0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: merockstar on June 11, 2015, 05:46:18 amQuote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 10, 2015, 07:08:49 pmDoes anybody here even know what ROI is?Can't tell if this is rhetorical or not, but it stands for Return on Investment, right?I think I'd like to see people using Primecoin for micro-transactions.No, ROI is French for KING
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 10, 2015, 07:08:49 pmDoes anybody here even know what ROI is?Can't tell if this is rhetorical or not, but it stands for Return on Investment, right?I think I'd like to see people using Primecoin for micro-transactions.
Does anybody here even know what ROI is?
Quote from: starspirit on June 11, 2015, 12:41:07 amQuote from: merivercap on June 11, 2015, 12:08:36 amQuote from: starspirit on June 10, 2015, 11:46:43 pmI'm still wondering how this affects market transactions. Efficient markets must accommodate micro transactions. What would this look like for buy and sell orders? What would be the impact on market-makers?And how do we deal with this...Quote from: monsterer on June 10, 2015, 07:15:25 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 10, 2015, 06:50:05 pmHow do you buy anything with a credit or debit card? They do the same. When a merchant sets up their systems to accept Bitshares they will know that there is a fee taken off what they receive, just the same as if they were accepting cards or paypal or pretty much anything else.Except that the fee will be different depending on the 'class' of user.Yeah I also forgot to mention microloans, microinvesting, microtrading in developing nations.Depending on the avg trade size 20 cents can be better or worse for traders. Typically Bitcoin exchanges charge 0.2% on each side and give a big discount for the maker. That means your avg trade size has to be $100 to equal the trading costs of an avg. Bitcoin exchange. At least the BitShares platform won't have counterparty risk. Yeah but its even worse for market-makers. On external exchanges, there is zero cost for setting, cancelling and moving orders, only for fills. In comparison, based on my current understanding, moving a single pair of bid/offer spread orders 100 times per day (to adjust to movements in the fair price of the asset) would cost $16 per day (net of cash backs if you're a lifetime member). I'm concerned about the economics of this, especially for privatised bitAsset issuers that wish to support their tokens.I also need to clarify what happens if a market-maker's wall is chewed at by lots of small orders (usually the case with market-making). Does that mean the market-maker experiences a fixed cost for each small fill? If so, this would give the market-maker a lot less control over cost than on external exchanges, and make it even less economic.Since it's price takers that have the control over their trade size, and market-makers are providing the efficiency in the market, would it be better to always put the combined fee on the price-taker?Also, allowing market-makers to place relative orders (that do not need constant changing on the network) would help a lot, though I know there have been past issues raised around the technical implementation of this.As another consideration, could the following be considered:- setting a percentage fee on market transactions, consistent with other exchanges- setting a lower fee on market transactions compared to other token transfersApologies if I am misunderstanding the intended application of these higher fees in market exchanges, but the efficient operation of the markets is critical to the entire success of bitShares. [Xeldal's comments also reflect the same concerns](bump)
Quote from: merivercap on June 11, 2015, 12:08:36 amQuote from: starspirit on June 10, 2015, 11:46:43 pmI'm still wondering how this affects market transactions. Efficient markets must accommodate micro transactions. What would this look like for buy and sell orders? What would be the impact on market-makers?And how do we deal with this...Quote from: monsterer on June 10, 2015, 07:15:25 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 10, 2015, 06:50:05 pmHow do you buy anything with a credit or debit card? They do the same. When a merchant sets up their systems to accept Bitshares they will know that there is a fee taken off what they receive, just the same as if they were accepting cards or paypal or pretty much anything else.Except that the fee will be different depending on the 'class' of user.Yeah I also forgot to mention microloans, microinvesting, microtrading in developing