0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the point is - we are not sure where we will find our userbase. So to make the hurdle so high for not so "rich" people it will not bring them to us.would it possible to say a transaction with value <= 1000 BTS you have to pay say 5 BTSif it is higher the normal transaction fee will be appliedso for the userbase say in Argentina, most of the users has not the need to make lifetimemembership account, but still can use our network. This will not hinder the referral idea.
i think it is too different to get a conclusionif team leader luck of intelligence.it would become badmargin dns and vote make bts lost many userand high fee would make bts lost more user againthe fact that price almost fall to lowest show we are losting userif there is no user use it. ,it just a usless code without value.my last suggestion about feeadjust fee according to transaction per second1. if tps <5. fee=2bts2. if 5<tps<10 ,fee=4bts3. if 10<tps<20,fee=6bts4. if 20<tps<40 fee=8bts5. if 40<tps<80 fee=10 bts6. if 80<tps<160 fee= 12 bts7. if 160 <tps<320 fee=14bts8. if 320<tps<640 fee=16bts9.if 640 <tps<1280 fee= 18bts10. if tps>1280 fee=20bts
One perspective that I find missing from the fee discussion is the one that can be learned from other successful affiliate systems. The one that I'm familiar with was (years ago) POKER. It's very similar to what we are doing in that: a) users have to pay high fees and pay often b) users are primarily attracted by 'liquidity' (availability of other players).So what happened in the online poker scene was that competition between poker rooms was happening not via low fees but via HIGH fees that the rooms shared with affiliates who in turn shared them with users in the form of bonuses and 'rakeback'. So I expect all Bitshares affiliates to eventually pay users a substantial percentage of their fees back. From the users perspective he won't be paying any fees, he'll be 'getting paid' for using the BitShares network. You may think that it's basically a wash, but a better cash flow for affiliates translates to much better exposure of the system to the outside world.
I think I've discovered a reasonable explanation why the current transaction fees are perceived by some of us here as too high.We are generally BTS holders and the reason we hold our BTS is because we feel they are actually worth much more than their current market value.So we perceive spending 20 BTS (and now even 40 BTS) as a significant expense because we take into account the expected future value of BTS. In other words, in the not-so-far future 40 BTS might be worth much more in terms of fiat than it is now so it feels very expensive. It feels like the we are forced to sacrifice part of our core investment just to make a transaction.But a non BTS-holder won't necessarily feel this way.Does it make sense?EDIT: So my point is that we need to differentiate between the point of view of BTS holders and BTS users. We, as BTS holders, are likely to be biased because we value our BTS much higher than the outside world. For an outsider $0.20 might be no big deal but for an insider 40 BTS is a big deal (especially if you are not a whale and every 40 BTS spent now is perceived by you as having e.g. 0.1% of your investment gone).So let's make this pricing decision rationally, i.e. by doing a market research among people who have never heard of BTS. Because this is the actual pool of our future users.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2015, 06:12:36 pmIt seems like there is a lot of debate around the transfer fees and this debate is both good and bad.I expect transfers to make up a relatively small part of BTS transaction types. The vast majority of the fees will be paid in the market as people place orders.Rather than having negative PR of "high fees" we can offer Transfers at a lower fee, while maintaining the higher fees for everything else. If the transfer fee for normal users is equal to the BTC transfer fee then we cannot be accused of having "high fees".If we lower the transfer fee from 40 BTS to 5 BTS then transfers will cost the same as bitcoin. We can keep blind transfers at a higher price and keep market orders at 10 BTS.It is just a question of asking ourselves what business are we in. If we are in the exchange business then transfers can be nearly free because we make our money on exchanges. Having something that is "cheap" allows us to advertize "lowest transfer fees of any crypto-currency". Thoughts?i'm a fan of lower transfer fees as i believe our core business are the exchanges. 40 BTS at current market value isn't a big deal, but as we grow there needs to be a dynamic lowering to keep the fiat-equiv value about the same...
