Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - merivercap

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 45
136
General Discussion / Re: Proposal - Permit non-LTMs to be referrers
« on: February 01, 2016, 11:58:20 pm »
This shouldn't require a proposal.  I just read the membership page on OL and the registrar can split the 50% fee between itself and affiliates.  I don't think OL is using the affiliate option right now? 

All you need to do is set up a wallet/faucet yourself to do that already.   You can set the split however you want, but if you are a faucet/wallet you have to create a wallet with a good user experience, host a witness node and if you get popular you have to pay cloud fees.

We plan to do a 0% registrar/ 50% affiliate split.  LTM's will get 30%.  LTM's will be able to get up to 80% and regular members 50%.

If we reduce network fees to 0%, LTM referrers can get 100%.   Hmm... in this scenario I would like affiliates to get 50% and LTMs 50%.   I'm all for supercharging the referral program. 

137
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 11:43:39 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 01, 2016, 07:48:10 pm
I've proposed to settle this debate by making the referral program fully optional.

Quote from: jakub on February 01, 2016, 11:41:29 am
We need to sort out these two:
- why does there need to be vesting on LTM?
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?

If both are unnecessary, they need to be removed.

*IF* the above is true, we effectively end up with a fully optional referral program which can satisfy every party involved:

- If you think the referral program is beneficial to your business: use it as it is now.
- If you think the referral program is hurting your business and you want to offer low transfer fees to your customers by default: offer LTM to your customers for free (i.e. while registering a new account for your customer, upgrade it to LTM by default)
- If you are somewhere in between: offer LTM to your customers at a discount (i.e. offer a partial refund of the LTM fee).

Simple. Am I missing something?

I agree that it should be fully optional.  If you are a faucet/LTM you can just pass referral income back to customers, but it will be more a 'cash-back' situation rather than an immediate low fee.  If you eliminate the network fee then you can upgrade all acounts to LTM by default.  The danger there is then everyone would get free LTM wherever it is offered and no one would pay anywhere else.  That's why a Mode A/B/C would work better.  If people chose Mode A they would still have to pay LTM to use other assets at low cost, not just CNY assets. 

 
Quote from: jakub on February 01, 2016, 08:29:07 pm
Quote from: xeroc on February 01, 2016, 07:58:32 pm
20% go to network .. ALWAYS.

@xeroc , would you agree that if you are my referrer and after while I want to pay you off and become my own referrer, it's a deal between me and you. Nobody else is involved or affected, the income stream for the network is not affected.
Why on earth should the network be allowed to take a 20% cut in this private deal between me and you?
Just because somebody said "20% always goes to network"? It does not make sense in this case.
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.

IMO, it's logical error made by BM and it should be fixed.
As well as this absurd (so it seems) LTM 90-day vesting.

The committee can change it to 0%/100%.  Vesting is unnecessary IMO.    We shouldn't be so loose with the word 'steal'.  The network can dictate what any of the fees are and for whatever purpose and most everyone here is a shareholder.    I think the original intent was to reimburse the network for the discounted fees for LTM members.  Instead of 20cents, LTM's pay 4 cents to the network so it was a way to recoup the difference.  However since the network ultimately controls basic network costs, I always thought it was unnecessary and we could create better incentives without it.   

Just reading the Membership page on OL right now.  50% is split between affiliate and Registrar.  I guess the annual membership is no longer available?  Hmm.. I thought that was originally a good idea. $20 is an easier sell for membership than $100.  Can we implement the annual membership? (We can just make annual members have the same low fees for a year to make it simple?) 

If the committee votes to move the network fee down to 0%, I guess the registrar/faucet decides how to split it up with affiliates.   We'll probably create a faucet that takes 0%, but we have to check to see if the referral account is a LTM member.  If not we'll probably put ourselves as LTM.  The rest of the 50% will go to the affiliate in the current setup.  If we move the network fee to 0% we can move 70% to the affiliate and 30% to LTM.  Hence if an LTM is the referrer he can get 100%. 

Bitcash setup:
20% network fee
30% LTM user referrer
50% affiliate referrer

If network fee is changed to 0%:
0% network fee
30% LTM user referrer
70% affiliate referrer

I think that's the way it would work. 

