This is basically situation we currently have. Current model is unsustainable. We are spending more then we earn.
^^THIS - you nailed it with this statement. THIS was the fundamental issue that truly hooked me that differentiated BitShares from virtually EVERY other coin out there, ESPECIALLY Bitcoin, so thank you for reminding everyone in this thread that this principle of operation cannot be minimized or swept under the rug.
However, it's also important to view our current situation from the standpoint of a startup company, which always operate at a loss conceptually until their product is out there in the market earning money b/c people value it. Is it true the "Current model is unsustainable" ? Over what period? Is the reserve pool growing or shrinking? We have sustained this ecosystem over the last 1.5 years with this model, so I'm not sure, so my question is not unreasonable.
Whether we could go another 10, 20 or 30 years with existing model as a financial projection is not the whole story, I don't think anyone here cares as long as we don't spend ourselves out of existence this year or next. Point is all of us here want to make it better, want to improve growth and adoption, and that is not happening with the current model, so from that standpoint something needs to change.
I also believe we need to remember how important marketing is to the success of BitShares. None of us want to see BitShares become the
BetaMax of the crypto world (superior tech but failed due to inferior marketing) The referral program can help with that, but it may not be enough. At this stage of evolution marketing is crucial, and should be considered as a necessary cost of doing business that directly affects sustainability. It needs to be a factor, but not as a static or permanent expense. Ideally IMO marketing needs a big chunk of funds now but should be tapered off as traction is gained, where hopefully things like the referral program will kick in to sustain and fund growth after the major push is no longer needed. IMHO a worker proposal is perfect for such funding. It has the accountability and approval built in, no need to find an alternative now. Depending on how successful a campaign funded this way goes may require other funding, but to start with I believe a worker proposal will be adequate.
This is an excellent discussion. All it seems to be lacking is input from the coders and technical side regarding the cost to implement these ideas.
I am very pleased to see the participants here being open minded to the various distribution allocations, especially you
@fav. You may feel you shouldn't be known as the strongest advocate for the referral system, but in my mind you are. Glad to see your willingness to be flexible. I wonder if this discussion had taken place 12 - 14 months ago if your perspective would be different.
I agree with @fav that this should not become a debate about whether referral programs have merit, because it's a proven fact that they can be incredibly powerful. However, OPs idea cannot be realized without modification of the existing program. So that clearly has to be a part of this conversation. Not to mention, we know the referral program has issues that need to be addressed. So this may also be a very good opportunity to make the referral program more sensible and effective...while simultaneously making it possible to pay interest to bitAsset holders, as well s fav's great new idea of paying a dividend to LTM accounts. All without dilution.
EXACTLY tbone, well said.
Rewarding those who simply hold assets does not improve the DEX.
I disagree with that, however you raised several very good points so I don't want to dismiss everything. Thanks for contributing to the conversation
@kani.
Your perspective appears to be that of a trader, not the average Joe or Joanne who are looking for a safe alternative to confiscatory practices of mainstream financial institutions. I agree with others who have stated they saw the removal of interest on BitUSD present in Bitshares 0.X era as a bad thing. That is a perfect example of factions that are at odds with each other, as traders who shorted BitUSD back then with their "Yield Harvesting" did not have the best interests of the ecosystem in mind and such activities ruined the sustainability and long term viability of BitUSD as a savings asset.
This. is an example of how different target audiences have different and sometimes opposing views on what bring them value and utility. We need to mange these differences in a balanced and reasonable manor so they don't become divisive. Diversity need not be detrimental if we view it as opportunities to sell in different markets.
Who here would say the USA should never have established trade relations with China b/c freedom and communism are not compatible? (disregarding the fact that NO gubermnt promotes and protects freedom. I could see an argument to avoid trade with others based on the principle of shunning or "helping an enemy", or the fact that the US gubermnt has adopted 9 out of the 10 planks in the communist manifesto, but I'll not go there now)