It seems like there is a lot of debate around the transfer fees and this debate is both good and bad.I expect transfers to make up a relatively small part of BTS transaction types. The vast majority of the fees will be paid in the market as people place orders.Rather than having negative PR of "high fees" we can offer Transfers at a lower fee, while maintaining the higher fees for everything else. If the transfer fee for normal users is equal to the BTC transfer fee then we cannot be accused of having "high fees".If we lower the transfer fee from 40 BTS to 5 BTS then transfers will cost the same as bitcoin. We can keep blind transfers at a higher price and keep market orders at 10 BTS.It is just a question of asking ourselves what business are we in. If we are in the exchange business then transfers can be nearly free because we make our money on exchanges. Having something that is "cheap" allows us to advertize "lowest transfer fees of any crypto-currency". Thoughts?
I think I've discovered a reasonable explanation why the current transaction fees are perceived by some of us here as too high.We are generally BTS holders and the reason we hold our BTS is because we feel they are actually worth much more than their current market value.So we perceive spending 20 BTS (and now even 40 BTS) as a significant expense because we take into account the expected future value of BTS. In other words, in the not-so-far future 40 BTS might be worth much more in terms of fiat than it is now so it feels very expansive. It feels like the we are forced to sacrifice part of our core investment just to make a transaction.But a non BTS-holder won't necessarily feel this way.Does it make sense?
This is mind blowing. You can't judge the fees without the referral system working for several months. No other coin has a mechanism to pay merchants to go to the trouble of educating their user base to pay them in crypto. We do. That is unique and it is a chance (not a guarantee) that it we succeed where all other alts have failed.Geo-pricing is just another level of confusion to add to the worlds most complicated product. Lets not shall we.
to be fair - the only reason why the high fees are needed are because of the not working referral system!the prices right now are fine with western world, but to get popular in other region we should lower the fees on the small end (small transaction).
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2015, 08:05:22 pmA simple change in the GUI / billing / transfer page can make it looks like the sender is paying no fees. I'd strongly advise against such tricks. I personally hate it when there are hidden costs not clearly stated and prefer to pay the fee than be cheated and discover it later on.It would make us no different from the corporate culture where the general mindset is to be nice to the customer and then screw him behind the scenes.Please, don't do it.
A simple change in the GUI / billing / transfer page can make it looks like the sender is paying no fees.
If we are in the exchange business then transfers can be nearly free because we make our money on exchanges.
As an ecosystem, the crux of current BTS is its exchanges. To promote trades in DEX, lowering trade fees is quite needed. Think about other exchanges that should attract new customers. "Zero trade fee" is very attractive. While zero fee is not feasible for us, very low level of trade fees (say 1 BTS for non-lifetime members) can attract traders and expand our ecosystem. Then we can slowly increase our trade fees. Even Apple music provides "3 month free trial" for new customers.
Market making seems to be the elephant in the room not being addressed by the developers. There has been so much talk about creating a pretty GUI and not enough talk about how to actually get liquidity. Honestly, the GUI is pretty sweet right now and will only get better. You can make a GUI that looks like Apple themselves created it but it'll still be useless without liquidity.
We've had feeback from South America (ElMato) , Eastern and Southern Europe (Noisy and Liondani) and China (Alt + many many more) saying the fee is too high for their market.