138
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:34:56 pm »
Quote from: puppies on February 01, 2016, 06:44:57 pm
Quote from: merivercap on February 01, 2016, 06:17:16 pm
Quote from: xeroc on February 01, 2016, 05:16:53 pm
A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's

What do you mean by that?  Shouldn't 90%+ of businesses depend on the referral program?  All the blog/affiliate/marketing businesses should be the largest in number and should be the main focus for user growth.

Also we're a wallet/gateway business.  We can produce a great product, but we can't charge a fee on top of the network fee.  We can charge a monthly software-as-a-service (SaaS) fee, but that limits options.  (The easiest way is probably just to allow any business to add a fee on top of a basic network fee for any asset on the network.)   The referral revenue is actually a proxy for income.  We can take our product and sell it to people and merchants who are willing to pay 1% per tx.  However that entire 1% would normally go to the network the way it's set up and if we didn't have a referral program, but that doesn't make sense for any business.  Normally a network platform might charge 0.2% and the business would profit 0.8%.  Businesses should be able to charge as low as .21% and as high as 3%.  The whole Mode A/B/C options is a roundabout way of achieving this flexibility.   One way is probably just to allow businesses to add an extra fee layer on top of all assets (privatized/public Smartcoins, FBAs, UIAs)... might be complicated to link accounts to assets to add a fee layer, so right now the referral income is a sufficient proxy.

Since you are operating a wallet you can require whatever fee you want.  This can be over and above the fee required by the network. 

Lets say a user is making a transfer.  The user is non LTM and you are the referrer.  When your wallet builds the transaction it can add 30BTS rather than the 3bts required by the network.  In that case the network would take 6bts, and 24 bts would go to the referrer of the user. 

Hope that makes sense.

Hmm.  That makes sense.  Thanks.   I guess you can  build extra fees into the wallet and I guess any business can do that for any type of business (ie. exchange) as you described.  It's still a model that's influenced by the referral model at the moment.   It's ok for us since all the income we would have made would be poured back into a referral program anyways.  It may be better overall to just start with a low network fee and then allow businesses to add the current referral program or an extra layer of fees as add-ons.  Right now it's ok for us to use the referral model because any income we would earn would be used to fund a referral program anyways for the early years.

139
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 06:27:47 pm »
Ok.  Might as well bring up the inevitable.

What about trading fees?  Shouldn't we just have the same fee schedule for that too?  Wouldn't it be easier to just have a Mode A/B/C work the same for trading fees? 

I think Mode B allows exchange businesses to have pricing similar to centralized exchanges and charge around 0.2% per trade which is good.  The bigger question is what is the revenue model for exchanges in the first place?  I've focused on the payments side and the referral program so I haven't thought a lot about exchanges, but what compels an exchange business to use the Bitshares platform?   If an exchange like Kraken wanted to use the Bitshares platform and charge ~0.2% per trade as they currently do how would it work?

140
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 06:17:16 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on February 01, 2016, 05:16:53 pm
A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's

What do you mean by that?  Shouldn't 90%+ of businesses depend on the referral program?  All the blog/affiliate/marketing businesses should be the largest in number and should be the main focus for user growth.

Also we're a wallet/gateway business.  We can produce a great product, but we can't charge a fee on top of the network fee.  We can charge a monthly software-as-a-service (SaaS) fee, but that limits options.  (The easiest way is probably just to allow any business to add a fee on top of a basic network fee for any asset on the network.)   The referral revenue is actually a proxy for income.  We can take our product and sell it to people and merchants who are willing to pay 1% per tx.  However that entire 1% would normally go to the network the way it's set up and if we didn't have a referral program, but that doesn't make sense for any business.  Normally a network platform might charge 0.2% and the business would profit 0.8%.  Businesses should be able to charge as low as .21% and as high as 3%.  The whole Mode A/B/C options is a roundabout way of achieving this flexibility.   One way is probably just to allow businesses to add an extra fee layer on top of all assets (privatized/public Smartcoins, FBAs, UIAs)... might be complicated to link accounts to assets to add a fee layer, so right now the referral income is a sufficient proxy. 

141
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 05:13:08 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 01, 2016, 11:41:29 am
Quote from: tbone on February 01, 2016, 11:27:40 am
I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a single person - could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes to LTM referral payouts.  So I will continue to maintain that there is ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.

Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of the LTM fee?  Think about it.  If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets no piece of the transaction fees going forward.  So the referrer NEEDS to collect the LTM fee.  But the network gets paid for transactions regardless.  So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam. 

If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users immediately.  Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers. 

If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties.  We would still need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging these last couple days.  Thoughts?

 +5%
I could not agree more. This is exactly what I think.

We need to sort out these two:
- why does there need to be vesting on LTM?
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?

If both are unnecessary, they need to be removed.
And once they are removed, the referral program becomes fully optional, and our long lasting debate is finally over.

I agree.  I don't think vesting or a network fee is necessary.  As I stated before if the network earns fees on referrals it makes sense to just pour that back into the referral program anyways.  The referral program is mainly for marketing.  I think originally it was to get people to pay for transaction fees up front assuming long-term fees would be 20 cents.  It's a better strategy to just start with low network fees and assume you can raise it in the future.

Quote from: xeroc on February 01, 2016, 12:15:24 pm
Quote from: tbone on February 01, 2016, 11:27:40 am

Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of
the LTM fee?  Think about it.  If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets
no piece of the transaction fees going forward.  So the referrer NEEDS
to collect the LTM fee.  But the network gets paid for transactions
regardless.  So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of
the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam. 
The network (read: shareholders) collect fees on EVERY SINGLE operation
that is stored on the blockchain and unless you won't like to see a DAC
be profitable, you shouldn't remove that.

The DAC can always raise fees far into the future.  It doesn't have to be profitable now as long as it can cover its expenses.  Network effect is the key right now

Quote from: xeroc on February 01, 2016, 12:15:24 pm
Quote from: tbone on February 01, 2016, 11:27:40 am
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it
would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for
lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users
immediately.  Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their
users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers. 
The split between referral program and network is 80/20 independent of
the operation. Changing that is a) a lot of work and b) gives even more
degrees of freedom to figure out a useful fee schedule.
I thought the committee determined the split.  Can't we just make it 100%/0%?


142
General Discussion / Re: Is it possible for bitshares to become a sidechain of bitcoin?
« on: February 01, 2016, 02:17:23 am »
Yes.

However I think in the short term it's easier to just create liquidity for Smartcoin BTC and create a Smartcoin BTC/BTC gateway. 

I always thought using BTC as collateral would be great and you can do that with Public/Privatized Smartcoins.  You can select the Smartcoin BTC as the collateral for  Smartcoin USD.  I've been thinking about working on this eventually. 

143
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: February 01, 2016, 01:52:56 am »
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 11:13:43 pm
I apologize if I've ever been offensive.

By saying "refuse to share", I mean if you apply plan A for your product, which obviously doesn't share anything to referral program.

No problem.   There are a lot of nuances to these fee designs so it probably can lead to misunderstandings of motivations.  The only reason why I advocate Mode A is for the Chinese community.  Who knows it may lead to higher growth there.

We however plan to fully use the referral program in Mode B.  We were planning for a long time to offer 100% of referral income to LTMs & affiliates in the Bitshares network for the first year and probably longer.  It's not for the reasons mentioned above by Coinhoarder, but the number of users is more important to us than the referral income.  As a wallet/registrar we have to pay for operating costs and maintain a good customer experience.  We won't have to offer 100% because we plan to bring a better user experience, but user growth is more important at this stage so we are passing referral income along.  I like the idea of supercharging the referral program.  We'll earn money with our direct referrals, but anyone else can be a referrer in our network and earn 100%.  I think Bitshares should operate the same way and focus on getting a network effect of users. 

144
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 31, 2016, 10:56:31 pm »
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 09:23:33 pm
Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 08:56:03 pm
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 05:35:20 pm
Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 03:46:52 am
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 12:14:33 am
By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.


What if the issuer of Mode A brings in 1,000,000,000 new users because of low fees and brings new users to pay higher fees for another asset that uses Mode B or C?  The network should take just one low fee to sustain itself for maximum network effect.  Issuers should have flexibility on pricing, not the committee.  The committee should simply determine the network fee.  Any UIA, FBA, Privatized Smartcoin issuer should be able to set fees on top of the network fee.  Technically an issuer can try to add fees outside of the Bitshares system, but it's much more natural to just add that as a standard feature to the system to attract far more businesses to use the platform.
Issuers don't bring in users by their own alone. When they bring in users, they act as registrars or referrers. In this case, the issuer is able to reimburse the users the extra fees paid by users and split to referral program (actually to the issuer in this case), no matter what fee mode she selected for her product.