nations.Depending on the avg trade size 20 cents can be better or worse for traders. Typically Bitcoin exchanges charge 0.2% on each side and give a big discount for the maker. That means your avg trade size has to be $100 to equal the trading costs of an avg. Bitcoin exchange. At least the BitShares platform won't have counterparty risk. Yeah but its even worse for market-makers. On external exchanges, there is zero cost for setting, cancelling and moving orders, only for fills. In comparison, based on my current understanding, moving a single pair of bid/offer spread orders 100 times per day (to adjust to movements in the fair price of the asset) would cost $16 per day (net of cash backs if you're a lifetime member). I'm concerned about the economics of this, especially for privatised bitAsset issuers that wish to support their tokens.I also need to clarify what happens if a market-maker's wall is chewed at by lots of small orders (usually the case with market-making). Does that mean the market-maker experiences a fixed cost for each small fill? If so, this would give the market-maker a lot less control over cost than on external exchanges, and make it even less economic.Since it's price takers that have the control over their trade size, and market-makers are providing the efficiency in the market, would it be better to always put the combined fee on the price-taker?Also, allowing market-makers to place relative orders (that do not need constant changing on the network) would help a lot, though I know there have been past issues raised around the technical implementation of this.As another consideration, could the following be considered:- setting a percentage fee on market transactions, consistent with other exchanges- setting a lower fee on market transactions compared to other token transfersApologies if I am misunderstanding the intended application of these higher fees in market exchanges, but the efficient operation of the markets is critical to the entire success of bitShares. [Xeldal's comments also reflect the same concerns]
Quote from: starspirit on June 10, 2015, 11:46:43 pmI'm still wondering how this affects market transactions. Efficient markets must accommodate micro transactions. What would this look like for buy and sell orders? What would be the impact on market-makers?And how do we deal with this...Quote from: monsterer on June 10, 2015, 07:15:25 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 10, 2015, 06:50:05 pmHow do you buy anything with a credit or debit card? They do the same. When a merchant sets up their systems to accept Bitshares they will know that there is a fee taken off what they receive, just the same as if they were accepting cards or paypal or pretty much anything else.Except that the fee will be different depending on the 'class' of user.Yeah I also forgot to mention microloans, microinvesting, microtrading in developing nations.Depending on the avg trade size 20 cents can be better or worse for traders. Typically Bitcoin exchanges charge 0.2% on each side and give a big discount for the maker. That means your avg trade size has to be $100 to equal the trading costs of an avg. Bitcoin exchange. At least the BitShares platform won't have counterparty risk.
I'm still wondering how this affects market transactions. Efficient markets must accommodate micro transactions. What would this look like for buy and sell orders? What would be the impact on market-makers?And how do we deal with this...Quote from: monsterer on June 10, 2015, 07:15:25 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 10, 2015, 06:50:05 pmHow do you buy anything with a credit or debit card? They do the same. When a merchant sets up their systems to accept Bitshares they will know that there is a fee taken off what they receive, just the same as if they were accepting cards or paypal or pretty much anything else.Except that the fee will be different depending on the 'class' of user.
Quote from: profitofthegods on June 10, 2015, 06:50:05 pmHow do you buy anything with a credit or debit card? They do the same. When a merchant sets up their systems to accept Bitshares they will know that there is a fee taken off what they receive, just the same as if they were accepting cards or paypal or pretty much anything else.Except that the fee will be different depending on the 'class' of user.
How do you buy anything with a credit or debit card? They do the same. When a merchant sets up their systems to accept Bitshares they will know that there is a fee taken off what they receive, just the same as if they were accepting cards or paypal or pretty much anything else.
