marketing doesn't make you uncomfortable you are doing it wrong"
let's see some facts:
https://faucet.bitshares.org/refscoreboard
Referrers in total around 1500. in total. all our combined and track-able marketing/advertising efforts up to this point. Let's say 25% were real users. how many of those 25% stayed? let's assume 5% (probably a lot less)
Total users: ~20
No matter how great this product is, it won't grow without help. Apart from new active/inactive users, marketer will bring entrepreneurs and merchants with them.
BTS is already supposed to be a system where you buy in as an early investor by purchasing BTS, and then you get a dividend from market trading fees, in the form of having BTS be burned.
But under the new proposed system, instead of encouraging people to buy $20 of BTS and supporting the share price, they are instead asked to put that $20 into a pyramid scheme operating within BTS. Hilarious! Its a way to dilute the potential revenues of BTS holders, thus making BTS worth less, in order to reward early participants in the new scheme.
let's see some facts:
https://faucet.bitshares.org/refscoreboard
Referrers in total around 1500. in total. all our combined and track-able marketing/advertising efforts up to this point. Let's say 25% were real users. how many of those 25% stayed? let's assume 5% (probably a lot less)
Total users: ~20
No matter how great this product is, it won't grow without help. Apart from new active/inactive users, marketer will bring entrepreneurs and merchants with them.
Bitcoin grew without MLM help. Don't forget the world is about to go through a cataclysmic economic implosion.....BitShares simply needs to be there with its products when it does
Hopefully having maintained it's core principals and unblemished trust.
Do you have any examples of successful businesses that have started MLM and weened off of it without the stigma of Amway, Mary Kay, Avon, etc.?
Do you have any examples of successful businesses that have started MLM and weened off of it without the stigma of Amway, Mary Kay, Avon, etc.?
Not quite MLM, but the accounting company that I use gave me an Amazon voucher for referring a new customer. I thought it was great: http://www.crunch.co.uk/client-referral-scheme/
I dont see why this idea is so controversial.
Do you have any examples of successful businesses that have started MLM and weened off of it without the stigma of Amway, Mary Kay, Avon, etc.?
Not quite MLM, but the accounting company that I use gave me an Amazon voucher for referring a new customer. I thought it was great. This is their great landing page that explains why I would want to benefit from a referral scheme: http://www.crunch.co.uk/client-referral-scheme/
I dont see why this idea is so controversial.
Anyone have forum moderator privileges? We should make a new Marketing Subforum names "Pyramid and MLM schemes" and then move this thread there! :D
Bitcoin grew without MLM help. Don't forget the world is about to go through a cataclysmic economic implosion.....BitShares simply needs to be there with its products when it does
Hopefully having maintained it's core principals and unblemished trust.
Bingo.
Bitcoin grew without MLM help. Don't forget the world is about to go through a cataclysmic economic implosion.....BitShares simply needs to be there with its products when it does
Hopefully having maintained it's core principals and unblemished trust.
Bingo.
Mining was basically redistributed MLM, now not so much as the barriers to entry are too high
even they lost so much.
As long as we stay away from MLM "downlines" and just do one-off rewards, ref= links and qr codes, that should be sufficient.
I agree with this. Referral systems and giving a reward for getting a referral (a percentage of fees of your referee, and maybe a bonus), is great. We have all read the story of how Paypal went into massive growth with its referral program.
Making it multi-level and rewarding for referrals of your referrals screams 'scam' and 'stay away' to EVERYONE.
Please do not all hastily rush to turn Bitshares into an MLM scheme, lose the following of most of our remaining die hards, and cause yet another 75% price drop. Just because some initial posts on the forum go "yay, this is great! Bitshares will go up and I will make money!". We made this mistake already in november, and it lost us most of the support of the chinese community.
You really need to realize that if Bitshares goes MLM, there are going to be 1 million people screaming in every thread in bitcointalk that it is a scam, and every single person is going to see the MLM scheme, and pattern match it to other scams, and think "yep, Bitshares is now confirmed to be a scam".
In fact, I am surprised that NewMine and DecentralizedEconomics havent ALREADY made posts saying this, even though it is just people talking about it.
Please consider just doing a referral plan and rewarding people for referring their plans, and not going full pyramid scheme and turning Bitshares from a wonderful idea into the spawn of evil.
sorry, I mean money.even they lost so much.
I havent lost anything.
