Can we solve the fee dispute udder the committee infrastructure?

[fav]

you know nothing about what bitcrab doing in china, you know nothing about why BItCNY have so much liquidity in china, you know nothing is not your fault, but please try to know something before you post this fucking shit

This kind of attitude is not helpful for anybody.

I was asking questions because I want to know what people are doing in China. So far no answers.

exactly. all we see are debates about tx fees. most of us can't read chinese so we're dependent on news from time to time, just like you guys.

[Akado]

-5% -5% -5%

you know nothing about what bitcrab doing in china, you know nothing about why BItCNY have so much liquidity in china, you know nothing is not your fault, but please try to know something before you post this fucking shit

@wallace
Enlighten me then. What is the Chinese community doing since 2.0 release?

[Samupaha]

you know nothing about what bitcrab doing in china, you know nothing about why BItCNY have so much liquidity in china, you know nothing is not your fault, but please try to know something before you post this fucking shit

This kind of attitude is not helpful for anybody.

I was asking questions because I want to know what people are doing in China. So far no answers.

[wallace]

I understand the referral businesses need to keep a high fee. however these merchants are not the only BTS relevant part that need to be cared, and I am not sure what kind of success they can get, but what I can feel everyday is that the China community stop growing, and even begin to shrink, one of the main factors is the high fee. surely traders, market makers and common users need lowering fee, their benefits must also be considered.

What exactly you are trying to do there in China? How do you use Bitshares? What features are most valuable? If you really value some feature, why you wouldn't be willing to pay for it?

Right now many important features of Bitshares aren't yet implemented, so the use cases aren't really that plentiful. I haven't even imported all of my funds yet because there aren't anything I want to use them for (although voting seems to becoming important so maybe I should import the rest in the near future).

If you are so eager to use Bitshares for something, why not tell us what you are doing?

Important thing here is to understand how Bitshares can offer something so valuable to users that they are ready to pay for it. Remember, the point is to get and keep the DAC profitable. One way of achieving it is to get lots of users and collect low fees. But that is usually more difficult way than building a superior platform that gives so good service that users are ready to pay higher fees without problems.

in my view, if you have some opinion to a proposal, you should become an active committee member or find one committee member that can represent you and set him/her as your proxy. and let the votes tell the majority's opinion.

we need more active committee members to fill the slots, and these committee members should represent different parties, please take action, if you need to add you shares to some opinion.

There is not yet GUI tools for committee members, which is propably the biggest reason we haven't seen many candidates so far. In addition, there aren't really that many people here who have a good understanding of blockchain technology and economics. I suppose we need to discuss these things for a while so that more people can understand better what we are doing and how we can achieve our goals. IMO real economists are in need here.

This is why I wouldn't rush things. Let's discuss first everything thoroughly and then make decisions.

BTW, I'm a little bit interested in becoming a committee member. I'm not in any way a professional economist but I've tried to read a lot about blockchain economics so I might be a good fit on the committee position. Lack of GUI has been the reason why I haven't yet done anything about it. If I have time next weekend, I try to look and understand enough of the command line wallet so that I can publish my committee membership application.

-5% -5% -5%

you know nothing about what bitcrab doing in china, you know nothing about why BItCNY have so much liquidity in china, you know nothing is not your fault, but please try to know something before you post this fucking shit

[Samupaha]

I understand the referral businesses need to keep a high fee. however these merchants are not the only BTS relevant part that need to be cared, and I am not sure what kind of success they can get, but what I can feel everyday is that the China community stop growing, and even begin to shrink, one of the main factors is the high fee. surely traders, market makers and common users need lowering fee, their benefits must also be considered.

What exactly you are trying to do there in China? How do you use Bitshares? What features are most valuable? If you really value some feature, why you wouldn't be willing to pay for it?

Right now many important features of Bitshares aren't yet implemented, so the use cases aren't really that plentiful. I haven't even imported all of my funds yet because there aren't anything I want to use them for (although voting seems to becoming important so maybe I should import the rest in the near future).

