0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
total costs of bts2/ numbers of transaction =per transaction costnow total costs of bts2 is stable but numbers of transaction is very very very lowI guess the numbers of transaction is less than price feedIt is totally waste!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 18, 2015, 05:12:09 pmThe referral programme can still be as generous with a percentage based system in fact it may be FAR more lucrative with the right pricing strategy. The referral programme can be generous by using two sources only: inflation or transaction fees. Inflation is just another name for making BTS holders pay for BTS users. IMO this not a sustainable strategy.
The referral programme can still be as generous with a percentage based system in fact it may be FAR more lucrative with the right pricing strategy.
So far we have had 'average people' from Poland, Russia, Argentina and China (one of our biggest markets) saying that the fee is too high for them and in their opinion, average users in their market.
Quote from: pal on October 18, 2015, 05:36:22 pmIn Russia all the same. It would be difficult to average people to grasp why they would have to pay the fees.And tell me, how many times a month do "average people" make online payments? 4? Maybe 5? Does it really matter how much you pay as long as it is in total less than a bus ticket?The point is the fees do not matter for an average BTS user. They matter only for heavy users and those are merchants and traders, not "average people".When you decide your pricing strategy you need to know who your customer is. Basically there are three categories: the traders, the merchants, and "average people". The only price sensitive group out of these three are the traders, not "average people". So if you think about it, lowering the fees is a meaningless exercise that will do nothing (at this moment) but undermine our profitability. Only if the traders start complaining it we should lower the market orders fees, but not the transaction fees for transferring money.
In Russia all the same. It would be difficult to average people to grasp why they would have to pay the fees.
Over-charging for an inferior product that doesn't work, is not an effective strategy for any new business that I am aware of.
Traders are complaining. It looks like we need to lower fees for orders that are cancelled/not matched.
Basically there are three categories: the traders, the merchants, and "average people". The only price sensitive group out of these three are the traders, not "average people".
Quote from: alt on October 18, 2015, 12:40:21 amguys, you are OK with the current fee.but in fact, Chinese and other developing country will never accept the high transfer fee.In China we spent no fee with alipay and most bank card.BTS will lose these market if the fee still keep about 0.6CNYIf you don't care about these market, OK, just keep higer fees. wish enough American like BTS and can be a real user.Here in Argentina:* Free bank accounts (no CC, just saving)* No transfer fees (below 30K ARS)* Instant transfers
guys, you are OK with the current fee.but in fact, Chinese and other developing country will never accept the high transfer fee.In China we spent no fee with alipay and most bank card.BTS will lose these market if the fee still keep about 0.6CNYIf you don't care about these market, OK, just keep higer fees. wish enough American like BTS and can be a real user.
... I think they are not using BTS because the product doesn't work yet in the first place....our product is far worse.
If the traders start complaining that the fees are too high - then we should reconsider. Also, apart from traders there is a second group of users we should care about: the merchants. The consumers are not really sensitive to transaction fees (assuming an average consumer makes a couple of online transactions a month). It's the merchant who is sensitive to the price as currently s/he needs to sacrifice about 2% of their turnover just to be able to receive payments. So from the merchant's point of view BTS should be significantly cheaper and this is our key customer. Also, a generous referral program (and it can only be generous if we keep the fees as they are) is an attractive option that we can offer to the merchants but our competition (PayPal & debit cards) cannot. It's our unique selling point.
An analytical, data-driven pricing approach can help you:- Optimize your pricing- Identify pricing leaks and areas of opportunity- Apply price discounting where it yields the highest return- Achieve higher margins- Sell more product- Increase the value of your company- Improve your profitabilityBy looking into the variables that influence customers’ value perception, one can determine...- What your small customers should be paying- Where your large customers are likely to be flexible- Which products can support premium prices and which need to be competitive- Whether discounts in certain areas can help you boost sales volume- How much you can gain by implementing your new pricing structure.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 18, 2015, 12:11:23 pmI understand that we can't target the micro-transaction market, or please everyone and though I don't know how complicated it is, I do believe we need a percentage based system with a minimum fee of $0.01 or $0.02. I agree that a percentage-based system would make sense but as it requires a hard fork I'd agree with BM that at this stage there are other things with higher priorities than that.
I understand that we can't target the micro-transaction market, or please everyone and though I don't know how complicated it is, I do believe we need a percentage based system with a minimum fee of $0.01 or $0.02.
Do you know Argentina is one of if not the most lucrative BitAsset markets because of capital controls and USD demand? These countries are the BitAsset target markets. If they say the fees are too high we need to listen.
The key target markets that could be motivated to try it at this stage are places like Argentina, Greece, China etc.
No we don't, we have a relatively new, risky, complicated product that is not particularly liquid with very limited third party support. (So we're not competing with PayPal or online use of debit cards at this stage as some are suggesting.)
I do believe we need a percentage based system with a minimum fee of $0.01 or $0.02.
