Quote from: bitcrab on January 30, 2016, 09:30:16 am

the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.

How the f*ck would you know? Or.... the referral program is not welcomed by YOU?
 
Get real. Go out, hit the streets, take an honest poll of the Chinese people en masse. Ask them if they would like to receive $50 for every lifetime member that they sign up. Go to a college campus and have some kids go out and canvas with you.
 
Get out there in the real world and see how many people you can talk to about Bitshares, get them excited, start a Meetup group, show them the mobile wallet, send them 100 BTS, get them signed up on ccedk.com or OL, shake some hands, encourage others to do the same.
 
Your hubris far outweighs my ability to describe it.

frankly speaking, what described above is something I really worry.

I am not saying that the current Bitshares referral program is pyramid scheme, but under some condition it may become something which is not very far from that.

set transfer fee to a level several times the reasonable level.
then "force" users to prepay and motivate them to refer others to prepay.

"create pain which does not exist before and force users to prepay to lessen the pain" - what I want to say is that this model is not welcomed in China BTS community.
I am not against referral program generally, but I don't think the current Bitshares referral program is healthy enough,  some improvement is necessary. we need a model like "make users feel comfortable for the fundamental service and attract them to pay more for advanced features".

in China a lot pyramid scheme/ponzi trap occured in recent years, for example:
VPAL - a ponzi trap which has some link to ripple.
MMM - come from Russia and catched a lot of followers in China and India, make a lot of people lost money.

just today, it is announced that the "ezubao" is a ponzi trap.

so we need to keep a distance away from this kind of things. and should be careful to invite potential users to prepay.

this conclusion are based on China context, and it is why China community has a strong request for a "make users feel comfortable for the fundamental service and attract them to pay more for advanced features" model.






 

Quote from: xeroc on January 31, 2016, 12:07:00 am

Quote from: clayop on January 31, 2016, 12:04:49 am

We are now killing a very important business that are connected to enormous market, china. I'm really worried that bitcrab leaves BTS with his customers and human networks (exchanges, celebrities). He can, because he's a business guy. If he find more attractive market than BTS he will move.

Still, BitShares needs to please more than just bitcrab

Correct. But he's still important.

here I propose mainly as a representative of China community and a committee member,  not the founder of transwiser.
whether I am important is not important,  but it is important to face the problem and find a solution.

why there are always voice from China community to request transfer fee reduction, not because we like to make noise, but because the whole China community suffered from the high fee day after day.

now in this poll more than 50% voted 1 BTS or 0.1 BTS, this shows that even outside China there are many shareholders/users are not satisfactory with current transfer fee structure.

even I leave BTS the problem still exist.

Quote from: bitcrab on January 30, 2016, 02:25:58 pm

Quote from: xeroc on January 30, 2016, 02:09:58 pm

Quote from: bitcrab on January 30, 2016, 02:04:19 pm

Quote from: abit on January 30, 2016, 11:40:31 am

Quote from: bitcrab on January 30, 2016, 09:30:16 am

BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.

please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.

fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.

in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.

for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.

Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.

why need to compensate referral program?
the referral program + high fee cause a lot of old users leave, should referral program compensate the whole system?

Can you proof your claim?
The purpose of the referral program is to motivate business to attract new users. It never was the idea to pay the "whole system" (whatever you mean by it)

then do you mean because there is a referral program, so we cannot have a mode A?

It seems we are all very close and we can get this done with BSIP10.  What about something like this @bitcrab?
 
Mode A: 1 cent per transaction to the network (no incentive for referral program or membership)
Mode B: 1% per transaction, 1 cent minimum fee (example max. $1/$10/$20),  lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
Mode C: flat 20 cents per transaction, lifetime/annual members: 1 cent

In all three modes 1 cent goes to the network so it's fair and the network doesn't care which mode anyone selects.  Mode B & C adds an extra fee layer that all goes to referrals.

so that seems like: issuers can select to pay to referrers for marketing if they like, if they do not like, they can select not to hire them.
this solution is close to mine, I am ok with it, but I am not sure whether the businessmen will support this.

Quote from: bitcrab on January 30, 2016, 02:04:19 pm

Quote from: abit on January 30, 2016, 11:40:31 am

Quote from: bitcrab on January 30, 2016, 09:30:16 am

BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.

please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.

fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.

in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.

for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.

Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.

why need to compensate referral program?
the referral program + high fee cause a lot of old users leave, should referral program compensate the whole system?

Can you proof your claim?
The purpose of the referral program is to motivate business to attract new users. It never was the idea to pay the "whole system" (whatever you mean by it)

then do you mean because there is a referral program, so we cannot have a mode A?