Transfer fees will be $0.20 (my proposal) but that doesn't mean ALL fees for ALL operations are the same.Market Orders can charge just $0.01 to place and then charge $0.20 when they get matched and be free to cancel. Account registration (for cheap names) can be just $0.01. I just wanted to throw that out there because many people seem to think there is only one "Transaction Fee", when in reality these are the fees that can be configured now:Code: [Select] uint32_t key_create_fee; ///< the cost to register a public key with the blockchain uint32_t account_create_fee; ///< the cost to register the cheapest non-free account uint32_t account_len8_fee; uint32_t account_len7_fee; uint32_t account_len6_fee; uint32_t account_len5_fee; uint32_t account_len4_fee; uint32_t account_len3_fee; uint32_t account_len2_fee; uint32_t account_premium_fee; ///< accounts with premium names; i.e. @ref is_cheap_name returns false uint32_t account_whitelist_fee; ///< the fee to whitelist an account uint32_t delegate_create_fee; ///< fixed fee for registering as a delegate; used to discourage frivioulous delegates uint32_t witness_withdraw_pay_fee; ///< fee for withdrawing witness pay uint32_t transfer_fee; ///< fee for transferring some asset uint32_t limit_order_fee; ///< fee for placing a limit order in the markets uint32_t short_order_fee; ///< fee for placing a short order in the markets uint32_t publish_feed_fee; ///< fee for publishing a price feed uint32_t asset_create_fee; ///< the cost to register the cheapest asset uint32_t asset_update_fee; ///< the cost to modify a registered asset uint32_t asset_issue_fee; ///< the cost to modify a registered asset uint32_t asset_fund_fee_pool_fee; ///< the cost to add funds to an asset's fee pool uint32_t asset_settle_fee; ///< the cost to trigger a forced settlement of a market-issued asset uint32_t market_fee; ///< a percentage charged on market orders uint32_t transaction_fee; ///< a base price for every transaction uint32_t data_fee; ///< a price per 1024 bytes of user data uint32_t signature_fee; ///< a surcharge on transactions with more than 2 signatures. uint32_t global_parameters_update_fee; ///< the cost to update the global parameters uint32_t membership_annual_fee; ///< the annual cost of a membership subscription uint32_t membership_lifetime_fee; ///< the cost to upgrade to a lifetime member uint32_t withdraw_permission_update_fee; ///< the cost to create/update a withdraw permission uint32_t create_bond_offer_fee; uint32_t cancel_bond_offer_fee; uint32_t accept_bond_offer_fee; uint32_t claim_bond_collateral_fee; uint32_t file_storage_fee_per_day; ///< the cost of leasing a file with 2^16 bytes for 1 day uint32_t vesting_balance_create_fee; uint32_t vesting_balance_withdraw_fee; uint32_t global_settle_fee; uint32_t worker_create_fee; ///< the cost to create a new worker uint32_t worker_delete_fee; ///< the cost to delete a worker
uint32_t key_create_fee; ///< the cost to register a public key with the blockchain uint32_t account_create_fee; ///< the cost to register the cheapest non-free account uint32_t account_len8_fee; uint32_t account_len7_fee; uint32_t account_len6_fee; uint32_t account_len5_fee; uint32_t account_len4_fee; uint32_t account_len3_fee; uint32_t account_len2_fee; uint32_t account_premium_fee; ///< accounts with premium names; i.e. @ref is_cheap_name returns false uint32_t account_whitelist_fee; ///< the fee to whitelist an account uint32_t delegate_create_fee; ///< fixed fee for registering as a delegate; used to discourage frivioulous delegates uint32_t witness_withdraw_pay_fee; ///< fee for withdrawing witness pay uint32_t transfer_fee; ///< fee for transferring some asset uint32_t limit_order_fee; ///< fee for placing a limit order in the markets uint32_t short_order_fee; ///< fee for placing a short order in the markets uint32_t publish_feed_fee; ///< fee for publishing a price feed uint32_t asset_create_fee; ///< the cost to register the cheapest asset uint32_t asset_update_fee; ///< the cost to modify a registered asset uint32_t asset_issue_fee; ///< the cost to modify a registered asset uint32_t asset_fund_fee_pool_fee; ///< the cost to add funds to an asset's fee pool uint32_t asset_settle_fee; ///< the cost to trigger a forced settlement of a market-issued asset uint32_t market_fee; ///< a percentage charged on market orders uint32_t transaction_fee; ///< a base price for every transaction uint32_t data_fee; ///< a price per 1024 bytes of user data uint32_t signature_fee; ///< a surcharge on transactions with more than 2 signatures. uint32_t global_parameters_update_fee; ///< the cost to update the global parameters uint32_t membership_annual_fee; ///< the annual cost of a membership subscription uint32_t membership_lifetime_fee; ///< the cost to upgrade to a lifetime member uint32_t withdraw_permission_update_fee; ///< the cost to create/update a withdraw permission uint32_t create_bond_offer_fee; uint32_t cancel_bond_offer_fee; uint32_t accept_bond_offer_fee; uint32_t claim_bond_collateral_fee; uint32_t file_storage_fee_per_day; ///< the cost of leasing a file with 2^16 bytes for 1 day uint32_t vesting_balance_create_fee; uint32_t vesting_balance_withdraw_fee; uint32_t global_settle_fee; uint32_t worker_create_fee; ///< the cost to create a new worker uint32_t worker_delete_fee; ///< the cost to delete a worker
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 10, 2015, 07:08:49 pmDoes anybody here even know what ROI is?Aye. This is the one thing I dew know. Rare Oral Infection. Tha commoners get it often in Winterfell.