If you are so eager to use Bitshares for something, why not tell us what you are doing?

Important thing here is to understand how Bitshares can offer something so valuable to users that they are ready to pay for it. Remember, the point is to get and keep the DAC profitable. One way of achieving it is to get lots of users and collect low fees. But that is usually more difficult way than building a superior platform that gives so good service that users are ready to pay higher fees without problems.

in my view, if you have some opinion to a proposal, you should become an active committee member or find one committee member that can represent you and set him/her as your proxy. and let the votes tell the majority's opinion.

we need more active committee members to fill the slots, and these committee members should represent different parties, please take action, if you need to add you shares to some opinion.

There is not yet GUI tools for committee members, which is propably the biggest reason we haven't seen many candidates so far. In addition, there aren't really that many people here who have a good understanding of blockchain technology and economics. I suppose we need to discuss these things for a while so that more people can understand better what we are doing and how we can achieve our goals. IMO real economists are in need here.

This is why I wouldn't rush things. Let's discuss first everything thoroughly and then make decisions.

BTW, I'm a little bit interested in becoming a committee member. I'm not in any way a professional economist but I've tried to read a lot about blockchain economics so I might be a good fit on the committee position. Lack of GUI has been the reason why I haven't yet done anything about it. If I have time next weekend, I try to look and understand enough of the command line wallet so that I can publish my committee membership application.

[roadscape]

IIRC, non-witness feed producers will be used for prediction markets and maybe other UIA markets too.

In this sense, having feed producers provide market data together with "reasonable operating parameters" is logical.. it provides a simple way to get a market going and distribute the control to any degree. Seems like a good solution for the privatized asset model... whoever issues an asset should control who is authorized to provide feeds and market dynamics.

SmartCoins are issued by committee-acount, which is also meant to represent business interests in this space.
Ultimately, they should *want* to be responsible for the markets.

Ideally, IMO, feed producers are paid, and it's an entirely separate role from that of a block producer. Not sure it's high priority though.

[jakub]

We are sysadmins, not central bankers. I'll happily provide a feed with a script recommended by the committee or the core developers, but please, don't expect me to make political or business decisions.

Are you not providing a service for the BitShares DAC? the job description includes price fees and the corresponding price parameters.
Sorry to say, but with that attitude, I am confident you will be replaced quickly

I disagree. The witness job description includes testifying things, not deciding things.
The witnesses testify that they have seen and validated the transactions they include into blocks.
They testify the external price of asset by publishing the price feed.

The fact that the price feed data structure includes things like short squeeze ratio or core exchange rate is a bug, IMO, because those things cannot be testified, they must be decided. Decisions are part of the job description of committee members.

I also think that triox's response was very appropriate.
Witnesses staying away from business decisions & political issues is actually what we want.

[pc]

We are sysadmins, not central bankers. I'll happily provide a feed with a script recommended by the committee or the core developers, but please, don't expect me to make political or business decisions.

Are you not providing a service for the BitShares DAC? the job description includes price fees and the corresponding price parameters.
Sorry to say, but with that attitude, I am confident you will be replaced quickly

I disagree. The witness job description includes testifying things, not deciding things.
The witnesses testify that they have seen and validated the transactions they include into blocks.
They testify the external price of asset by publishing the price feed.

The fact that the price feed data structure includes things like short squeeze ratio or core exchange rate is a bug, IMO, because those things cannot be testified, they must be decided. Decisions are part of the job description of committee members.

[triox]

.. note that the core exchange rate is in the hands of the WITNESSES and not the committee .. so you need to convince them .. not the committee members ..
still worth a discussion IMHO ..

We are sysadmins, not central bankers. I'll happily provide a feed with a script recommended by the committee or the core developers, but please, don't expect me to make political or business decisions.