Again, as usual, you ignore everyone else's points but your own. You are MY B*TCH, not the other way around, boy. Answer at least ONE question, and be sincere. Are you scared?
 

Quote from: bitcrab on January 30, 2016, 09:30:16 am

the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.

 
Obviously the referral program is not welcomed by YOU, but how EXACTLY, could you possibly know what the entire Chinese population wants?

if you keep on being so dirty and rude, I can only ignore you.

I am trying to understand.  You seem to be saying that you have a fundamental problem with the referral program.  Are there really not any similar systems in China?  There are so many in the United States.  Near my house there is a sporting association.  They have a pistol range, rifle range, skeet shooting, and trap.  Its open to the public at a certain price, but members get a greatly reduced rate.  So a day of shooting trap might cost me $40 as a member, but would cost a non member $120. 

Why do you think the Chinese community is not interested in attempting to earn through the referral program?  We have a member of our community draining fee pools 10bts at a time.  Surely the referral program is better than picking up pennies from the "give a penny leave a penny" tray. 

I also have a hard time reconciling the wish to prevent dilution, and the wish to reduce the earnings of the network.  The fees collected by the network help offset the dilution that we pay our witnesses and workers with.  The account upgrade fee is one of the most important. 

A quick count of upgrades shows 295 since launch, including 45 in the last month alone.  That is equivalent 900,000 bts spent in the last month on this one single operation.  Even if you assume that every upgrade was a newly registered account, and thus not referred by the committee that is 180,000 bts earned by the network in the last 30 days because 45 people found enough value in upgrading. 

In contrast at the current rate of about 200 transfers a day , and 30 bts per transfer it would take about 5 months to earn for the network what account upgrade earned in the last month.  I would really like to see more in depth fee information.  I wonder if cryptofresh has compiled any of that information

Before I could accept your proposal to remove the referral program from bts but keep it on bitassets, I would need to see some evidence that this would be best for the network.  I am open to the idea, but at this point I really don't see it.

edit.  spaced the content out to aid in reading.

I am not saying all the referral program do not work in China, I only said the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.

BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.

please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.

fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.

in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.

for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins. 





 

I now believe the debate on transfer fee come from the conflict of different business culture.

In China(maybe also in some other regions in the world), the current referral program is just a trouble maker, very few people are interested in playing as a referrer, on the otherside, the high fee brought by it make the old players unhappy and drive a lot potential new joiners away. even worse, the logic behind the referral program is not appreciated by the China blockchain/cryptocurrency community. the whole China BTS community are in pain because of this.

However, maybe the referral program really play a key role in BTS development in some other regions, maybe US and western europe? I am not sure, but from the feedback from the forum it seems so.

So now let's come back to the problem I have raised before: Is it possible that Bitshares become a platform that businessmen can develop their business of different types upon it with great convenience and without disturbing each other?

Now considering the transfer fee issue, referral program and also BSIP#10, I now propose a solution as below:

1. define 2 different mode on charging transfer fee.

mode A: only charge a resonable flat fee(1-5 BTS?), all the fee will go to network, and there are no difference in LTM and common user.

mode B: percent based fee, with defined min limit/max limit/percent parameters, the max limit can be defined as high as possible. and the fee will divided by network and referrer.

2. BTS will be applied mode A, issuers of other assets will decide which mode to apply. I suggest all the public smartcoins, including BitCNY, be applied mode B.

I feel this solution is possible to end the debate. however, this need some modification in BSIP#10, and need confirm from all sides.
China community hate dilution, but if most of the relevant people support the solution described above, I'll try to persuade China community to support BSIP#10.
because the implementation of BSIP#10 will cost more than 3 months, I'll suggest to reduce the transfer fee to a balanced level first(5-10 BTS) first, and then wait for BSIP#10 implementation. and then reduce the fee in A mode to the final reasonable level. 

any thoughts? @ccedk @kenCode @jakub @BunkerChain Labs @xeroc @abit @Akado @clayop @puppies

My understanding was that this is just another fee model that has to be
applied on a per asset basis. So once it is implemented (and hard
forked) the committee still needs to change the fee model for other
assets. For that reason it will not be applied for BTS because the
committee does not own the BTS asset, in contrast to the other
bitassets.

I find there is a root difference between their proposal and my expection: in their flat fee mode, there are still 80% go to referrer, and in my expectation, in flat mode, all the fee should go to network.
because I think of this in order to get some assets out of the influence of referral program, but they do their proposal in order to make referral program work better.

And you propose a 1 BTS fee for transfers?

check my last reply, generally speaking the value can be discussed inside the narrower reasonable fee area: 2-5 BTS.