"Radio on Internet"sorry, I just thought that Russ was around.
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 10, 2015, 07:08:49 pmDoes anybody here even know what ROI is?Rate of Insolvency?
if technical possible we should introduce "relativ" orders.what does i mean?i could place an order with the properties "buy bitUSD 0.2% above the feed price" the market maker just needs to place his order 1 time and not multiple times.
I'm still wondering how this affects market transactions. Efficient markets must accommodate micro transactions. What would this look like for buy and sell orders? What would be the impact on market-makers?
And how do we deal with this...Quote from: monsterer on June 10, 2015, 07:15:25 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 10, 2015, 06:50:05 pmHow do you buy anything with a credit or debit card? They do the same. When a merchant sets up their systems to accept Bitshares they will know that there is a fee taken off what they receive, just the same as if they were accepting cards or paypal or pretty much anything else.Except that the fee will be different depending on the 'class' of user.
Yeah I also forgot to mention microloans, microinvesting, microtrading in developing nations.Depending on the avg trade size 20 cents can be better or worse for traders. Typically Bitcoin exchanges charge 0.2% on each side and give a big discount for the maker. That means your avg trade size has to be $100 to equal the trading costs of an avg. Bitcoin exchange. At least the BitShares platform won't have counterparty risk.
Quote from: starspirit on June 10, 2015, 11:46:43 pmI'm still wondering how this affects market transactions. Efficient markets must accommodate micro transactions. What would this look like for buy and sell orders? What would be the impact on market-makers?And how do we deal with this...Quote from: monsterer on June 10, 2015, 07:15:25 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 10, 2015, 06:50:05 pmHow do you buy anything with a credit or debit card? They do the same. When a merchant sets up their systems to accept Bitshares they will know that there is a fee taken off what they receive, just the same as if they were accepting cards or paypal or pretty much anything else.Except that the fee will be different depending on the 'class' of user.My understanding is that the fee itself is not different. The difference is where the fee goes. Lifetime members receive 80% of the fees they pay back as loyalty rewards, similar to how many credit card reward programs operate. Subscription members get 50% of their fees, and basic users don't get anything back. Subscription and basic have some of their fees diverted to their recruiters, and everything else goes to back to the network pool out of circulation.
Has NOBODY here ever used Paypal??!! You guys who just use crypto are spoiled! https://www.paypal.com/al/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-receiving-fees-outsideThe transaction fees are $0.30 + % depending on if you are using your paypal balance or your credit card etc.Paypal will allow you to eat the transaction charge if it's going to a friend or family member.. but if its going to a merchant for a product or service.. the only choice is to pass it on to the merchant.I could have bought a house with the fees I have paid to paypal over the years.. merchants expect the same.. BitShares even in its highest fee is still +33% LESS!I think if this whole thing really becomes an issue.. I think a similar approach to having 'Merchant' user account class could help direct the fees with more control for the end user.Just a thought.
Ok... lets see some estimates: how many total "micropayments" need to be made before the cost of implementing support for them is covered?
Quote from: bytemaster on June 10, 2015, 04:52:06 pmIn the user interface, when the user says they want to send $100, the transaction that it will create will be a send $99 and pay $1 fee. The receiver will see "receive $100 and pay $1". How do you pay for anything at a store if you always send less than the amount you specify?However, if you provide an option to do both, you will confuse users. IMO better to stick to the original method.