Quote from: Moon on October 18, 2015, 10:37:09 amQuote from: ElMato on October 18, 2015, 10:19:10 amQuote from: alt on October 18, 2015, 12:40:21 amguys, you are OK with the current fee.but in fact, Chinese and other developing country will never accept the high transfer fee.In China we spent no fee with alipay and most bank card.BTS will lose these market if the fee still keep about 0.6CNYIf you don't care about these market, OK, just keep higer fees. wish enough American like BTS and can be a real user.Here in Argentina:* Free bank accounts (no CC, just saving)* No transfer fees (below 30K ARS)* Instant transfersI agreeYou agree to what? That money can be transferred for free? This is not true. You pay for it but refuse to realize it.
Quote from: ElMato on October 18, 2015, 10:19:10 amQuote from: alt on October 18, 2015, 12:40:21 amguys, you are OK with the current fee.but in fact, Chinese and other developing country will never accept the high transfer fee.In China we spent no fee with alipay and most bank card.BTS will lose these market if the fee still keep about 0.6CNYIf you don't care about these market, OK, just keep higer fees. wish enough American like BTS and can be a real user.Here in Argentina:* Free bank accounts (no CC, just saving)* No transfer fees (below 30K ARS)* Instant transfersI agree
It's not fair to compare our fees to bitcoin and other crypto - we offer a price stable crypto-currency free of counterparty risk. This is absolutely unique in the crypto world and as long as we are not forced to lower the fees by competition offering a comparable product, we should take advantage of this situation and keep the prices as they are. If you want to compare our prices with other crypto do it thoroughly: include all conversion costs and the counterparty risk.
In China we spent no fee with alipay and most bank card.
I would disagree to lower the fees at this point. The referral program has not even started, and it requires a substantial portion of the fees to make a meaningful contribution to actually work.The fee right of this moment is 8 us cents, and a lifetime membership upgrade is 41 USD, which lowers the fee to 1.6 cents, which is very reasonable. Each transaction brings 6.4 cents to the referral market1.6 cents are being burned OR are put into the worker fund (when the fund is not full)That means each transaction FUNDS our software developers so they can continue to enhance our platform and make things better and easier to use.Decentralized marketeers are waiting for the referral program to launch, it has not even started, so why would you want to kill the referral market before it has even launched?? 6.4 cent for each transaction is a PRETTY GOOD DAMN argument to bring in new users. That's alot of money right here on the table.However, I would suggest to lower the fees for smaller transactions. It does not make sense to charge 20BTS for a 100BTS fee, a small %-fee would be more suitable here.Let's put this fee into comparison of what I'm paying to my banks here in Germany:I'm paying 5 Euros per month flat for my personal bank account, and doing maybe 25 transactions a month, this equals a 0.20 euro/tx fee.I'm paying 20 euros flat for my corporate bank account, plus 5 cents per transactions and I'm doing roughly 30 transactions here per month. This equals 0.73 Euro/tx fee.Now compare this to the BTS fees. We're not trying to compete with Bitcoin (which has 3-4 cents fees!) or any other cryptocurrency but we're trying to compete with creditcards, bank accounts, stock portfolio accounts etc. I think we're VERY competitive when you compare us to dwolla, paypal and any other bank. This is what counts!My 2BTS.
low fee for transfer and trading, others can higher, especially the register fee
Quote from: Moon on October 17, 2015, 02:12:27 pmMarket Orders are 0.1 BTS Canceling Orders is 0.1 BTSTransfer 0.1 BTSi think this is reasonablelol 0.1? You there are two and a half billion coins. We definetely need to reduce fees on placing orders, but that's ridicously low. You think the fees will make you poor or what? Make it between 1 and 5 BTS
Market Orders are 0.1 BTS Canceling Orders is 0.1 BTSTransfer 0.1 BTSi think this is reasonable
Quote from: Moon on October 17, 2015, 02:12:27 pmMarket Orders are 0.1 BTS Canceling Orders is 0.1 BTSTransfer 0.1 BTSi think this is reasonable 20 BTS is too high.I don't want to use the system, it's too expensive.
I disagree with reducing fees for two main reasons:1) It makes the referral program a lot less interesting if you dont expect the users you bring in to generate much of any fees. So then it will fail.2) A big reason why the BTS price has been trending down for a year is that the supply is increasing, that is, the blockchain is operating at a loss instead of being profitable. As soon as we can demonstrate a blockchain making a profit over a reasonable period of time, even a small profit, it will attract a lot of attention. Everyone is used to inflating blockchains that hemmorhage money (through PoW or whatever), but if you change that around and are actually making a profit, then a lot of investors will want to jump on board. And helping the price break its downtrend is going to help adopting a LOT, because a major inhibitor to adoption right now is that everyone who buys in loses money and gets disillusioned.Enough fees to turn a profit is the savior of BTS.The fees for subscribers being 2 cents instead of .5 cent is not going to significantly impact our adoption.The reason the price dropped is beacuse a bunch of peopel who had bought BTS prior to release but dont actually care about it long term all dumped it. That had nothing at all to do with what the fee is.I strongly encourage everyone to vote against lowering the fee.
about fee I have some thinking transfer fee : transfer is an equal in value of input and output , it is also a basic service supply by bts network , so it should pay the lowest feeexchange fee : exchange is not an equal in value of input and output , people exchange would lost/get profit. in other words ,the purpose of exchange is to get profit, so most of them ignore the fee, because they can get hundreds of times profit than fee ,if they buy/sell at right price . in other , exchange is a higher service than transfer, I think, so the fee is higher than transfer fee is reasonable borrow/close fee : because it is leverage trading, people would lost/get more profit , so the fee should higher than exchange fee so I think the fee should transfer fee <exchange fee<borrow/close fee
we could provide free banking for the world.