Is the $20 fee to be part of the scheme really needed? If a user signs up a new account referring to his own old account to get half his fees back, then so what? He his still paying the network something.
BTS is already supposed to be a system where you buy in as an early investor by purchasing BTS, and then you get a dividend from market trading fees, in the form of having BTS be burned.There is so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to start. The crypto is a place for rich people. you need serious money to invest in coins, mining hardware or have access to capital markets to raise money for a new venture. If you are poor, move along.... Your hard work is not rewarded anywhere in crypto. This proposal is the first mechanism in all of crypto that poor people can use sweat equity to ad value to a blockchain and get rewarded. Sounds a hell of a lot more egalitarian to me than just a place for people with investment dollars. A whole new realm of people... the ones who need it the most can participate in the crypto revolution with this marketing system. And we would have a monopoly on it.
But under the new proposed system, instead of encouraging people to buy $20 of BTS and supporting the share price, they are instead asked to put that $20 into a pyramid scheme operating within BTS. Hilarious! Its a way to dilute the potential revenues of BTS holders, thus making BTS worth less, in order to reward early participants in the new scheme.
The question/fear I have is:
Do we trade immediate MLM-driven adoption for long term stigma and lower long-run number of users we are likely to see once that MLM label sticks?
Can you convince us that the fear is irrational or at least very unlikely?
Do you have any examples of successful businesses that have started MLM and weened off of it without the stigma of Amway, Mary Kay, Avon, etc.?
Is the $20 fee to be part of the scheme really needed? If a user signs up a new account referring to his own old account to get half his fees back, then so what? He his still paying the network something.
Heads Up
The world’s first virtual currency focused multi-level marketing company is preparing to launch on April 1, 2015
http://thebitcoinnews.com/2015/03/25/the-worlds-first-virtual-currency-focused-multi-level-marketing-company-is-preparing-to-launch-on-april-1-2015/
I would suggest a simplified and softened version with no protocol level enforcement.
Currently the minimum fee is 0.1 BTS and the default is 0.5. Some of the light wallets are already boosting this fee slightly to pay for their development. I suggest that some wallets could support defaulting to add an additional 0.1-0.5 BTS fee for every transaction, payed to the account that payed the registration fee for that wallet installations first account. The idea here is that our grassroots marketers introduce people to BitShares, set up their wallets and register them, and receive transaction fees until the new user either stops using the network or changes the default settings.
This way there's no controversial protocol level enforcement pushed by the network as a whole, and marketers are incentivized to get legitimate users, because they're only rewarded if the user transacts.
I would suggest a simplified and softened version with no protocol level enforcement.
Currently the minimum fee is 0.1 BTS and the default is 0.5. Some of the light wallets are already boosting this fee slightly to pay for their development. I suggest that some wallets could support defaulting to add an additional 0.1-0.5 BTS fee for every transaction, payed to the account that payed the registration fee for that wallet installations first account. The idea here is that our grassroots marketers introduce people to BitShares, set up their wallets and register them, and receive transaction fees until the new user either stops using the network or changes the default settings.
This way there's no controversial protocol level enforcement pushed by the network as a whole, and marketers are incentivized to get legitimate users, because they're only rewarded if the user transacts.
Does no one think it will cause problems when your account is permanently flagged as being affiliated with a different 'introduction' account?
In general this can be very powerful and I think Max is totally right, but you're going to add a whole new layer of data that can be analyzed. Maybe it isn't a big deal to know that you were introduced to BTS through person X, but it really is getting away from the ideals.
And if you guys don't think anonymity is important, you have not been paying attention to the crypto-space.
Dark/Dash passed up BTS because of 2 things, having a mined coin which provides a group of retards to be your fanboys. The second is that people really want their crypto-coins untraceable. Well a third one is they may have had a large premine which incentivized the early guys to keep at it ... and they did it properly.
The bad thing about any change is that if/when the change upsets some existing users, then they may leave. this happens immediately. Any benefit that may accrue from an action does so in the future. This is true of all actions we can choose to take. The assessment of the benefits and risks are important and this thread is doing a great job of it so far.
+5% I'm with Ander on this. Although I am not opposed to MLM programs in theory and they can be effective, I was never sold on MLM benefits over simple referral systems. The complex structures/tiers and negative associations that come with MLM is something I'd avoid. Simple referral systems are great. I'm not sold on multi-tiers. If I'm a downline person. Why should an upline be compensated so much for what I do. It's like just being first is of ultimate importance and then you wait for everyone else to actually do work. That's how I always felt and that's how MLM is often sold to people. Shouldn't this be something the NXTers should be doing? Or maybe give the idea to Paycoiners so they can last a bit longer before going to zero.