In the user interface, when the user says they want to send $100, the transaction that it will create will be a send $99 and pay $1 fee. The receiver will see "receive $100 and pay $1".
as for micro transactions:wouldn't it be possible to charge a % fee for payments under 20 BTS? on the other hand, people could spam the chain to save fees...or give basic users 1 TX under 20 BTS for 1BTS fee per month?
Implement ACCT between Qora and Bitshares, then use Qora for micropayments, because its cheap and the transaction fee is low?
Quote from: liondani on June 10, 2015, 04:47:29 pmIf I sent to a basic account that has a balance of 20 bitUSD ,100 times 1 cent, will I empty his account?Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997DNo... "sender still pays". Look at it this way, if a merchant requests payment of $100 there are several options:User sends $100 and merchant receives $99User sends $101 and merchant receives $100 All that really matters is if the merchant is willing to accept $99 after fees as payment equal to $100. In the user interface, when the user says they want to send $100, the transaction that it will create will be a send $99 and pay $1 fee. The receiver will see "receive $100 and pay $1". So simply by changing how we interpret the input and display the output we can change the appearance of who is paying the fee. This is all MasterCard and VISA are doing.
If I sent to a basic account that has a balance of 20 bitUSD ,100 times 1 cent, will I empty his account?Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 09:49:19 pmMicropayments are very expensive for the network to process, especially when competing against real financial use cases.i would love if you can explain in a new post what does this really mean!
Micropayments are very expensive for the network to process, especially when competing against real financial use cases.
Apple is something completely different and surreal. It attracted millions of users on their second phase, because they sold a mp3 player with big storage. The good thing about it is that it did not look like a big hard drive, was "easy" to use and locked them into iTunes. Those locked in users were later on (with more money) marketing lure into the other iThings. Saying so the iPod with a touch screen was a good innovation.Back to costs, if I want to send some tokens to 200,000 (>1 cent value) to users that will cost a fortune, and they won't be happy if they have to pay for it. My idea was to reward for usage of an application.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 12:56:33 pmNot mentioned, but we plan on showing the receiver of the funds paying the fee rather than the sender. So it will work just like paypal.If that means I can buy something online without paying a transaction fee then That's a game-changer to meQuote from: favdesu on June 09, 2015, 12:57:33 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 12:55:19 pmWhy would somebody choose to use BitUSD and pay small but not insignificant fees, when they can use Paypal and pay zero fees?paypal 0 fees? that's news to meMerchants pay fees. Transferring balances between currencies incurs a fee. But spending money when shopping online from a regular account does not incur any fees. Same with debit cards - yes there are high fees, but the consumer never sees anything about them. To the card holder, making a purchase is free.I have no problem with fees being paid, I just think it should be the merchant and not the consumer who pays them.
Not mentioned, but we plan on showing the receiver of the funds paying the fee rather than the sender. So it will work just like paypal.
Quote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 12:55:19 pmWhy would somebody choose to use BitUSD and pay small but not insignificant fees, when they can use Paypal and pay zero fees?paypal 0 fees? that's news to me
Why would somebody choose to use BitUSD and pay small but not insignificant fees, when they can use Paypal and pay zero fees?
Quote from: Ander on June 09, 2015, 11:36:03 pmQuote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 09:49:19 pmMicropayments are very expensive for the network to process, especially when competing against real financial use cases.Micropayments: the reason why Dogecoin has a purpose.I think focusing on value instead of cost is a good idea so I think 20 cents may be fine, but can we just make it one cent for anything below $1? Micro-transactions are important for 1) the billions in developing nations 2) tipping & online content generators 3) music listeners. I think we get a much greater network effect if we accommodate people in those areas.FYI Dwolla dropped it's 25 cent charge: http://blog.dwolla.com/free-bank-transfers/Not that I think that's a good strategy, but it's interesting.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 09:49:19 pmMicropayments are very expensive for the network to process, especially when competing against real financial use cases.Micropayments: the reason why Dogecoin has a purpose.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 12:56:33 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 12:55:19 pmYou are comparing to Bitcoin, but things like BitUSD will never appeal to users of Bitcoin and shouldn't be trying to appeal to Bitcoin users. BitUSD should be an alternative to things like Paypal where the consumer doesn't pay any fee at all.Why would somebody choose to use BitUSD and pay small but not insignificant fees, when they can use Paypal and pay zero fees?Is it not possible to re-balance some of the fees towards merchants instead of consumers, eg by finding some way to force merchant checkouts accepting BitAssets to issue a pending transaction which is free to approve or deny and placing all the fees on issuing the transaction and none on approving or denying it, (as I suggested here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16794.msg214909.html#msg214909)?Not mentioned, but we plan on showing the receiver of the funds paying the fee rather than the sender. So it will work just like paypal.So the fee will be subtracted from the balance sent, rather than added on? This would make sense, and then the wallet could dsplay the fee as having been paid by the receiver.