Are you not providing a service for the BitShares DAC? the job description includes price fees and the corresponding price parameters.
Sorry to say, but with that attitude, I am confident you will be replaced quickly

Yes, but it's supposed to be a technical service, not decision-making one. Shareholders can't be expected to track political/business stances of dozens of witnesses on top of the committee members.

I see this as a serious problem with the governance model. Witnesses shouldn't have the power to set fee structures or market parameters.

[xeroc]

.. note that the core exchange rate is in the hands of the WITNESSES and not the committee .. so you need to convince them .. not the committee members ..
still worth a discussion IMHO ..

We are sysadmins, not central bankers. I'll happily provide a feed with a script recommended by the committee or the core developers, but please, don't expect me to make political or business decisions.

Are you not providing a service for the BitShares DAC? the job description includes price fees and the corresponding price parameters.
Sorry to say, but with that attitude, I am confident you will be replaced quickly

[triox]

.. note that the core exchange rate is in the hands of the WITNESSES and not the committee .. so you need to convince them .. not the committee members ..
still worth a discussion IMHO ..

We are sysadmins, not central bankers. I'll happily provide a feed with a script recommended by the committee or the core developers, but please, don't expect me to make political or business decisions.

[xeroc]

.. note that the core exchange rate is in the hands of the WITNESSES and not the committee .. so you need to convince them .. not the committee members ..
still worth a discussion IMHO ..

[cube]

I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same.  Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same?  I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.

For me this^ is the best and easiest solution. It would solve most of the problem which stems from regional differences.
Are there any disadvantages to that? I cannot see any but maybe I'm missing something.

I like to see that too.  But I think technically it would be a challenge and users may have to give up some of the privacy aspect of a crypto transfer.

Why would this solution compromise my privacy?

This is how I understand merivercap's proposal:
When I transfer bitUSD or bitEUR I pay the equivalent of $0.20. But when I transfer bitCNY I pay the equivalent of e.g. $0.10.
Is it technically possible? Maybe by using different configurations for asset pool fee funding?

I think this would solve 80% of our problem, which is good enough.

This would be technically possible. Essentially, you just tune the core_exchange_rate differently for both assets.
CNY maybe pricefeed - 5%
USD maybe pricefeed
However .. that would lead to harvesting the fee pool which has to be funded more often .. Either by individuals or subsidized through the BTS shareholders via a worker proposal

This is a neat idea!  Let's discuss this further.

If we could pull off this trick (i.e. have different pseudo-regional pricing policy) that would be yet another spectacular advantage in comparison to other decentralized solutions.

 

[jakub]

I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same.  Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same?  I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.

For me this^ is the best and easiest solution. It would solve most of the problem which stems from regional differences.
Are there any disadvantages to that? I cannot see any but maybe I'm missing something.

I like to see that too.  But I think technically it would be a challenge and users may have to give up some of the privacy aspect of a crypto transfer.

Why would this solution compromise my privacy?

This is how I understand merivercap's proposal:
When I transfer bitUSD or bitEUR I pay the equivalent of $0.20. But when I transfer bitCNY I pay the equivalent of e.g. $0.10.
Is it technically possible? Maybe by using different configurations for asset pool fee funding?

I think this would solve 80% of our problem, which is good enough.

This would be technically possible. Essentially, you just tune the core_exchange_rate differently for both assets.
CNY maybe pricefeed - 5%
USD maybe pricefeed
However .. that would lead to harvesting the fee pool which has to be funded more often .. Either by individuals or subsidized through the BTS shareholders via a worker proposal

It's not perfect, but I think I'd support this.
It's like having a global company selling the same product in different geographical regions at different prices.
One could say that this arrangement is "unjust" as it means the more expensive region is "subsidizing" the less expensive region but from the entire company's perspective it makes total sense.

EDIT: We definitely need the Asian and African market but maybe the concept of "financial independence" is valued lower there than in the "Western" world.
It would make sense as those markets are at different stage: the Western market is mature and people already have plenty of options so what matters there is some kind of lifestyle choice.
Whereas in East Asia and Africa people are to be banked yet so what they care about is price, not lifestyle.