More important, if the issuer selected a fee mode which doesn't split fees to referral program, OTHER REGISTRARS/REFERRERS would be not willing to bring users FOR THE ISSUER, even worse, they may try to isolate/hurt the issuer's product since it does nothing good to them but probably get benefit from THEIR user bases. Which means the issuer has to fight alone, even against other parties. Which will do no good to the whole system.

Sure you can think of issuers of assets as a mini-platform for various businesses to use.  Bitshares BTS is the broader platform.  Wallet/Exchange/Referral businesses can choose any issuer/asset they want.   If  a wallet or exchange want lower basic fees they can choose an asset with Mode A.  If a wallet or exchange wants to have a referral/membership model they can choose an asset with Mode B or C.

It seems that you are trying to save the issuers from themselves rather than give them a choice?  If an issuer chooses a fee Mode A that has no referral/membership program and many registrars/referrers don't promote them they will have to find other methods to gain users with outside capital, but they will have an advantage of offering lower basic fees.   Why is that a problem especially when a predominant contingent in China want Mode A?

What are your thoughts on Privatized Smartcoins?  My thought is that people will naturally want to promote Public Smartcoins instead of a BitCash Privatized Smartcoin or even TCNY so we who issue Privatized Smartcoins are at a disadvantage. Do you want to save us from ourselves?  Privatized Smartcoins need to find users by improving parameters,  providing liquidity, acquiring different customer segments etc.  The positive is that they aren't forced into using particular parameters or price feeds.  In the same way they shouldn't be forced into a particular fee Mode or fee schedule especially because their business and customer demographic may be different than other businesses.

As I see it, if we have three modes it may look something like this for Smartcoins:
CNY Public Smartcoins:  Mode A  - 1 cent transfers
TCNY Privatized Smartcoins: Mode A - 1 cent transfers
USD /Eur Public Smartcoins: Mode B or C - 1% or 20 cent transfers, 1 cent for members
BitCash Privatized Smartcoins: Mode B or C -  1% or 20 cent transfers, 1 cent for members

Wallets/Registrars/Referral:
OpenLedger
Moonstone
Lime
Bunker
Transwiser
BitCash
Referral Businesses/Blogs/Affiliates

Can you explain to me what will go wrong in this example?  What will businesses be doing to each other rather than focusing on building their own user bases for their business models and target consumer demographic?
What I've seen, and said again and again:

You keep insist that you'll provide services to "your own users", and build your user base somehow.
You don't think "your own users" will use services provided by others, which will benefit you via referral income.
You don't think users who are brought in BitShares by other referrers will use your services, and you refuse to share profit with the referrers when you gain benefit from these users.

In short, I think you're trying to rob other referrers.

If you still don't understand, sorry, I think I'm unable to reach you.

1.  You think I'm trying to rob other referrers when I'm trying to utilize the same referral program as everyone else?  First off that's offensive.  Secondly, it's illogical.  What do you mean refuse to share profits?  The referral program is by definition sharing profits.

2.  The referral income goes to any registrar/referrer that brings in users for assets that use Mode B or C.   It can be any business that set's up a registrar.  You can do it.  Anyone can do it.  Otherwise you can use Openledger or any other registrar and just be a referrer.  Furthermore someone who brings in a user for an asset that uses Mode A benefits the entire network.  Someone who brings a new user for an asset that uses Mode B or C benefits the system.  Businesses that bring the most users to the system provide arguably the most benefit.  If I had a popular blogging business and wanted to earn referrals I'd write about a particular asset or application that I thought was valuable and partner with any of the registrars.  Would the blog be somehow 'robbing' other asset issuers by bringing new users to a particular application/asset just because these new users might use other applications in the future?  If you are building an application or FBA on Bitshares there will and should be an extra fee to use the service anyways.  The Bitshares platform benefits the most from the network effect.  It sets the network fees and can raise them anytime in the future.   