Do stealth transfers cost extra? They should.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2015, 08:05:22 pmQuote from: merivercap on October 21, 2015, 07:58:54 pmI would urge the community to keep transfer fees in the US the same. I think regional pricing is a good idea. As someone who is building a real US-based payments business on top of Bitshares the transfer fees are important to keep the business sustainable. Otherwise it will probably take hundreds of millions of VC money, hundreds of millions of users, 10 years to even get the cash flow in the black, much less pay back the cost of capital. Free or close to free is not a great business model unless you plan to show a 30-sec video ad before you send every payment. I'm certainly not interested in pursuing a business like this. I would argue without the payments side, the exchange side is far less valuable. We shouldn't compete with other cryptos on cost. Bitcoin and other cryptos are already essentially 'free'. But ask yourself how are business that build on those ecosystems going to grow? What is the revenue business model of anyone who builds on other cryptos? I would tell you most have no sustainable business model. We can do well with peer to peer payments, but this should be a secondary focus because the perception and reality for the mainstream public is that payments are already free. I would even recommend Venmo, Square cash, traditional online bank transfers via email/phone # as much better solutions for the average consumer. I'm saying this as a competitor to those payment solutions. We are naturally going to need and get a good % of unbanked, anti-bank, be-your-own-bank crowd that don't like traditional solutions and the fees aren't going to be a deal breaker.We should be focused on merchants. They are desperate for a solution because they have to pay 3 - 8% transaction fees, annual/monthly fees, hidden fees, and deal with the headache of chargebacks. When I tell merchants the cost for them is 20 cents they are immediately sold. The question I get from merchants is why and how are we so cheap? I got a question from a merchant (who actually worked in payment processing before) about if we are going to be around in the future because 20 cents doesn't sound sustainable for any payment business. I agree. I assume if we want we can structure payments so that merchants are 'paying' the cost so that should allow users to feel like they aren't paying anything in transaction fees. I think low transfer fees will also render the referral system ineffective. There would be very little reason to upgrade memberships and people won't be incentivized by getting a few cents trickling in each month from referrals.This is a very good perspective. The fees are already very low from a merchants perspective. A simple change in the GUI / billing / transfer page can make it looks like the sender is paying no fees. great idea!
Quote from: merivercap on October 21, 2015, 07:58:54 pmI would urge the community to keep transfer fees in the US the same. I think regional pricing is a good idea. As someone who is building a real US-based payments business on top of Bitshares the transfer fees are important to keep the business sustainable. Otherwise it will probably take hundreds of millions of VC money, hundreds of millions of users, 10 years to even get the cash flow in the black, much less pay back the cost of capital. Free or close to free is not a great business model unless you plan to show a 30-sec video ad before you send every payment. I'm certainly not interested in pursuing a business like this. I would argue without the payments side, the exchange side is far less valuable. We shouldn't compete with other cryptos on cost. Bitcoin and other cryptos are already essentially 'free'. But ask yourself how are business that build on those ecosystems going to grow? What is the revenue business model of anyone who builds on other cryptos? I would tell you most have no sustainable business model. We can do well with peer to peer payments, but this should be a secondary focus because the perception and reality for the mainstream public is that payments are already free. I would even recommend Venmo, Square cash, traditional online bank transfers via email/phone # as much better solutions for the average consumer. I'm saying this as a competitor to those payment solutions. We are naturally going to need and get a good % of unbanked, anti-bank, be-your-own-bank crowd that don't like traditional solutions and the fees aren't going to be a deal breaker.We should be focused on merchants. They are desperate for a solution because they have to pay 3 - 8% transaction fees, annual/monthly fees, hidden fees, and deal with the headache of chargebacks. When I tell merchants the cost for them is 20 cents they are immediately sold. The question I get from merchants is why and how are we so cheap? I got a question from a merchant (who actually worked in payment processing before) about if we are going to be around in the future because 20 cents doesn't sound sustainable for any payment business. I agree. I assume if we want we can structure payments so that merchants are 'paying' the cost so that should allow users to feel like they aren't paying anything in transaction fees. I think low transfer fees will also render the referral system ineffective. There would be very little reason to upgrade memberships and people won't be incentivized by getting a few cents trickling in each month from referrals.This is a very good perspective. The fees are already very low from a merchants perspective. A simple change in the GUI / billing / transfer page can make it looks like the sender is paying no fees.
