Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 08, 2016, 09:44:22 pm

Also, we propose to implement this new fee schedule for LTM-only for a period of time, and offer it to basic members only later. This way, we effectively upgrade memberships into premium products. As more and more features are added to LTM, we may increase the account upgrading fee accordingly.

I think the fee schedule should be offered to all the members from the beginning, to make a distinction in offering time regarding core fee schedule will make the basic user feel even worse and is not good for attracting more new users.

Sorry I didn't get your point. Imo it's a good strategy that provide difference services to VIPs and normal users.

Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 10, 2016, 03:35:13 am

There is no extra cost for brokers to do larger trades today... that's why you don't see fee's associated with doing large trade sizes.  In bts there is also nothing different between trading 5bts vs 50,000,000bts.  The work required is the same.  Attempting to charge exorbitant fees for large transactions will be seen as a tax and it will drive traders away.  Their needs to be a ceiling on trading fee's if % based fees are implemented.  I have said before though that traders do not care if the fee is 1 cent or 1 dollar, that amount is minuscule and won't effect demand.  The problem arises when the fees start approach the triple digit mark for large trades and the double digit mark for smaller ones.

To Cubes question:  I could put a trade on in forex for 100 lots ($10,000 per lot = $1million) and not be charged any commision.  I would pay a decent amount for the spread (probably around $3000), but still no fee or maybe a very small commission.  I could also do this with only $50K as collateral, but lending is a story for another day.

Long story short:  Percentage based fee's may be helpful for low volume traders, but they are the death of the liquidity providers we desperately need.  A fee cap is absolutely essential.

I see you are referring to forex trading while I was talking about stock trading.

It makes sense for forex traders who typically trade more than $100,000 USD, not to mind a 1USD fee.  1USD for a 100K trade is after all a 0.001% fee.  I do not think they would not mind a 1USD fee if the trade is say $10.

I think it is important that we identify which market bts should go after - the forex trading market, the stock market or the crypto-trading market.  These markets have different attributes and fee structures.

I'm now very encouraged to make a per-asset or per-market fee schedule.
Bond markets need to have different fee structure than normal markets.
CFD markets have different fee schedule.
Margin trading charges different fee.
Stock market.
etc.

We'll evolve as time goes by.

The trading fee's portion of this proposal is terrible.

Percentage based fees or commissions are non existent in current trading.  Doing large orders is already a disadvantage, because much of the order book has to be chewed through to fill the order.  So the effective spread that the trader is experiencing is larger than what may be quoted.  Add on top of that a tax for doing a large order and I guarantee you we will attract 0 traders.

Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented.  There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell.  Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system.  The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit.  This effectively screws the trader twice though.

I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges.  Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms.  The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission.  This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.

Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares.  It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain.  Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away.  You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders.  Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.

Personally I agree with your opinion at some level.
I'd like to introduce a percentage-based "fill order fee" with a cap and a bottom for trading, which will perfectly solve the issue you described. In additional, if combines it with the 0 fee proposal, we'll have a ultimate product.

Quote from: agree on January 24, 2016, 02:42:42 am

那个严重制约发展的高手续费政策是不是考虑改一下？发起系统内投票决策吧？
，

高手续费没有任何问题，他可以减少BM增发的冲动，否则就会用增发来弥补。关键是BTS平台被BM作为实现其伟大实践的工具了，丝毫不考虑别人为了支撑他，所付出的代价，BM不考虑引入外部资金，只管炫耀自己的牛逼技术。要知道好平台不只有BTS，如果没人用，就等于没用！

手续费不是BM收了，所以BM增发冲动和手续费多少完全没有关系。
个人看法，不是BM考虑不考虑引入外部资金的问题，而是有没有能力引入资金的问题。

The basic idea is simple:
If you have X BTS (or smart coins which have real values) in you account for Y days, you can transfer for Z times for free, or trade W times for free. LTMs have more times than normal users.

Anyone who have interest to help design and/or implementation and/or write documents please leave a message here and do something. Actions/efforts in marketing are also appreciated.
Here is a list of documents needed:
* Feature specification
  * behavior details
  * parameters design
* Implementation details
  * data structure
  * algorithm
* Use cases / Test cases


Short-term Plan/Roadmap:
* create a BSIP proposal
* discuss on the BSIP proposal and improve it
* prepare for marketing
* in the mean while coding
* testing
* release

@SolomonSollarsNSense has given me 10,000 SolCERTS to distribute to hangout attendees and those who complete quests. 

However, when I get to the point when im going to send them to my Sharebits.IO account...it tries to charge me approx 29,000 SolCERTs.  There has been no market fee set...

That's transfer fee.
According to https://cryptofresh.com/a/SOLCERT, the exchange rate is: 0.00001 BTS/SOLCERT.
So a standard transfer fee of 30BTS = 3,000,000 SOLCERT. I'm curious why the GUI wanted to charge you 29,000.

Quote from: Bhuz on February 09, 2016, 11:04:14 am

from abit:
So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.

from you:
Yes, that's a very good summary.



from me:
Is it correct that the shareholders/network/committee would end up setting the basic/lower_limit fee, and each registrars would *add* another fee *on top of the basic one*?

from you:
That's correct.

I understood abit's intention was this: introduce the basic/lower_limit fee as a formal parameter but set it to zero, so that a registrar *can* sell AM for zero if she really wants to.
Without this option my whole concept does not make much sense.

If abit's intention was different, then I misunderstood it.

Anyway, my proposal stands as described in this BSIP draft.
Is it a problem for you that there is no lower limit below which AM cannot be sold?
I've tried to logically prove that this should not be an issue and no revenue will be lost.

Maybe there were misunderstandings.

I've never wanted to let registrars drive LTM or AM upgrading fee to zero. IMO the committee (read: the DAC, or the stake holders) should set a bottom ABOVE zero for LTM/AM upgrading.

Jakub: sorry, I haven't had time to read the detailed proposal, I will check it when have time.