First I would like to acknowledge that there is no doubt a stigma to MLM. Further I agree that we will get shit for this if we decided to move forward on it in any form. Single tier or multi tier. High Earner status fee/low fee / no fee. We have already seen all of that in this thread already. I recognize this, like all actions have risk. The more aggressive we are the more shit we get and potentially the better the benefits.
The bad thing about any change is that if/when the change upsets some existing users, then they may leave. this happens immediately. Any benefit that may accrue from an action does so in the future. This is true of all actions we can choose to take. The assessment of the benefits and risks are important and this thread is doing a great job of it so far.
Just my thoughts, but I think the probability of this strategy doing more harm than good in the bitcoin space is substantial. By substantial I would say 30-50% I think the benefits in the broader community though would be epic. For this reason I think a high quality phone app is important for the release of this product.
On to a few replies....
BTS is already supposed to be a system where you buy in as an early investor by purchasing BTS, and then you get a dividend from market trading fees, in the form of having BTS be burned.
But under the new proposed system, instead of encouraging people to buy $20 of BTS and supporting the share price, they are instead asked to put that $20 into a pyramid scheme operating within BTS. Hilarious! Its a way to dilute the potential revenues of BTS holders, thus making BTS worth less, in order to reward early participants in the new scheme.
There is so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to start. The crypto is a place for rich people. you need serious money to invest in coins, mining hardware or have access to capital markets to raise money for a new venture. If you are poor, move along.... Your hard work is not rewarded anywhere in crypto. This proposal is the first mechanism in all of crypto that poor people can use sweat equity to ad value to a blockchain and get rewarded. Sounds a hell of a lot more egalitarian to me than just a place for people with investment dollars. A whole new realm of people... the ones who need it the most can participate in the crypto revolution with this marketing system. And we would have a monopoly on it.
Further this system dilutes revenues only in the revenues that are created by the participants. People who do not have a referrer ie: the ones we would have got anyway through word of mouth have 100% of their fees go to the shareholders.
In a pyramid early adopters are rewarded. In an MLM hard workes are rewarded. It is up to us to choose the compensation plan that would reward hard work and not incentivize free loaders.
The question/fear I have is:
Do we trade immediate MLM-driven adoption for long term stigma and lower long-run number of users we are likely to see once that MLM label sticks?
Can you convince us that the fear is irrational or at least very unlikely?
Do you have any examples of successful businesses that have started MLM and weened off of it without the stigma of Amway, Mary Kay, Avon, etc.?
The stigma I Agree with, but I disagree that we will sacrifice anything in the long term total number of customers. Entry into the business is voluntary and should not cost us customers. Stigma may cost us some business relationships early, but not in the long run.
Once you go down this road it is poor form to turn it off. If it works you would never want to. If it does not work and you want to abandon it you have a difficult situation... People paid $20 to be an earner and be able to sign up earners. Even letting existing users stay but take away there ability earn a comm from the $20 sign up will not be taken well unless it was stated up front that after x number of signups no more can exist. But I don' think this is that good an idea.
Is the $20 fee to be part of the scheme really needed? If a user signs up a new account referring to his own old account to get half his fees back, then so what? He his still paying the network something.
From the networks point of view it is fine, but from the person who introduced him gets nothing and so he is not incentivized to do any work.