@MarketingMonkYou try to attract new users from countries there already good financial system (USA, Western Europe), while we could provide free banking for the world. Current fees isolate system in one region. This cutting off China, Eastern Europe, Russia, Greece, Argentina, Africa and others.
Keep it and let's see this baby grow.
Quote from: pal on October 16, 2015, 11:06:52 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on October 16, 2015, 10:53:41 pmWhat about 0.1% fee with a minimum fee of $0.01 and a maximum of say $0.10 That way if you send/receive <$10 you only pay $0.01. $25 is $0.025 etc..What would be great! Is it easily doable? What we need for this? Let's start casting votes! I don't know if it's easily doable. We would have to ask Bytemaster and also see what are the negatives.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 16, 2015, 10:53:41 pmWhat about 0.1% fee with a minimum fee of $0.01 and a maximum of say $0.10 That way if you send/receive <$10 you only pay $0.01. $25 is $0.025 etc..What would be great! Is it easily doable? What we need for this? Let's start casting votes!
What about 0.1% fee with a minimum fee of $0.01 and a maximum of say $0.10 That way if you send/receive <$10 you only pay $0.01. $25 is $0.025 etc..
"How can we be profitable from day 1?"
"How do we attract more users to what we've got?"
Quote from: speedy on October 16, 2015, 10:19:57 pmIt would be better to raise fees on BTS transfers to allow the network to benefit from all those transfers to/from poloniex.Lets face it all transfers at this point are just to/from an exchange by people who either want out of BitShares altogether or are transferring to their own wallet for the long term. Its not facilitating any real merchant activity at the moment. Either way they wont mind paying a fee of around 50 BTS.Fees getting higher with growth of the system, so lowering the fees will be temporary. Eventually BTS will be profitable, but right now there is not enough users to get this profit from.
It would be better to raise fees on BTS transfers to allow the network to benefit from all those transfers to/from poloniex.Lets face it all transfers at this point are just to/from an exchange by people who either want out of BitShares altogether or are transferring to their own wallet for the long term. Its not facilitating any real merchant activity at the moment. Either way they wont mind paying a fee of around 50 BTS.
Have you compared the price against the price of trading at an exchange? For most of them its 0.2% of the amount you trade. If you trade more than .2 btc worth of something, youll be paying more trading on an exchange than in bitshares. If you are a member of bitshares, then you pay 80% less, so if you trade more than .04 btc worth at a time you pay less than on an exchange.
Quote from: jakub on October 16, 2015, 09:50:49 pmDoesn't make sense. These are not the reasons the BTS price is low.The priority is to finish the GUI and implement all the missing features on the GUI level. The unfinished UI is the main barrier for new users and also the reason we have low volumes on the internal exchange.When new users arrive the price will recover and when traders start trading there will be profits from transaction fees and an additional reason for the price to rise.So at this moment it all boils down to having the UI truly ready.UI is good enough to make transactions and even trade, but now it's too costly
Doesn't make sense. These are not the reasons the BTS price is low.The priority is to finish the GUI and implement all the missing features on the GUI level. The unfinished UI is the main barrier for new users and also the reason we have low volumes on the internal exchange.When new users arrive the price will recover and when traders start trading there will be profits from transaction fees and an additional reason for the price to rise.So at this moment it all boils down to having the UI truly ready.
1. Low fees are easy sell, we could subscribe more people. Any working referral program will be good incentive for people.2. We made mistakes in the past, lowering we fees will not be worse than other decisions. But system will become actually usable by people, not investors.
There are two reasons for this:1. High fees.2. Centralization.
I disagree with reducing fees for two main reasons:1) It makes the referral program a lot less interesting if you dont expect the users you bring in to generate much of any fees. So then it will fail.2) A big reason why the BTS price has been trending down for a year is that the supply is increasing, that is, the blockchain is operating at a loss instead of being profitable. As soon as we can demonstrate a blockchain making a profit over a reasonable period of time, even a small profit, it will attract a lot of attention. Everyone is used to inflating blockchains that hemmorhage money (through PoW or whatever), but if you change that around and are actually making a profit, then a lot of investors will want to jump on board. And helping the price break its downtrend is going to help adopting a LOT, because a major inhibitor to adoption right now is that everyone who buys in loses money and gets disillusioned....