I'm 100% behind simple referral systems and designing an appropriate % is crucial to balancing the incentives of referrers with perceptions of referrals.
I would suggest a simplified and softened version with no protocol level enforcement.
Currently the minimum fee is 0.1 BTS and the default is 0.5. Some of the light wallets are already boosting this fee slightly to pay for their development. I suggest that some wallets could support defaulting to add an additional 0.1-0.5 BTS fee for every transaction, payed to the account that payed the registration fee for that wallet installations first account. The idea here is that our grassroots marketers introduce people to BitShares, set up their wallets and register them, and receive transaction fees until the new user either stops using the network or changes the default settings.
This way there's no controversial protocol level enforcement pushed by the network as a whole, and marketers are incentivized to get legitimate users, because they're only rewarded if the user transacts.
I dont mind this option... Its a lot safer but a lot less powerful for a bunch of reasons. But I am confused by this term "legitimate users" What is a legitimate bitUSD user if it is not someone who holds bitUSD. Earns interest on bitUSD. Receives his income in bitUSD. Purchasers products with bitUSD, and trades in and out of bitUSD for fiat with his network of fellow bitUSD holders? I don't think it gets any more legitimate than that.
An interesting mental exercise. Imagine John Q Public clones bitshares and builds bitsharesMLM. He honors 100% bitshares holders so you have the same stake. He has a built in marketing system as described in the OP and limits the number of 100% delegates to 5 as that is ample to support the tech requirements of the chain. which chain are you more excited about?
Why should upline members get so much for getting lucky and having some superstars downline?
An interesting mental exercise. Imagine John Q Public clones bitshares and builds bitsharesMLM. He honors 100% bitshares holders so you have the same stake. He has a built in marketing system as described in the OP and limits the number of 100% delegates to 5 as that is ample to support the tech requirements of the chain. which chain are you more excited about?
Why should upline members get so much for getting lucky and having some superstars downline?
Because without them, you (The person whose comms float up) would not be there.
But I think I am over the multi tier thing too. We can move on.
Comms and fees in bts are very difficult to market and understand. I prefer using bitUSD and any successful marketing push would need to do the same.
By the way at todays prices and fees., under the system proposed 2 posts up (The network gets $8 per sign up) the network would only need to make 67 sales per today of signups to neutralize our current level of inflation.
Ok so you mean the $20 signup fee? Wasn't that needed for the multi-tier plan? I think a signup fee would be a difficult sell. Why not just have the transaction fee system without the $20 up front.
So, .. pay from the transaction fee and not any overhead on new users; avoid the pyramid sharing of those fees for several generations or tiers; and pay a short term burst of real reward, rather than a long term commitment. +5%
The only way it could be leeched dry is if we use the delegate model you are suggesting which pays more in commissions than we take in in revenue.
I would suggest in promoting this, that the tone should be noting the principal motivation is all about promoting BitShares and attracting those who understand its potential and become active users themselves, rather than this being considered just "the next big thing" for marketeers to leech dry.
Again I'll suggest, I wonder a short burst reward will drive this as hard as any MLM motivation. A short perhaps 1 year - 18 months time limit, will avoid unanticipated regret via compounding complexity etc; and will avoid new users resenting payments to a point they might just opt to start a new account and dodge that.
Lastly, I don't see why the reward for bringing new users could not be topped up from a delegate.. obviously, we want to avoid too much dilution and rewarding false accounts but where it is clear accounts were real and actively turning over transaction fees, the promoter who brought them in could claim their reward relative to that, after a time. Afterall, delegates get their profit from the transactions, so I don't see why a delegate couldn't be assigned to support this effort and perhaps other marketing, whatever else is seen to be making a positive contribution - though I can't think of any better atm than attracting active users. Just need to find the right balance that makes the effort worthwhile and yet see the benefits flow into BitShares rather than simply into the pockets of ambitious marketing types who adopt BitShares only for that $"opportunity".
Ok so you mean the $20 signup fee? Wasn't that needed for the multi-tier plan? I think a signup fee would be a difficult sell. Why not just have the transaction fee system without the $20 up front.