Quote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 12:55:19 pmYou are comparing to Bitcoin, but things like BitUSD will never appeal to users of Bitcoin and shouldn't be trying to appeal to Bitcoin users. BitUSD should be an alternative to things like Paypal where the consumer doesn't pay any fee at all.Why would somebody choose to use BitUSD and pay small but not insignificant fees, when they can use Paypal and pay zero fees?Is it not possible to re-balance some of the fees towards merchants instead of consumers, eg by finding some way to force merchant checkouts accepting BitAssets to issue a pending transaction which is free to approve or deny and placing all the fees on issuing the transaction and none on approving or denying it, (as I suggested here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16794.msg214909.html#msg214909)?Not mentioned, but we plan on showing the receiver of the funds paying the fee rather than the sender. So it will work just like paypal.
You are comparing to Bitcoin, but things like BitUSD will never appeal to users of Bitcoin and shouldn't be trying to appeal to Bitcoin users. BitUSD should be an alternative to things like Paypal where the consumer doesn't pay any fee at all.Why would somebody choose to use BitUSD and pay small but not insignificant fees, when they can use Paypal and pay zero fees?Is it not possible to re-balance some of the fees towards merchants instead of consumers, eg by finding some way to force merchant checkouts accepting BitAssets to issue a pending transaction which is free to approve or deny and placing all the fees on issuing the transaction and none on approving or denying it, (as I suggested here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16794.msg214909.html#msg214909)?
The good thing about it is that it did not look like a big hard drive, was "easy" to use and locked them into iTunes.
I have seen quite a few posts concerned about the "high" transaction fees. I want to provide some perspective to show how these "fees" are actually quite "low".1. When dealing with a non-stable crypto-currency the "fee" of $0.04 is the least interesting part of the cost. And only applies when the two parties are both willing to remain "long" on BTC. Everyone who is simply using BTC as a payment vehicle rather than a speculative investment sees a fee equal to 2 * spread + volatility risk + 2*market fee + transfer fee. In other words, the "cost" to transfer 1000 stable dollars via BTC or any other crypto-token is easily 1-3% or about $10 to $30. 2. Imagine Lemonade cost just $0.01 in materials. Imagine there was one lemonade stand that charged $0.02 and could barely cover the cost of the table (aka server). The creators of this lemonade hope that low prices will help them dominate the beverage market. Now imagine an Ice Tea vendor opens up down the street with materials that cost $0.01. This Ice Tea vendor decides to charge $0.20 for a drink and offers its customers an opportunity to earn money by referring friends and coming up with creative advertising. Customers see an offer for $.20 and compare it to the Coke they are use to paying $0.40 for and conclude "what a deal", "tastes great, less fattening, half price!". The value of a refreshing drink is easily worth $0.40 and now they can get it for $0.20. So they switch to Ice Tea and happily pay $0.20. Ice Tea goes viral and gains the network effect while Lemonade waits and hopes people will discover their service.The thing to remember is that lower prices isn't always better. We provide a huge value to our users every time they make a transfer and while they are holding their money on the blockchain. The customers also benefit from the referral program because it means a large and growing network. So the customers must ask which they would rather have low transaction fees with poor network effect or high fees with larger network. Time and again the market has shown that customers are willing to pay more to be part of a larger network.
What about micro transactions? could that be a percentage? and bulk transactions, for example I want to send UIA tokens to many users in one transaction?
How about the Amazon Prime model. Pay a membership fee once per year and never pay a fee anything else that year.
. People use what others recommend.