If we could pull off this trick (i.e. have different pseudo-regional pricing policy) that would be yet another spectacular advantage in comparison to other decentralized solutions.

[xeroc]

I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same.  Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same?  I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.

For me this^ is the best and easiest solution. It would solve most of the problem which stems from regional differences.
Are there any disadvantages to that? I cannot see any but maybe I'm missing something.

I like to see that too.  But I think technically it would be a challenge and users may have to give up some of the privacy aspect of a crypto transfer.

Why would this solution compromise my privacy?

This is how I understand merivercap's proposal:
When I transfer bitUSD or bitEUR I pay the equivalent of $0.20. But when I transfer bitCNY I pay the equivalent of e.g. $0.10.
Is it technically possible? Maybe by using different configurations for asset pool fee funding?

I think this would solve 80% of our problem, which is good enough.

This would be technically possible. Essentially, you just tune the core_exchange_rate differently for both assets.
CNY maybe pricefeed - 5%
USD maybe pricefeed
However .. that would lead to harvesting the fee pool which has to be funded more often .. Either by individuals or subsidized through the BTS shareholders via a worker proposal

[jakub]

This would create a situation where users may convert their bitUSD/EUR to bitCNY and/or encourage them to hold bitCNY. It may result in a distortion of markets.

I'm not sure about it.
If I regularly spend my money in bitUSD (or bitEUR) I won't bother to convert it to bitCNY just to save a couple of cents on transfer fees - it's just not worth the effort and it will additionally expose me to unwanted volatility.

But maybe it's just me. I wonder what others think.

[cube]

I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same.  Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same?  I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.

For me this^ is the best and easiest solution. It would solve most of the problem which stems from regional differences.
Are there any disadvantages to that? I cannot see any but maybe I'm missing something.

I like to see that too.  But I think technically it would be a challenge and users may have to give up some of the privacy aspect of a crypto transfer.

Why would this solution compromise my privacy?

This is how I understand merivercap's proposal:
When I transfer bitUSD or bitEUR I pay the equivalent of $0.20. But when I transfer bitCNY I pay the equivalent of e.g. $0.10.
Is it technically possible? Maybe by using different configurations for asset pool fee funding?

I think this would solve 80% of our problem, which is good enough.

You are talking about transfering bitCNY.  I was referring to the need to track transfer based on country of sender.  I see your point.

This would create a situation where users may convert their bitUSD/EUR to bitCNY and/or encourage them to hold bitCNY.   It may result in a distortion of markets.

[jakub]

I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same.  Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same?  I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.

For me this^ is the best and easiest solution. It would solve most of the problem which stems from regional differences.
Are there any disadvantages to that? I cannot see any but maybe I'm missing something.

I like to see that too.  But I think technically it would be a challenge and users may have to give up some of the privacy aspect of a crypto transfer.

Why would this solution compromise my privacy?

This is how I understand merivercap's proposal:
When I transfer bitUSD or bitEUR I pay the equivalent of $0.20. But when I transfer bitCNY I pay the equivalent of e.g. $0.10.
Is it technically possible? Maybe by using different configurations for asset pool fee funding?

I think this would solve 80% of our problem, which is good enough.

[cube]

I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same.  Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same?  I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.

For me this^ is the best and easiest solution. It would solve most of the problem which stems from regional differences.
Are there any disadvantages to that? I cannot see any but maybe I'm missing something.

I like to see that too.  But I think technically it would be a challenge and users may have to give up some of the privacy aspect of a crypto transfer.

[jakub]

I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same.  Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same?  I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.

For me this^ is the best and easiest solution. It would solve most of the problem which stems from regional differences.
Are there any disadvantages to that? I cannot see any but maybe I'm missing something.