I would urge the community to keep transfer fees in the US the same. I think regional pricing is a good idea. As someone who is building a real US-based payments business on top of Bitshares the transfer fees are important to keep the business sustainable. Otherwise it will probably take hundreds of millions of VC money, hundreds of millions of users, 10 years to even get the cash flow in the black, much less pay back the cost of capital. Free or close to free is not a great business model unless you plan to show a 30-sec video ad before you send every payment. I'm certainly not interested in pursuing a business like this. I would argue without the payments side, the exchange side is far less valuable. We shouldn't compete with other cryptos on cost. Bitcoin and other cryptos are already essentially 'free'. But ask yourself how are business that build on those ecosystems going to grow? What is the revenue business model of anyone who builds on other cryptos? I would tell you most have no sustainable business model. We can do well with peer to peer payments, but this should be a secondary focus because the perception and reality for the mainstream public is that payments are already free. I would even recommend Venmo, Square cash, traditional online bank transfers via email/phone # as much better solutions for the average consumer. I'm saying this as a competitor to those payment solutions. We are naturally going to need and get a good % of unbanked, anti-bank, be-your-own-bank crowd that don't like traditional solutions and the fees aren't going to be a deal breaker.We should be focused on merchants. They are desperate for a solution because they have to pay 3 - 8% transaction fees, annual/monthly fees, hidden fees, and deal with the headache of chargebacks. When I tell merchants the cost for them is 20 cents they are immediately sold. The question I get from merchants is why and how are we so cheap? I got a question from a merchant (who actually worked in payment processing before) about if we are going to be around in the future because 20 cents doesn't sound sustainable for any payment business. I agree. I assume if we want we can structure payments so that merchants are 'paying' the cost so that should allow users to feel like they aren't paying anything in transaction fees. I think low transfer fees will also render the referral system ineffective. There would be very little reason to upgrade memberships and people won't be incentivized by getting a few cents trickling in each month from referrals.
set 5BTS as a minimum transfer fee, transfer of BTS, CNY and some other assets need to pay this minimum fee.transfer of USD and some other assets need to pay $0.2.to get a regional based fee rule is good idea, as the business cultures in different regions are so different, keeping same may cause the community fall in endless debate and split.5BTS transfer fee also make the lifetime memeber senseful. in China users hate high fee, but they may pay for lifetime member under 5BTS transfer fee condition. under $0.2 transfer fee condition what they think most may be "should I exit?" I already paid 10000 BTS for one lifetime member, such a lifetime member price is acceptable, but the high transfer fee may make China users disappointed ans leave, this is what I really worry.
lower the transfer fees for now but make sure the lifetime member gets his 1/4 discount (or whatever that fraction is currently). I mean the network is all set up anyway, so we might as well be generating activity. we can talk about raising fees when we have too much traffic. Keep the wallet creation fees high.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 21, 2015, 10:04:58 pmQuote from: Ander on October 21, 2015, 10:03:51 pmImo, poloniex should become a lifetime member.If they do, they could start charging their customers 5 BTS to withdraw instead of 20, or whatever it is.poloniex is a lifetime member I think. The account poloniexwallet is anyway.So they are just making 16 bts every time they charge their customers 20 for a transfer?
Quote from: Ander on October 21, 2015, 10:03:51 pmImo, poloniex should become a lifetime member.If they do, they could start charging their customers 5 BTS to withdraw instead of 20, or whatever it is.poloniex is a lifetime member I think. The account poloniexwallet is anyway.
Imo, poloniex should become a lifetime member.If they do, they could start charging their customers 5 BTS to withdraw instead of 20, or whatever it is.