I think purchase transaction volume will be a lot lower. 5 transactions per day is too high. Paypal users avg 26 transactions per year so at 1 penny it's 26 cents per year and over 20 yrs that's $5.20. Taking 60% of that is around $3 without taking into consideration time value of money. The incentive is not that great, but at least it's something.
The only way it could be leeched dry is if we use the delegate model you are suggesting which pays more in commissions than we take in in revenue.
I would suggest in promoting this, that the tone should be noting the principal motivation is all about promoting BitShares and attracting those who understand its potential and become active users themselves, rather than this being considered just "the next big thing" for marketeers to leech dry.
We want this to be seen as the next big thing. We want martketers to come from far and wide and use their skills promoting this because it is such a good opportunity. I dont understand peoples mentality that it will attract the wrong type of use. How can you be the wrong type of user of a currency?
Again I'll suggest, I wonder a short burst reward will drive this as hard as any MLM motivation. A short perhaps 1 year - 18 months time limit, will avoid unanticipated regret via compounding complexity etc; and will avoid new users resenting payments to a point they might just opt to start a new account and dodge that.
Users can't dodge anything. Transaction fees are the same whether you are referred by someone or not. the only difference is who gets them? 100% network or 40/60 network referrer.
Lastly, I don't see why the reward for bringing new users could not be topped up from a delegate.. obviously, we want to avoid too much dilution and rewarding false accounts but where it is clear accounts were real and actively turning over transaction fees, the promoter who brought them in could claim their reward relative to that, after a time. Afterall, delegates get their profit from the transactions, so I don't see why a delegate couldn't be assigned to support this effort and perhaps other marketing, whatever else is seen to be making a positive contribution - though I can't think of any better atm than attracting active users. Just need to find the right balance that makes the effort worthwhile and yet see the benefits flow into BitShares rather than simply into the pockets of ambitious marketing types who adopt BitShares only for that $"opportunity".
It would be abused and people would bleed the system dry.
Users can't dodge anything. Transaction fees are the same whether you are referred by someone or not. the only difference is who gets them? 100% network or 40/60 network referrer.
Lastly, I don't see why the reward for bringing new users could not be topped up from a delegate.. ...
It would be abused and people would bleed the system dry.
Ok so you mean the $20 signup fee? Wasn't that needed for the multi-tier plan? I think a signup fee would be a difficult sell. Why not just have the transaction fee system without the $20 up front.
I think purchase transaction volume will be a lot lower. 5 transactions per day is too high. Paypal users avg 26 transactions per year so at 1 penny it's 26 cents per year and over 20 yrs that's $5.20. Taking 60% of that is around $3 without taking into consideration time value of money. The incentive is not that great, but at least it's something.
20$ sign up fee or some variation of that is needed for all plans multi-tier or not. It is optional. You only pay it if you want to earn commissions. Otherwise normal process 0.5 bts for non commission earning TITAN account.
You are correct. The numbers are weak. Thanks for the Paypal stat. I wouldn't bother signing up for this, even though I intend to do the work anyway for ideological reasons. Hardly motivational for people to treat it as a business opportunity.
I would suggest a simplified and softened version with no protocol level enforcement.
Currently the minimum fee is 0.1 BTS and the default is 0.5. Some of the light wallets are already boosting this fee slightly to pay for their development. I suggest that some wallets could support defaulting to add an additional 0.1-0.5 BTS fee for every transaction, payed to the account that payed the registration fee for that wallet installations first account. The idea here is that our grassroots marketers introduce people to BitShares, set up their wallets and register them, and receive transaction fees until the new user either stops using the network or changes the default settings.
This way there's no controversial protocol level enforcement pushed by the network as a whole, and marketers are incentivized to get legitimate users, because they're only rewarded if the user transacts.
I dont mind this option... Its a lot safer but a lot less powerful for a bunch of reasons. But I am confused by this term "legitimate users" What is a legitimate bitUSD user if it is not someone who holds bitUSD. Earns interest on bitUSD. Receives his income in bitUSD. Purchasers products with bitUSD, and trades in and out of bitUSD for fiat with his network of fellow bitUSD holders? I don't think it gets any more legitimate than that.
An interesting mental exercise. Imagine John Q Public clones bitshares and builds bitsharesMLM. He honors 100% bitshares holders so you have the same stake. He has a built in marketing system as described in the OP and limits the number of 100% delegates to 5 as that is ample to support the tech requirements of the chain. which chain are you more excited about?