[carpet ride]

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

If impossible, fine.  Although it seems it works just fine everywhere else, though I don't claim to know the technical implications.  If its just difficult, that is no excuse.

as for pegging to USD.  Why not peg to RMB or EUR?  is bitshares a US network for US business? I understand USD is "world reserve" currency but it does not make sense to be so.  Fee should be based on something neutral like BTS simply, or if you must, perhaps a basket of currencies/commodities.  How about the average of 20% the cost of a loaf of bread from around the world.  It might be $.20 here but how about India, Mexico, or China.

Agreed. We may not want this message,

"With Bitshares You can send your money anywhere in the world, EXCEPT Asia and Africa, because they can't afford our fee system"

All things considered, I imagine it still costs more on all other systems in Africa and Asia.  Remittance can be 6% or more.

[pc]

in BTS2.0 one of committee's tasks is to define some business parameters, including transaction and trading fees. now the argue on fee has lasted for long time, why not get a conclusion via a vote by committee?

Well, it's not like someone (BM) has to flip a lever or something to put the committee into action. Right now, shareholders can vote for committee members, and committee members can vote on proposals.

However, in my eyes "majority rules" is not a sustainable way of action. Overruling a significant minority only serves to split the community and to drive people away. We need to discuss this and come to a broad consensus.

[Xeldal]

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

If impossible, fine.  Although it seems it works just fine everywhere else, though I don't claim to know the technical implications.  If its just difficult, that is no excuse.

as for pegging to USD.  Why not peg to RMB or EUR?  is bitshares a US network for US business? I understand USD is "world reserve" currency but it does not make sense to be so.  Fee should be based on something neutral like BTS simply, or if you must, perhaps a basket of currencies/commodities.  How about the average of 20% the cost of a loaf of bread from around the world.  It might be $.20 here but how about India, Mexico, or China.

It doesn't matter what you peg it to. But I don't think pegging is a good idea at all. Those relative values can change over time and then you're stuck with something that is much too cheap or too expensive in fiat terms. Slave to the system from which you are trying to break free. People will set the market for BTS and its fees where they need to be. Perhaps some tweaking is still needed, but I'm getting quite comfortable with the present fee structure and I've seen good arguments to keep it.

I agree about not pegging.  I was posing these alternatives to make a point.  I too am fairly comfortable with the fee structure but I recognize that many are not, and for good reason.  I also see that it effectively eliminates entire regions/industries of use-case and opportunities for growth.  If the entire motive behind keeping the current fee is for referral income, and this income can be shown to be equivalent or greater with an alternative more widely agreeable structure, I'm all for that change. 

I may be comfortable with the fees but that is mostly because I don't live in the effected regions and don't transact in the eliminated use cases.  Ultimately I will be effected if these translate into fewer users and lower price, just not directly, and not so easily apparent.

[donkeypong]

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

If impossible, fine.  Although it seems it works just fine everywhere else, though I don't claim to know the technical implications.  If its just difficult, that is no excuse.

as for pegging to USD.  Why not peg to RMB or EUR?  is bitshares a US network for US business? I understand USD is "world reserve" currency but it does not make sense to be so.  Fee should be based on something neutral like BTS simply, or if you must, perhaps a basket of currencies/commodities.  How about the average of 20% the cost of a loaf of bread from around the world.  It might be $.20 here but how about India, Mexico, or China.

It doesn't matter what you peg it to. But I don't think pegging is a good idea at all. Those relative values can change over time and then you're stuck with something that is much too cheap or too expensive in fiat terms. Slave to the system from which you are trying to break free. People will set the market for BTS and its fees where they need to be. Perhaps some tweaking is still needed, but I'm getting quite comfortable with the present fee structure and I've seen good arguments to keep it.

[clayop]

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

If impossible, fine.  Although it seems it works just fine everywhere else, though I don't claim to know the technical implications.  If its just difficult, that is no excuse.

as for pegging to USD.  Why not peg to RMB or EUR?  is bitshares a US network for US business? I understand USD is "world reserve" currency but it does not make sense to be so.  Fee should be based on something neutral like BTS simply, or if you must, perhaps a basket of currencies/commodities.  How about the average of 20% the cost of a loaf of bread from around the world.  It might be $.20 here but how about India, Mexico, or China.

