All told CNX has spent about $60,000 developing the existing GUI.
In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.
We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash, and others by doubling their potential revenue by not having to license from CNX. This means higher referral rewards for users. Use for other blockchains would still be reserved to CNX.
We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year. This will avoid creating any downward sell pressure for the next year and I think would be widely supported by all of the major partners.
This is less than 30,000 BTS per day.
Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements. Just $90 per day.
This is a proposal for review.
I would vote for this proposal. IMO the sooner we open source the wallet software the better. Could be a huge draw for potential businesses. Out of curiosity, I wonder if someone could devise a way for the community to haggle your price?
Not so fast pinkie!
Let's see how much is left from the affiliate program after lowering the fees across the board, leaving only % fees on trading...and only trading fees on BTS it seems (so 50% and probably less of the trading volume). Leaving most of the people out of the desire for LM, and possibly even making it not profitable for traders to upgrade.
Giving up on 50% of revenue (of pretty much no revenue) in exchange for cash, in this case is like selling something worth [now] close to nothing as income stream for hard money. And it does not matter if it cost you 100K to produce it. If it offers no income stream, we are not paying your 100K just cause you incur that much expenses.
Alright Professor K, if your argument is that we should focus on cementing our income stream before we go spending money on other things, then I would agree in principal. However, we are talking about vesting the shares for a year, in exchange for a true "out of the box" platform for attracting other coders and businessmen to the ecosystem. Weren't you just complaining that Cryptonomex has too much of a monopoly in this regard?
As far as the trading & transfer fees, this is a separate issue. If you are asking for my opinion (I assume you are, since you brought it up), then I would say that transfer fees should stay the same as they are now. This includes all assets, Smart, UIA or Core. This has nothing to do with the exchange, and I am not sure why this got mixed up into the discussion. No centralized exchange (that I know of) allows users to transfer funds back and forth between each other, so we don't need to compete with them. As far as competing with other "cryptocurrencies", I would say that we are offering a premium platform, so we are justified to charge more premium fees. The only thing I think about transfer fees that I feel could be improved is the way that fee pools are funded, but I will leave that for another discussion.
Volume based fees on the other hand, IMO (contrary to proposal #2) should ALL pay out through referral program, whether they are SmartCoins or Core asset. Perhaps UIA volume fees can be exempt from this, because their market value is not always easy to determine, but volume fees on SmartCoins is potentially a huge income stream. Handing these fees to the committee members to spend as they see fit, regardless of whether voting is involved, is not the answer. At this time, I do not have the answer, I only have a feeling about what is NOT the answer. Usually I have to think about these things for awhile and I don't like going on about something unless I have an idea about the solution, but since you ask I am happy to share my unfinished thought process.