目前暂时手动服务，手续费千五，欢迎惠顾。http://transwiser.com/

The "1 BTS for transfer" idea comes from the discussion on BSIP#10(persent based transfer fee) in China community.

The budget for working on implementing BSIP#10 is at least 3M BTS, on the other hand, currently the average daily transfer volume is about 300, then each day the network get 300*30*20% = 1800 BTS for transfer, which means based on current transfer volume level it will cost 4.5 years for network to get back the 3M fund.

Then what sense does it make to do such a change? considering the solution is not perfect with some uncertainty.

You may say that after BSIP#10 being implemented we can set a big max limit for smartcoin transfer. but do you mean the shareholders are funding a project in order to being charged more?

You may say that after BSIP#10 being implemented the transfer volume will grow greatly. if that's true, then just lowering the transfer fee to lowest will also lead to great volume growing, without paying for development.

With the discussion going deeper, finally we reach some conclusion:

1.The core idea is, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient and attractive and cheap platform, meanwhile provide chance and tools for every player here to make money.

2.Keeping high transfer fee and meanwhile putting much fund on refining the fee structure is the wrong way, we should move to the right way -  go back to the global lowest tranfer fee scheme.

3.The referral program does not fit Bitshares, we need to eliminate its bad effect.

There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.

Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.

The other more serious effect of referral program + high fee policy is that it hurt Bitshares' reputation. now in China blockchain/cryptocurrency community, Bitshares is tagged with "greed and uncertainty", it's  difficult to ask one team to do some BTS relevant business. The policy also conflict with the opensource culture.

The most valuable asset we should cherish is the support and trust from the community, if we neglect the feeling of investors and new users but enjoy calculating the thousands BTS of transfer fees everyday. we are picking little but losing big, be friendly to the investors and new users and they will ruturn more.

When I wrote this there are 1,061,001,603 BTS in reserve pool, these money can support a little team several years. we should not worry too much on the "who maintain and develop" question.

Yes, maybe current Bitshares referral program work in some region under some special scenarios, but I haven't saw it work, meanwhile I saw it hurt a big group, so here the point is, we should split the fundamantal service and the upper layer application, the fundamantal service is global and basic and should be cheap enough - yes, transfer of everything and some other basic services are defined as fundamantal service here. on the other hand, deposit/withdraw, FBA, UIA, privatized smartcoin business and more customized service should be defined as upper layer applications, gateways and business partners should develop business and make profits with these upper layer applications,they will compete with each other and the best service provider will make most profit. Then under this fundamantal-upper layer infrastructure every player can play freely and design business model by themselves without disturbing each other.   

So I am considring to create a committee proposal -surely following the defined process- to set the transfer fee to 1 BTS, a simple solution to end the long time debate and open a new start.

Here I raise this poll to collect opinion from community. please let me know how you think.

I know that jakub, xeroc and abit has worked a lot for BSIP#10 and now it's on halfway, if my "1 BTS for transfer" proposal can be approved later, their time will be wasted. I am sorry on this but I believe I am doing the right thing, as from the discussion in the community I don't think BSIP#10 will lead to a satisfactory consequence.

Change or not? Let voting decide.

force settlement is a good feature for smartcoin, if the parameters can be set well.

for the offset percent,
0% is too low to eliminate the premium/make exact pegging possible.
2% is too high to stimulate more liquidity.

so now we decided to set it to 1% for TCNY, hope this can bring more liquidity and meanwhile give shorters enough protection.

further adjustments are still possible in the future based on observation and review.

"options": {
      "feed_lifetime_sec": 21600,
      "minimum_feeds": 3,
      "force_settlement_delay_sec": 86400,
      "force_settlement_offset_percent": 100,
      "maximum_force_settlement_volume": 200,
      "short_backing_asset": "1.3.0",
      "extensions": []
    },


just want to collect opinion from community on this topic.

we need to encourage competent people to work as committee member, to work as a committee member is not easy, you need to do a lot of analysis, discussion, you also need to interact with public, work should be paid, then more competent people would like to join and make the committee more efficient.

if being committee member can get revenue, then candidates have incentive to promote BTS to get more supporters,this will help the marketing and eliminate the voting apathy.

in my view the salary should not be high, in my intuition, maybe 5000 BTS/day for one member is ok.

any thoughts?

I believe there is big bug in the GUI asset update page.
today I found that 2 parameters of TCNY have been changed:

issuer_permissions: old:511 new:79
flag:old:128 new:0

after some checking I found what make this happen, in 23th Dec, I operate in GUI to change the owner of TCNY, after doing that, the unexpected change happened.

this can be proved with a test with no confirmation on TUSD, after changing the description and clicking update asset, below pop up:



issuer_permissions and flag are changed to 79 and 0.

this is big bug and may cause big issue, hope everyone be aware of this and this can be fixed asap.

now seems TCNY get unexpected change:

disabled force setting
disabled global force setting by issuer.
disabled confidential transactions
not allow witness/committee members to provide feeds

the worst is that all these features can not be enabled once disabled.

this is really a tragedy for TCNY. , I need to consider how to handle it.
any suggestions?

we now have voting in Bitshares 2.0, this made the platform far more decentralized than 1.0 stage.
but it is still too centralized, one important reason is the voting rule for committee members, as each account can vote as many committee members as he/she like, a person with 5% BTS can easily control the committee.
if we need real decentralization, we need to change this, I propose to restrict that one account can only vote at most 3 committee members.this will bring more decentralization and prevent dictatorship.
any thoughts?
I will prepare a BSIP issue if this get positive feedback from community.

referral program is always in big debate, and how to handle it is an important topic for the community, this is just a survey, could  you please express your opinion on this and explain a little detailed if possible?