3.  The Chinese community seems to want lower basic fees so providing a Mode A seems to me a good idea.

145
General Discussion / Re: [Public Testnet] testnet.bitshares.eu
« on: January 31, 2016, 09:10:36 pm »
Quote from: noisy on January 31, 2016, 09:02:58 pm
@xeroc please correct me if am wrong, but I think right now there is no possibility to create USD in testnet, because borrowing is possible only for assets which has price feed.

Could you run a price feed for all bitAssets which has price feed in real network? Could you add a documentation how to run such price feed for all assets for testnetwork?

@noisy BTW feel free to play around with PEG.FAKEUSD if you are ok with some parameter tweaks... it uses one price-feed from Poloniex.   
(Note:  Parameters are: MSSR: 100.1%, MCR: 175%, forced settlement at 90%)

146
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 31, 2016, 08:56:03 pm »
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 05:35:20 pm
Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 03:46:52 am
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 12:14:33 am
By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.


What if the issuer of Mode A brings in 1,000,000,000 new users because of low fees and brings new users to pay higher fees for another asset that uses Mode B or C?  The network should take just one low fee to sustain itself for maximum network effect.  Issuers should have flexibility on pricing, not the committee.  The committee should simply determine the network fee.  Any UIA, FBA, Privatized Smartcoin issuer should be able to set fees on top of the network fee.  Technically an issuer can try to add fees outside of the Bitshares system, but it's much more natural to just add that as a standard feature to the system to attract far more businesses to use the platform.
Issuers don't bring in users by their own alone. When they bring in users, they act as registrars or referrers. In this case, the issuer is able to reimburse the users the extra fees paid by users and split to referral program (actually to the issuer in this case), no matter what fee mode she selected for her product.

More important, if the issuer selected a fee mode which doesn't split fees to referral program, OTHER REGISTRARS/REFERRERS would be not willing to bring users FOR THE ISSUER, even worse, they may try to isolate/hurt the issuer's product since it does nothing good to them but probably get benefit from THEIR user bases. Which means the issuer has to fight alone, even against other parties. Which will do no good to the whole system.

Sure you can think of issuers of assets as a mini-platform for various businesses to use.  Bitshares BTS is the broader platform.  Wallet/Exchange/Referral businesses can choose any issuer/asset they want.   If  a wallet or exchange want lower basic fees they can choose an asset with Mode A.  If a wallet or exchange wants to have a referral/membership model they can choose an asset with Mode B or C.

It seems that you are trying to save the issuers from themselves rather than give them a choice?  If an issuer chooses a fee Mode A that has no referral/membership program and many registrars/referrers don't promote them they will have to find other methods to gain users with outside capital, but they will have an advantage of offering lower basic fees.   Why is that a problem especially when a predominant contingent in China want Mode A?

What are your thoughts on Privatized Smartcoins?  My thought is that people will naturally want to promote Public Smartcoins instead of a BitCash Privatized Smartcoin or even TCNY so we who issue Privatized Smartcoins are at a disadvantage. Do you want to save us from ourselves?  Privatized Smartcoins need to find users by improving parameters,  providing liquidity, acquiring different customer segments etc.  The positive is that they aren't forced into using particular parameters or price feeds.  In the same way they shouldn't be forced into a particular fee Mode or fee schedule especially because their business and customer demographic may be different than other businesses.

As I see it, if we have three modes it may look something like this for Smartcoins:
CNY Public Smartcoins:  Mode A  - 1 cent transfers
TCNY Privatized Smartcoins: Mode A - 1 cent transfers
USD /Eur Public Smartcoins: Mode B or C - 1% or 20 cent transfers, 1 cent for members
BitCash Privatized Smartcoins: Mode B or C -  1% or 20 cent transfers, 1 cent for members

Wallets/Registrars/Referral:
OpenLedger
Moonstone
Lime
Bunker
Transwiser
BitCash
Referral Businesses/Blogs/Affiliates

Can you explain to me what will go wrong in this example?  What will businesses be doing to each other rather than focusing on building their own user bases for their business models and target consumer demographic?

147
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 31, 2016, 04:33:01 am »
Quote from: tonyk on January 31, 2016, 03:09:14 am
There are no 3 modes on a system-wise level. There is just one - the lowest fee (A in your words). The rest is testing very uninformative alternatives - does people like paying more or less.