Ok so you mean the $20 signup fee? Wasn't that needed for the multi-tier plan? I think a signup fee would be a difficult sell. Why not just have the transaction fee system without the $20 up front.
I think purchase transaction volume will be a lot lower. 5 transactions per day is too high. Paypal users avg 26 transactions per year so at 1 penny it's 26 cents per year and over 20 yrs that's $5.20. Taking 60% of that is around $3 without taking into consideration time value of money. The incentive is not that great, but at least it's something.
20$ sign up fee or some variation of that is needed for all plans multi-tier or not. It is optional. You only pay it if you want to earn commissions. Otherwise normal process 0.5 bts for non commission earning TITAN account.
You are correct. The numbers are weak. Thanks for the Paypal stat. I wouldn't bother signing up for this, even though I intend to do the work anyway for ideological reasons. Hardly motivational for people to treat it as a business opportunity.
Exactly, by legitimate users I meant not just signups that are recorded and forgotten, but people who actually use BitAssets and the network and thus occasionally generate fees for the network and their referrer.
The only way it could be leeched dry is if we use the delegate model you are suggesting which pays more in commissions than we take in in revenue.
I would suggest in promoting this, that the tone should be noting the principal motivation is all about promoting BitShares and attracting those who understand its potential and become active users themselves, rather than this being considered just "the next big thing" for marketeers to leech dry.
We want this to be seen as the next big thing. We want martketers to come from far and wide and use their skills promoting this because it is such a good opportunity. I dont understand peoples mentality that it will attract the wrong type of use. How can you be the wrong type of user of a currency?
A single tier implementation is a great way to test the waters.
I think the $20 fee was perhaps just a round number - some calcs might be helpful in determining a number with an attractive ROI.
If, and I say if, the single tier program is successful and the PR is not a nightmare, a multi-tier system could be floated.
Or perhaps the single tier and 1.0/gateways gets BTS over the hump and we don't mess with it further.
Bottom line is that BTS needs marketing badly and this is a great way to leverage to the BTS tech to market itself.
Max I love your input and enthusiasm for this concept and this "brainstorming" session, led by you, has brought up many good points.
Are you now saying that under a 1 tiered system it would not motivate anyone? The big affiliate marketers that you wrote about would no longer be interested? As part of the "white paper" some more number crunching with realistic figures and examples needs to be done.
Max I love your input and enthusiasm for this concept and this "brainstorming" session, led by you, has brought up many good points.
Are you now saying that under a 1 tiered system it would not motivate anyone? The big affiliate marketers that you wrote about would no longer be interested? As part of the "white paper" some more number crunching with realistic figures and examples needs to be done.
Yes number crunching is key. Can we make it enough to be motivating enough for people who dont care about bitshares to act? that is the question Multi tier or single tier does not change the payout. It not more or less attractive. Just more or less attractive to different people. As a business we would decide. eg: we could say lets 60% of the fees we are already collecting for referrals. We then design a compensation plan that incentivizes the best behavior. For example, we go just one tier. This appeals to internet marketer types I would imagine. Perhaps email your mailing list. But they will have little incentive to teach people about the business. Only the product. (of course the $12 compared to maybe money in the future is pretty big incentive but compared to...) A multi tier system, still paying out a total of 60% of fees, pays 50% to the first tier, 7% to the 2nd tier and 3% to the 3rd tier. Now an affiliate is motivated (moreso) to teach his underlings about the business opportunity. He is motivated to train them in the best approaches he has discovered, etc... It becomes a very nurturing environment. Once again I am not longer advocating multi tier. I just want to impress upon everybody that we get to incentivize whatever behavior we want. We design what gets rewarded and what does not.
Thanks to the TITAN system this is now possible. I am convinced that the first chain to include an internal compensation plan that is motivating enough for people to act will crush it. Can we come up with it or will someone else?
Max I love your input and enthusiasm for this concept and this "brainstorming" session, led by you, has brought up many good points.
Are you now saying that under a 1 tiered system it would not motivate anyone? The big affiliate marketers that you wrote about would no longer be interested? As part of the "white paper" some more number crunching with realistic figures and examples needs to be done.
