@jakub: I think you're starting to over-complicate it now with AM vs. LTM. What's this LTM loophole you're concerned about?
Why do you say it's more complicated now?
It's the same idea but I now propose to use AM instead of LTM.
Nothing else changes. Just replace LTM with AM.
The loophole is this: if a user buys LTM (for whatever price) she can then generate other accounts by making herself the registrar and setting the price for upgrading to 0.
This way she could end up with 100 (or more) LTM accounts and only 20% (of the price she paid for the first one) has gone to the network. The network gets nothing from the other 99 accounts.
With AM this situation is not possible as AM does not give you the possibility to create further accounts (as far as I know).
But I thought you agreed with Xeldal's proposal to enforce a $20 fee to the network for every LTM account created. Wouldn't that solve the problem you're talking about? So now, by essentially separating the network fee from any referral fee, we can have the optional referral program you were proposing.
To elaborate, the $20 upfront fee is what the network gets in exchange for offering lower fees and losing its cut of the otherwise higher fees. So that is mandatory (until we're ready and able to lower fees to $0 per today's mumble). Beyond the network's mandatory $20, businesses can charge ANY additional amount IF they wish to utilize the built-in referral program. Businesses that utilize the referral program will attract referrers who would get paid for distributing a URL that points to the wallet of that business. Businesses that do not use the program will not attract such referrers. So everyone gets what they need. Am I missing something?
What you described above is exactly what we have now.
Currently OpenLedger has the option to offer a refund:
- up to $12 for every AM bought, thus effectively selling it at $4 (as that's the minimum price required by the network for AM).
- up to $80 for every LTM bought, thus effectively selling it at $20 (as that's the minimum price required by the network for LTM).
Obviously OL is not doing this for a very simple reason - there is no competition on the hosted wallet market.
The core of my proposal is to push it a bit further in case of AM: to allow OL (and similar business) to effectively sell AM for $0 (so *no* minimum price would be required by the network when AM is sold).
I appreciate Xeldal's proposal *despite* him enforcing the $20 minimum price for LTM (or $4 minimum price in case of AM) because in Xeldal's world a business can access the lowest prices without using AM/LTM altogether. So in this respect, our proposals are different but the end result is very similar, both for businesses and the network.
My only concern with his proposal is that his model relies on the GUI to calculate the right fee. Anybody who can hack the GUI, can game the hosted wallet business and pay only the minimum fees required by the network. That's a big downside of his approach.