Agreed. We may not want this message,

"With Bitshares You can send your money anywhere in the world, EXCEPT Asia and Africa, because they can't afford our fee system"

[Xeldal]

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

If impossible, fine.  Although it seems it works just fine everywhere else, though I don't claim to know the technical implications.  If its just difficult, that is no excuse.

as for pegging to USD.  Why not peg to RMB or EUR?  is bitshares a US network for US business? I understand USD is "world reserve" currency but it does not make sense to be so.  Fee should be based on something neutral like BTS simply, or if you must, perhaps a basket of currencies/commodities.  How about the average of 20% the cost of a loaf of bread from around the world.  It might be $.20 here but how about India, Mexico, or China.

[bitcrab]

let's fill the committee slots first, if you feel you are appropriate to act as a committee member and you'd like to play that role, just publish a post in the Stakeholder Proposals->Committee board, I'll check and vote if I feel you can contribute value to the committee, either you are referral businessman, developer, trader, market maker...etc.

[wallace]

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money.

This is not always true.  bitcoin for example has a fee that is always increasing so long as the price of BTC is increasing.  The fees of bitcoin at $1 /BTC were much lower than they are now.

setting a fee now of 20 BTS or $.08, later as price moves up, fee is kept the same 20BTS, but now collecting $.20 fee.  so fee has technically gone up but has also not changed.

I believe there are creative ways of changing the fee structure that will not change the overall collected fees.  for example a percentage based fee would allow for cheaper small transfers and would be more expensive for larger transfers.   the collected fees for a referrer would on average be the same and would allow smaller transactions to remain viable as well as accommodate regional cost of living differences.

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

a 1,000 users system is much different from a 10,000 users system, the system value is different, why keep the fee the same?

[clayop]

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

At the moment, pegging to USD is not a good idea. Are you really willing to increase the fee to 60 BTS now? Since the fee priced in BTS, the market is very sensitive when BTS price is down.
We need to be more smart. With fixed BTS fee, marketers and referrers can get more income when they play good roles and then bring BTS price increase.

[fav]

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money.

This is not always true.  bitcoin for example has a fee that is always increasing so long as the price of BTC is increasing.  The fees of bitcoin at $1 /BTC were much lower than they are now.

setting a fee now of 20 BTS or $.08, later as price moves up, fee is kept the same 20BTS, but now collecting $.20 fee.  so fee has technically gone up but has also not changed.

I believe there are creative ways of changing the fee structure that will not change the overall collected fees.  for example a percentage based fee would allow for cheaper small transfers and would be more expensive for larger transfers.   the collected fees for a referrer would on average be the same and would allow smaller transactions to remain viable as well as accommodate regional cost of living differences.

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

[Xeldal]

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money.

This is not always true.  bitcoin for example has a fee that is always increasing so long as the price of BTC is increasing.  The fees of bitcoin at $1 /BTC were much lower than they are now.

setting a fee now of 20 BTS or $.08, later as price moves up, fee is kept the same 20BTS, but now collecting $.20 fee.  so fee has technically gone up but has also not changed.

I believe there are creative ways of changing the fee structure that will not change the overall collected fees.  for example a percentage based fee would allow for cheaper small transfers and would be more expensive for larger transfers.   the collected fees for a referrer would on average be the same and would allow smaller transactions to remain viable as well as accommodate regional cost of living differences.   

[wallace]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

your owner already have a lot of customers, he just don't want to lost it, right?

our problem is we have no users now. we need new users, this is totally different from your example.

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money. So the example still stand.

Lower Fees does not necessarily equal more users too. Whenever an institution makes sweeping changes like Bitshares did, there is an inevitable "freeze" in the user base who try to wrap their mind around the new platform...some, like me, are still trying to import their funds.