Yes number crunching is key. Can we make it enough to be motivating enough for people who dont care about bitshares to act? that is the question Multi tier or single tier does not change the payout. It not more or less attractive. Just more or less attractive to different people. As a business we would decide. eg: we could say lets 60% of the fees we are already collecting for referrals. We then design a compensation plan that incentivizes the best behavior. For example, we go just one tier. This appeals to internet marketer types I would imagine. Perhaps email your mailing list. But they will have little incentive to teach people about the business. Only the product. (of course the $12 compared to maybe money in the future is pretty big incentive but compared to...) A multi tier system, still paying out a total of 60% of fees, pays 50% to the first tier, 7% to the 2nd tier and 3% to the 3rd tier. Now an affiliate is motivated (moreso) to teach his underlings about the business opportunity. He is motivated to train them in the best approaches he has discovered, etc... It becomes a very nurturing environment. Once again I am not longer advocating multi tier. I just want to impress upon everybody that we get to incentivize whatever behavior we want. We design what gets rewarded and what does not.
Thanks to the TITAN system this is now possible. I am convinced that the first chain to include an internal compensation plan that is motivating enough for people to act will crush it. Can we come up with it or will someone else?
I wholly agree, but also am in no way interested personally in a 20 year span for incentives like this.
It really is about as far away from the original philosophy that built DPoS
and there is no reason I can see why we shouldn't have a little more patience with the organic growth taking place right now.
feel like maybe a delegate instead of the contract would be something that helps incentivize something less than 20 years on your end and will make more of the people who shared the vision of DPOS a bit happier.Again I don't think this changes anything remotely core w/ DPoS.
I mean is it true you will receive nothing if bitshares' marketcap is t at least 160 mil in the next 14-16 months?... why not 250 mil, or 500 mil, or 2 mil, 10 mil, ... RndNum()
In my opinion we should all be working off the same incentive structure or it is going to unnecessarily divide the efforts of people already working on the project.
I'm strongly interested in bitshares remaining based in the philosophy of grass roots while we get merchants to sign on and feel that sadly this contract was constructed without the knowledge or input of the community.
The idea is, that nothing changes for people who don't care for it. You don't have to participate at all, and bts as you know it will continue w/ the exact same function that you know and love. This is simply a referral mechanism.interesting. "Eliminate the need to pay any marketing delegates through dilution." <---this says otherwise in my mind and I know of people who are considered marketing delegates who are doing some pretty cool stuff. Robrigo and Matt608 come to mind at present, who run local meetup groups. BitScape and Roadscape who are currently on the Peer-to-Peer road trip to make a BitShares MiniDocumentary. Are you saying that Eliminating the need to pay these people would change nothing?
A factory owner in say China says to his workers…. From now on I am paying you all in bitCNY. I have purchased a bitshres ATM and placed it in the lobby so everyone can redeem their pay for cash when ever they want. The factory owner makes money on the ATM spreads, and the fees generated by his employees for 20 years, but that that will take too long. He holds a meeting for his employees and explains the Earner status option. His profits from the signups pay for the ATM in the first week and he now has an army of employees who are out introducing bitshares to local merchants so they can spend their wages their and so they can earn commissions.I don't understand why you think my opinion is theatrical, but you are welcome to your opinion! Forcing people to use bitCNY feels a little bit like a departure from voluntarily usage.Quotehow? it doesn't change anything about DPoS. Saying it "is as far away from the original philosophy" is quite theatrical.
Wait for what? This is about as grassroots/organic as you can get. To me, saying that, is the equivalent of saying don't build a bitshares website because we want to wait for some grassroots, or don't tell your neighbors about bitshares because we're waiting on grassroots, don't do meetups or advertise yet... just wait for the grassroots.See above. Like Max said, he invites open discussion! Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean it is right. It also doesn't mean I'm going to be afraid to state it. I'd rather state it and be wrong than not state it and be right---my history in BitShares has taught me that lesson more than once now. My primary concern is the incentive for Large Organizations like mentioned above forcing people to use our system so they can get a cut for 20 years. This just screams at me *danger*
Again I don't think this changes anything remotely core w/ DPoS.I have thrown some numbers around (but you have ignored them for some reason...can i ask why?) 3-5 years seems to be plenty.
I don't think the delegate is necessary.
The 20 years can be debated, throw some numbers around, see what happens. Someone mentioned perhaps a $1 per year up to $20 for 20 years, I thought that was interesting.
... why not 250 mil, or 500 mil, or 2 mil, 10 mil, ... RndNum()Max's contract is that he gets a % of BitShare's marketcap increases everytime the marketcap doubles. Unfortunately, when Max signed this contract our marketcap was probably somewhere around 60 million, which would mean that he will only get paid when BitShares' marketcap is 120 million. @Max if this is incorrect please let me know.