[edit] the only way to have the 3 modes at once is - the high fee business models trying to cut (or try to) their users out of the rest of the system. The negatives from that in all kind of aspects should be obvious.

No it's testing to see if a referral/membership program with higher basic fees, but with incentives can acquire more users than one with low fees and no referral incentives.  CNY assets will probably use Mode A.  USD/Eur assets will probably use Mode B or C.  I may be able to transfer funds with CNY more cheaply than USD, but I'll probably just use USD assets for convenience. (For members the cost will be the same.)  Hence users can use any asset in the system they prefer.   Also the referral/membership model will allow discounts on creating: premium names, UIAs, FBAs, as well as using any other higher fee asset so there is a shared network effect for membership.   

148
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:46:52 am »
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 02:43:52 am
Yes there would be continuous improvements/developments. Perhaps you've never thought how much work need to be done to support all potential features, perhaps you will only use a small part of them, but others may need other features. FBA is for special features which major stake holders don't want to dilute for.

The network need to sustain, which means in the end it's best to be able to pay witnesses and workers from income / fees, although they have to be paid from dilution in the beginning due to insufficient income.

Imo setting a low fee and not splitting to the referral program will definitely hurt the referral program. Asset issuers should have no privileges to hurt other parties.

Well we can set a higher fee for all three modes to sustain the network if dilution doesn't cover it, but the referral program shouldn't have anything to do with this.  The referral program can be an add-on layer for specific assets.  I'd prefer the lowest sustainable network fee, but we can let the committee decide what the minimum network fees should be to pay the witnesses and for non-FBA software development and maintenance.

I plan to use the referral Mode B for a privatized Smartcoin so I don't feel having another asset using Mode A even in direct competition with us would be that big of a deal.  There are a whole lot of other reasons a business is going to be successful besides fees.

Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 12:14:33 am
By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.


What if the issuer of Mode A brings in 1,000,000,000 new users because of low fees and brings new users to pay higher fees for another asset that uses Mode B or C?  The network should take just one low fee to sustain itself for maximum network effect.  Issuers should have flexibility on pricing, not the committee.  The committee should simply determine the network fee.  Any UIA, FBA, Privatized Smartcoin issuer should be able to set fees on top of the network fee.  Technically an issuer can try to add fees outside of the Bitshares system, but it's much more natural to just add that as a standard feature to the system to attract far more businesses to use the platform. 

149
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:03:23 am »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on January 31, 2016, 02:40:41 am
Quote from: tonyk on January 31, 2016, 01:49:03 am
Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 01:28:18 am
  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   :P.  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.
I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.

I was about to make the same commentary.. a user is a user of the whole system and making decisions based on this fragmented outlooks is just operating on a faulty assumption.

If a merchant bring in 100,000 users he gets benefits, but because of the shared network, other merchants could also benefit from those users now using bitshares. So the merchant that paid nothing into the network is going to not only benefit from that merchant that brought the 100k users in, he is going to cheat him out of his % cut which he should be getting for bring that business to them.

This idea of fragmenting pieces of the network and the refer system to accommodate one crabby business is not only counter productive, but will have ongoing issues going forward. If they have no interest in shared network effect, they might as well fork.

Not sure I follow this.  Either mode A, B or C may generate more users (all things being equal and eliminating many other factors.)  No one knows which mode will get more active users.  It can be that low fees and no referral program brings in 1,000,000 users.  Then Mode A may be perceived to have brought more value.  If Mode B or C brings more users (ie. 2,000,000) it may indicate the referral program works well.  Without isolating other factors we may never know, but tracking active users provides one somewhat useful data point.  The proposal for three modes makes it fair to the network because the network will get the same fees no matter who brings them in.   Accommodating various modes and more businesses enhances network effect, it doesn't decrease it.   

150
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 31, 2016, 02:29:32 am »
Quote from: tonyk on January 31, 2016, 01:49:03 am
Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 01:28:18 am
  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   :P.  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.
I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.
Not quite sure I follow your logic and what this has anything to do with limiting freedom.  I'm saying we can measure active user growth as one data point to see if lower fees (Mode A) makes a big difference vs. higher basic fees and a membership model (Mode B & C).  It seems to be the topic of debate so it's just for educational purposes and friendly competition to track that.  (There are many other factors that determine growth as I stated before.) 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 45

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 23 queries.