No, the fee priced by BTS, not USD, if the BTS price increased, the fee icreased as well, if the BTS price go up, people don't mind to keep the same BTS fee. and if the BTS price is higher enough, we can decrease the BTS fee but actually fee value increased.

I always said we need strategy. firstly we need users, next is to keep it. we have a Competitive product maybe the best in crypto world and we must have lots of way to keep the users.

[rgcrypto]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

your owner already have a lot of customers, he just don't want to lost it, right?

our problem is we have no users now. we need new users, this is totally different from your example.

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money. So the example still stand.

Lower Fees does not necessarily equal more users too. Whenever an institution makes sweeping changes like Bitshares did, there is an inevitable "freeze" in the user base who try to wrap their mind around the new platform...some, like me, are still trying to import their funds.

[Xeldal]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

I agree, we must take our time here.  No need to rush and appear whimsical, unfounded, and unstable.  There are many markets and many people with different perspectives and ideas. 

It is also not helpful for people to simply dismiss these talks as annoying or belabored as some are apt to do.  Fees are clearly an issue and deserve a fair discussion until we are all blue in the face if need be.  Honestly, if someone is not open to further patient discussion, IMO they have no business being a committee member.

I personally see good reason in supporting small transactions with lower than 50% fees.  I also see reason in providing great incentive for building referral businesses marketed to average transfer customers.   I understand there are difficulties in setting prices on a global scale due to regional pricing, cost of living, social and cultural differences.  I believe there is a solution that is functional and equitable for all parties.  Lets figure it out.

[lil_jay890]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

Agree... We can not possibly come to consensus when most of our committee member are still inits.

I am still in favor of keeping the fee's at $.15-$.20... I would prefer the fees change in bts terms dynamically as the value of bts changes.

[wallace]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

your owner already have a lot of customers, he just don't want to lost it, right?

our problem is we have no users now. we need new users, this is totally different from your example.

[rgcrypto]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

[bitcrab]

in BTS2.0 one of committee's tasks is to define some business parameters, including transaction and trading fees. now the argue on fee has lasted for long time, why not get a conclusion via a vote by committee?

I understand the referral businesses need to keep a high fee. however these merchants are not the only BTS relevant part that need to be cared, and I am not sure what kind of success they can get, but what I can feel everyday is that the China community stop growing, and even begin to shrink, one of the main factors is the high fee. surely traders, market makers and common users need lowering fee, their benefits must also be considered.

then why don't we let the committee do something and reach a conclusion that can balance all sides?

clayop has draft a proposal 1.10.13, its content is to decrease the transfer fee from 40 BTS to 9 BTS, however seems referrals are strongly against this proposal.

in my view, if you have some opinion to a proposal, you should become an active committee member or find one committee member that can represent you and set him/her as your proxy. and let the votes tell the majority's opinion.

we need more active committee members to fill the slots, and these committee members should represent different parties, please take action, if you need to add you shares to some opinion.

someone defined what clayop did recently as "craziness", said this will break up the community. but behind clayop and I is a big community. clayop just expressed the common opinion of this community.

I understand sometimes we need compromise in committee game, committee members need to totally understand the BTS business and the road map and then vote wisely.

I know that many referral businessmen are against proposal 1.10.13, ok if you think 9 BTS is too low, how about 20 BTS, if you are still not satisfied, how about 30 BTS?

actually clayop and I are prepared to draft an alternative proposal, let's call it "proposal B", its content is to decrease the transfer fee to 30 BTS.

maybe someone will say, 30 and 40 has no big difference, is it really necessary to do such a change?

I say yes, we need to give the people some hope, to convince them their benefits are not ignored, and the committee can really decide something. and BTS is not centrally controlled.

and we can give referral businesses several months to grow up, and then discuss and decide what's the next direction to go, either increasing fee or decreasing fee is ok, if the majority agree.

is this OK?