I don't think this divides anyone working on the project over incentives. Nobody would be forced to use it. Everyone could use it if they so desired. How is that dividing.If Max has a contract like the one above, and other delegates are marketing BitShares based off of a completely different incentive structure...it necessarily changes the dynamics so Max has to consider options that are quite a bit more controversial than the marketing delegates do. This in my mind actually puts Max in a worse position than those running delegates without contracts like Max's. If you have two people doing the same job with completely different incentives, I don't see how there can be complete harmony. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to suggestions...
We all have access to the same platform, we are all able to do anything any other user is able to. The incentives are the same for everyone. (with the exception of someone who simply does not have access to that kind of start-up capital [$20] ) This is like saying adding a mail client in bitshares unnecessarily divides the community because we should all use the memo field and wall burn to keep us all on the same page.
This is as grass roots as it gets. Nothing will happen if nobody decides to use it.I am not altogether against this and it is awesome Max is the kind of person who is open to hearing opinions. I am actually giving them in hopes of trying to help all parties walk away happy. My biggest concern is the idea that someone should earn tx fees from a person for 20 years if they referred them. That is a very very long time. Of course, Max's point here is pretty valid:
No reason to stop getting merchants to sign on, keep doing that.
"constructed without the knowledge or input of the community" -- This is nothing official, its just an idea. We are here now talking about it in the "community"... Welcome.
You put a pile of bananas in the middle of the room the monkeys will grab for them.. you could create a lot of excitement off the back of it. What's to lose?,and Solavei's model:
You don't eliminate marketing delegatesQuoteThe idea is, that nothing changes for people who don't care for it. You don't have to participate at all, and bts as you know it will continue w/ the exact same function that you know and love. This is simply a referral mechanism.interesting. "Eliminate the need to pay any marketing delegates through dilution." <---this says otherwise in my mind and I know of people who are considered marketing delegates who are doing some pretty cool stuff. Robrigo and Matt608 come to mind at present, who run local meetup groups. BitScape and Roadscape who are currently on the Peer-to-Peer road trip to make a BitShares MiniDocumentary. Are you saying that Eliminating the need to pay these people would change nothing?
Forcing people to use bitCNY feels a little bit like a departure from voluntarily usage.
Should I not post my concerns here?
My primary concern is the incentive for Large Organizations like mentioned above forcing people to use our system so they can get a cut for 20 years. This just screams at me *danger*
I have thrown some numbers around (but you have ignored them for some reason...can i ask why?) 3-5 years seems to be plenty.
If Max has a contract like the one above, and other delegates are marketing BitShares based off of a completely different incentive structure...it necessarily changes the dynamics so Max has to consider options that are quite a bit more controversial than the marketing delegates do. This in my mind actually puts Max in a worse position than those running delegates without contracts like Max's. If you have two people doing the same job with completely different incentives, I don't see how there can be complete harmony. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to suggestions...
It's perhaps worth noting, any reward, whether it's from transaction fees or from a delegate, will have have the same effect on BTS value.. it's a dilution. Perhaps it's a small one but the math needs to be considered.
I find the OP to be a great idea. Do it!
or we can continue this way...
(http://i.imgur.com/tVr9uOy.jpg)
I find the OP to be a great idea. Do it!
or we can continue this way...
(http://i.imgur.com/tVr9uOy.jpg)
Agreed. You can't expect new users to just come rushing in because they too "believe" in the cause. Just doesn't work that way. Waiting for the organic growth to just kind of happen without some sort of catalyst to spark it is a surefire path to niche obscurity.
The question perhaps then should be considered more simply as: how much is a new user worth?
I also remember we toyed around with the idea of issuing bitAssets to new users. I think everyone knows there is an atomic bomb strategy lying around here somewhere, we just need to get it right.
The question perhaps then should be considered more simply as: how much is a new user worth?
Time to review this old thread :)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0
Yes... this would be game changing... yes... inflation in this case would yield a net gain for shareholders.
Suppose we already were good friends with people offering such a pre-paid card?
Suppose these friends already owned a large percentage of BTSX?
:o
It's perhaps worth noting, any reward, whether it's from transaction fees or from a delegate, will have have the same effect on BTS value.. it's a dilution. Perhaps it's a small one but the math needs to be considered.
Transactions fees are not dilution. They are the opposite of dilution.
