0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Makes sense.We need to take away some of those juicy fees from the exchanges. I really hope we can do that when Blocktrades finally gets their TRADE.BTC deposit integration in the webwallet.Lets say that among the supporters of BitShares here on these forums we together have 1000 BTC on Poloniex. We could all pull that out of Poloniex and into TRADE.BTC and pay the network the fees instead. That would definitely make us profitable again.
To decrease the supply, we need to attract more users fr the traditional exchanges. In this stage, profit is not important than expansion of the user base, IMHO.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 24, 2015, 08:09:03 pmThe transfer fee is still 40 BTS I think, they haven't decreased it.Are you saying the BTS asset page is not showing the correct supply / isnt up to date?
The transfer fee is still 40 BTS I think, they haven't decreased it.
And we're inflationary again:18/10/2015: 2,533,418,35819/10/2015: 2,533,393,60920/10/2015: 2,533,385,80921/10/2015: 2,533,348,21722/10/2015: 2,533,245,39723/10/2015: 2,533,228,86124/10/2015: 2,533,262,319Wonderful.
Quote from: Ander on October 21, 2015, 08:21:37 pmQuote from: tonyk on October 21, 2015, 07:06:40 pmQuote from: Akado on October 21, 2015, 06:49:57 pmApparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 21, 2015, 10:42:05 amConstantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less. Is that what this worked does? That sounds like the worst idea ever.Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.This worker will have very good uses in the future, as it will be the eliminator of half ass proposals from him down vote-wise, that the people do not want to be paid.But for it to work right now, for anything else but the negative perception we need:1. A burning worker - it does not have to be huge - 10K seems enough, imo.2. BM needs to vote for the burning worker with 100% of his stake and for the recycling worker with 90% of his stake.3. We generally should follow similar voting pattern for those 2, and vote "Yes" for all other workers we do like to be paid, of course.
Quote from: tonyk on October 21, 2015, 07:06:40 pmQuote from: Akado on October 21, 2015, 06:49:57 pmApparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 21, 2015, 10:42:05 amConstantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less. Is that what this worked does? That sounds like the worst idea ever.Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.
Quote from: Akado on October 21, 2015, 06:49:57 pmApparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 21, 2015, 10:42:05 amConstantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
Quote from: tonyk on October 21, 2015, 07:06:40 pmQuote from: Akado on October 21, 2015, 06:49:57 pmApparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 21, 2015, 10:42:05 amConstantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less. Oh I didn't get it the first time. I thought every BTS burnt would go to a reserve pool by default, but that only happens because of that worker?
Quote from: Akado on October 21, 2015, 08:11:00 amIsnt there some kind of wallet command for supply or shouldnt the info command, if it still exists, show the initial and current supply, Block info, etc?Or we could see that on the Explorer, we couçd just compqre currrent supply with Genesis blockWhat is the impact of the 400k a day worker proposal if any? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19305.0.htmlConstantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
Isnt there some kind of wallet command for supply or shouldnt the info command, if it still exists, show the initial and current supply, Block info, etc?Or we could see that on the Explorer, we couçd just compqre currrent supply with Genesis block
so i guess most of you are trading on open ledger and not on poloniex anymore?sorry typo
so i guess most of you are trading on open ledger and not on polonium anymore?
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
Why supply is reducing and how far will it keep reducing
Quote from: topcandle on October 19, 2015, 09:04:42 pmHow can we speed this up?Get more trading happening on the bitshares exchange.Every trade burns some BTS.[/quotes]What is the fee burnt for transaction and for name purchasing?
How can we speed this up?
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 19, 2015, 08:47:24 pmWhere can we verify what BTS supply was at the start of 2.0? So that we can show others.I am not sure, but the first four numbers were 2,533,....
Where can we verify what BTS supply was at the start of 2.0? So that we can show others.
Quote from: phillyguy on October 19, 2015, 08:42:09 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 19, 2015, 08:38:07 pmOver 800,000 BTS reduction thus far! Nice!Take that central bankers!
Quote from: bytemaster on October 19, 2015, 08:38:07 pmOver 800,000 BTS reduction thus far! Nice!
Quote from: bytemaster on October 15, 2015, 10:19:40 pmQuote from: speedy on October 15, 2015, 10:17:49 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 15, 2015, 01:00:18 pmNow up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.This really isnt sustainable is it? Its just new users registering names & memberships etc. Its not a level of revenue that is sustained from trading.I think it will start to really work well over the next few months as we refine the UI and work out the bugs. But please this time really stick to this plan. And it's a very simple plan: - bring all the existing 2.0 features to the GUI level, - make the traders happy by upgrading the market page to Poloniex standards - and fix all the bugs.Then the volume will come and profits from transaction fees will follow.All the new features (e.g. the bond market etc) can easily wait, we are already well ahead of any competition is this respect. What has always been missing in BitShares is proper UI implementation.
Quote from: speedy on October 15, 2015, 10:17:49 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 15, 2015, 01:00:18 pmNow up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.This really isnt sustainable is it? Its just new users registering names & memberships etc. Its not a level of revenue that is sustained from trading.I think it will start to really work well over the next few months as we refine the UI and work out the bugs.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 15, 2015, 01:00:18 pmNow up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.This really isnt sustainable is it? Its just new users registering names & memberships etc. Its not a level of revenue that is sustained from trading.
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
You own the network, but who pays for development?
Quote from: bytemaster on October 15, 2015, 01:00:18 pmNow up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.Do you (or any) have any model of the supply, based on average usage and number of users? If not is ok, I understand fees will also change, so it is difficult to predict.
Quote from: karnal on October 15, 2015, 09:22:39 amForgive the dumb question, but where do the burned fees "go" ?Do they 'simply' (in theory) increase the price of each share due to reducing the total amount of shares in circulation?They vanish .. the supply of bts just shrinks by the network fees
Forgive the dumb question, but where do the burned fees "go" ?Do they 'simply' (in theory) increase the price of each share due to reducing the total amount of shares in circulation?
Quote from: Erlich Bachman on October 14, 2015, 01:03:16 pmHey, so are those shares burnt or in the dev fund (for voting proposals)I would like to know this as well If this is caused because of the migration, then it's very likely that it won't stay like this for long. Also showing ownership percentage like luckybit mentioned would be pretty cool!
Hey, so are those shares burnt or in the dev fund (for voting proposals)
I just want to make sure I understand the OP correctly. Does this mean that 328k of BTS have been burned due to new lifetime members, account names registrations etc and the bts supply is currently c2,511,625 BTS instead of c2,511,953 bil BTS?
I guess it's mainly due to the initial membership upgrades.The profits would've been much bigger of we had the account registration fee set higher than the current BTS 0.15.
It looks like the network is currently operating at a profit. We will see if things continue this way.