I shared this in the marketing channel and feel compelled to share it here as well to see how you all might feel about the way I think this could/should work.. along side my concerns for a trustless blockchain based refer system and why it will mean the end of the bitshares brand (not to be too dramatic or anything
)
datasecuritynode
there are serious issues with this refer program model too.. how is governance over this program going to be accomplished.. if it is not run like other affiliate programs.. bitshares is going to be the next payment option of choice for all virus and malware makers.. and every SPAMMER in the world is going to continue to spam bitshares everywhere completely unchecked with no consequence
datasecuritynode [9:32 AM]
resulting ultimately in turning bitshares into a bad community.. getting added to the DBLs.. and never being able to post a link to bitshares in any social platform
it needs governance.. I know this from knowing the industry..
datasecuritynode [9:35 AM]
the way to stop the behaviour is cutting off the income source
they just need offers.. most offers shut them down and they dont get paid once they see how it is being done.. but in bitshares.. with no governance.. they can continue bad bahaviour without consequence and keep making moeny.. if I can get just 0.1% of my 200 million email list.. and keep making money from that for the natural life of the end user.. I will be pissing rainbows
datasecuritynode [9:42 AM]
the delegate mechanism gives the people control over who gets funds.. so if someone was doing something like that the way it is now.. they would just get voted out... incentive gone
datasecuritynode [9:43 AM]
in an affiliate network.. there is no oversight over everyone.. there is nothing to vote out
stan [8:28 PM]
RE SPAM: The leading referral concept offers referrers a vesting slice of the lifetime fees paid by each user they sign up ...as those fees are paid. No point in signing up sock puppets that won't pay. You are rewarded with transferrable revenue streams, not a cash payment.
fox [11:07 PM]
I for one am skeptical. Something feels misaligned from BM's original ambition.
datasecuritynode [11:47 PM]
@stan RE SPAM: Yes.. that's what I understood.. bitcoin is the payment of choice for these bad players and some spammers because of its finality in transactions.. however.. a spammer (and I am including malware and virus spreaders in that term.. not just bulk emailers) would recognize the bitshares refer offer to mean more money on the table for them.. they will acquire the new users before the market does and because there is no governance that would prevent them from profiting from the bad behavior.. it will be by their way of trickery and extortion that massive numbers will be acquired where these bad behavior actors will have beaten everyone else to setting up the 'tolls on the road' as Dan put it..
You leave the door open to the snakes.. they come in.. affiliate networks and CPA networks deal with these sort of things ALL the time.. accounts get banned ALL the time for breaking policies they set for what types of marketing activities are acceptable and which are not... if they don't walk that fine line.. those affiliate networks become 'bad neighbourhoods' .. and eventually.. any links that lead to their systems.. become banned in major social networks.
I don't know what kind of industry experts who have real world experience in managing these types of networks have been consulted.. but the threats I talk about are from real world experience I have.. and I have only run one affiliate program myself while participating in many over the years in many networks.
Delegates now are held to account by the people through a system.. this type of bad behavior would easily be voted out and cut off their source of income.. which largely prevents the bad behaviour from happening in the first place..
An affiliate program on the blockchain without governance and oversite to enforce anti-spam policies WILL result in the WORLD enforcing it's governance over it by adding it to the DBLs around the world as a bad neighbourhood that can be caused all by just ONE single bad player. The power of a single spammer to poison a program like this is real... again because the world will attempt to seek out governance from our system only to find there is none.. THEY know what this means (again my reference to industry experts with experience) .. and will act accordingly to label the bitshares community as a bad community that condones the type of bad activity that snagged their attention via spam reports, honey pots, and virus reports... the label will be given only because we will have no mechanism to effectively have people who judge and apply policies of good or bad behaviour to the program to stop the incentive to continue the bad behaviour... on the other hand.. currently a voting system is in place that does effectively 'judge' ... but the proposed system as I heard it has none of that.
Ok.. I have surpassed way to many TLTR buffers in this response. :simple_smile: .. think I have made it clear enough. Without governance, bad actors will be the standard by which bitshares will be seen and judged as a condoner of such activity.
----- Today April 26th, 2015 -----
rnglab [12:03 AM]
I'm afraid I agree with fox and datasecuritynode. Even before reading in depth about new delegate pay rate and BitAsset propositions (huge chances), I believe almost close eyed on founders, devs and main community members judgment.
rnglab [12:05 AM]
but talking about a marketing system implementation at protocol level makes me doubt somehow
rnglab [12:06 AM]
in the long term course of Bitshares
datasecuritynode [12:13 AM]
noooooow.. having said THAT ... and I am thinking of how a refer program COULD be implemented to incentivize along side of everything else and including voters/judges... if I could have a UIA on which the bitshares network would track new users coming in via that 'currency'.. where in that the issuer of the UIA is going to make money on all the transactions of that UIA.. and the UIA becomes the 'gateway' so to speak of the profit model for that business.. it then becomes the UIA issuers responsibility to govern over bad behaviour... BUT.. WE need a way to govern over UIAs as well.. ie. stop bad actors from using the system.. how that would look I am not sure.. but a system like that where a sort of local/self regulated level is there and a public level of oversight is also there.. that I think would provide a mechanism... I am thinking delegates would be ideal to handle that as the trusted.. guardians of the bitshares galaxy. :simple_smile: (movie reference.. recent favorite :simple_smile: )
rnglab [12:14 AM]
(have to say I know nothing about marketing and that I still don't clearly see where this discontent comes from)
datasecuritynode
[12:21 AM]
now if the UIA issuer who brought in the new user can profit on that user in the entire ecosystem.. yes.. that is incentive.. fees would flow to the UIA 'gateway' that user came in through... if bad behviour was found to be a problem with this UIA and they do not act to govern (ie. the UIA issuer is a nasty spammer) .. then the 101 delegates could get a majority vote to 'freeze' the asset and 'cut off' the incentive.. all the users fees then go back to the network... the Guaradians of the BitShares Galaxy did their duty to protect it from evil.
datasecuritynode [12:24 AM]
and in this scenario.. the trusted delegates voted by the public are actually more critical than ever to protecting the interests of bitshare holders
datasecuritynode [12:25 AM]
this is just one way *I* can see it potentially work.. we have an affilite program governed by delegates.. the question of dilution is moot because they are doing more for the public good than what dilution amounts to.. who ever is crying over this needs their head checked.
datasecuritynode [12:35 AM]
btw.. if THIS was how it works.. and UIAs are grandfathered.. I will be one happy BunkerShares UIA issuer :simple_smile:
datasecuritynode [12:35 AM]
and I am betting MoonStone will be doing backflips