...all it will take is a big disruption in the financial system (which is definitely coming) and to be there with a solid product and everything we already have in place will be there to catch the influx.
How is it the opposite?.. Transaction fees that would be otherwise be burnt, are instead paid to the promoter;
Let's not forget the basics: the main point of BitShares are bit-assets.
There is no real demand for BitShares because there is not real demand for bit-assets. And there is no real demand for bit-assets because at this stage there is not much I can do with them - all I can use bit-assets for is to hedge my BitShares investment.
There would be demand for bit-assets if only this little detail was true: an easy conversion from fiat to bit-assets (and back) without paying huge spreads.
So let's do our homework and concentrate our efforts to make the product useful before we try to figure out the best way of selling it.
Otherwise we'll end up with a new wave of disappointed users asking the same question: it's an amazing technology but what can I use it for?
I like being able to go back and forth between a wide variety of assets as they cycle against each other in the market.
I can switch between BTS, BTC, Gold, Silver, CNY, EUR, and USD for about a penny in ten seconds as often as I like.
I can also create my own basket of currencies and adjust the mix as often as I like for pennies.
And I never encounter the delays, costs and risks of passing through fiat space.
Where else can you do that?
Let's not forget the basics: the main point of BitShares are bit-assets.
There is no real demand for BitShares because there is not real demand for bit-assets. And there is no real demand for bit-assets because at this stage there is not much I can do with them - all I can use bit-assets for is to hedge my BitShares investment.
There would be demand for bit-assets if only this little detail was true: an easy conversion from fiat to bit-assets (and back) without paying huge spreads.
So let's do our homework and concentrate our efforts to make the product useful before we try to figure out the best way of selling it.
Otherwise we'll end up with a new wave of disappointed users asking the same question: it's an amazing technology but what can I use it for?
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mlm-company-promoting-bitcoinfuelcoin-sets-april-1-release-date/ (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mlm-company-promoting-bitcoinfuelcoin-sets-april-1-release-date/)
The strategy is to convert U.S. dollars into bitcoin, then convert bitcoin into FuelCoin. Members then expose the opportunity to their own networks.
One obstacle with referral systems is identity verification to prevent fake accounts. I would use Facebook and start referral programs in developed nations to test and create some kind of real person detection algorithm that checks identity and stores info in a secure DB to ensure privacy and keep track of referrals. There should be a way of detecting fake accounts without any manual intervention right? You can make the algorithm strict and any false-positive fake would require verification from another network like LinkedIn (have to be the same name) and Google+. Facebook would be the main one.
Maybe you can cap referrals to a certain # per month per person and track transactions over time to see referral quality and those with good activity from referred accounts could have their referral caps increased and any fake accounts detected would have a certain magnitude of negative impact (let's say 5x)? So for every bad account detected you would need 5 new accounts to make up for it. The cost for a fake account just has to be greater than the ease of creating one. You can use transaction fees as part of the residual referral income.
You can also punish a branch of a bad referral tree to prevent someone from trying to pyramind off a fake account. Anyways just some thoughts.
One obstacle with referral systems is identity verification to prevent fake accounts. I would use Facebook and start referral programs in developed nations to test and create some kind of real person detection algorithm that checks identity and stores info in a secure DB to ensure privacy and keep track of referrals. There should be a way of detecting fake accounts without any manual intervention right? You can make the algorithm strict and any false-positive fake would require verification from another network like LinkedIn (have to be the same name) and Google+. Facebook would be the main one.
Maybe you can cap referrals to a certain # per month per person and track transactions over time to see referral quality and those with good activity from referred accounts could have their referral caps increased and any fake accounts detected would have a certain magnitude of negative impact (let's say 5x)? So for every bad account detected you would need 5 new accounts to make up for it. The cost for a fake account just has to be greater than the ease of creating one. You can use transaction fees as part of the residual referral income.
You can also punish a branch of a bad referral tree to prevent someone from trying to pyramind off a fake account. Anyways just some thoughts.
We shouldn't need to detect fake accounts if we are using transaction fees as referral rewards.
some more stats: http://bitsharesblocks.com/charts/accounts
Unique accounts: 6882
organic growth is literally not happening, around 300 "unique accs" in 30 days.
Once we are closer to 1.0, it might be worth being more ambitious and not looking for individuals but companies to invest. Get one major bank interested and we're done... but in the UK at least that will be end of this year and next, what with UK.gov timeline.