Quote from: merivercap on October 21, 2015, 07:58:54 pmI would urge the community to keep transfer fees in the US the same. I think regional pricing is a good idea. As someone who is building a real US-based payments business on top of Bitshares the transfer fees are important to keep the business sustainable. Otherwise it will probably take hundreds of millions of VC money, hundreds of millions of users, 10 years to even get the cash flow in the black, much less pay back the cost of capital. Free or close to free is not a great business model unless you plan to show a 30-sec video ad before you send every payment. I'm certainly not interested in pursuing a business like this. I would argue without the payments side, the exchange side is far less valuable. We shouldn't compete with other cryptos on cost. Bitcoin and other cryptos are already essentially 'free'. But ask yourself how are business that build on those ecosystems going to grow? What is the revenue business model of anyone who builds on other cryptos? I would tell you most have no sustainable business model. We can do well with peer to peer payments, but this should be a secondary focus because the perception and reality for the mainstream public is that payments are already free. I would even recommend Venmo, Square cash, traditional online bank transfers via email/phone # as much better solutions for the average consumer. I'm saying this as a competitor to those payment solutions. We are naturally going to need and get a good % of unbanked, anti-bank, be-your-own-bank crowd that don't like traditional solutions and the fees aren't going to be a deal breaker.We should be focused on merchants. They are desperate for a solution because they have to pay 3 - 8% transaction fees, annual/monthly fees, hidden fees, and deal with the headache of chargebacks. When I tell merchants the cost for them is 20 cents they are immediately sold. The question I get from merchants is why and how are we so cheap? I got a question from a merchant (who actually worked in payment processing before) about if we are going to be around in the future because 20 cents doesn't sound sustainable for any payment business. I agree. I assume if we want we can structure payments so that merchants are 'paying' the cost so that should allow users to feel like they aren't paying anything in transaction fees. I think low transfer fees will also render the referral system ineffective. There would be very little reason to upgrade memberships and people won't be incentivized by getting a few cents trickling in each month from referrals. I am with this guy.
We shouldn't compete with other cryptos on cost. Bitcoin and other cryptos are already essentially 'free'. But ask yourself how are business that build on those ecosystems going to grow? What is the revenue business model of anyone who builds on other cryptos? I would tell you most have no sustainable business model. We can do well with peer to peer payments, but this should be a secondary focus because the perception and reality for the mainstream public is that payments are already free. I would even recommend Venmo, Square cash, traditional online bank transfers via email/phone # as much better solutions for the average consumer. I'm saying this as a competitor to those payment solutions. We are naturally going to need and get a good % of unbanked, anti-bank, be-your-own-bank crowd that don't like traditional solutions and the fees aren't going to be a deal breaker.We should be focused on merchants. They are desperate for a solution because they have to pay 3 - 8% transaction fees, annual/monthly fees, hidden fees, and deal with the headache of chargebacks. When I tell merchants the cost for them is 20 cents they are immediately sold. The question I get from merchants is why and how are we so cheap? I got a question from a merchant (who actually worked in payment processing before) about if we are going to be around in the future because 20 cents doesn't sound sustainable for any payment business. I agree. I assume if we want we can structure payments so that merchants are 'paying' the cost so that should allow users to feel like they aren't paying anything in transaction fees. I think low transfer fees will also render the referral system ineffective. There would be very little reason to upgrade memberships and people won't be incentivized by getting a few cents trickling in each month from referrals.
Send or receive money between friends and family and we won’t charge you anything.
Purchase payments received (monthly) Fee per transaction£0.00 GBP - £1,500.00 GBP 3.4% + £0.20 GBP£1,500.01 GBP - £6,000.00 GBP 2.9% + £0.20 GBP£6,000.01 GBP - £15,000.00 GBP 2.4% + £0.20 GBP£15,000.01 GBP - £55,000.00 GBP 1.9% + £0.20 GBPabove £55,000.00 GBP* 1.4% + £0.20 GBP
two points:Quote from: merivercap on October 21, 2015, 07:58:54 pmI think low transfer fees will also render the referral system ineffective. There would be very little reason to upgrade memberships and people won't be incentivized by getting a few cents trickling in each month from referrals.and the "first one's free" salesman trickWe need a sales team, and we need to pay them. Where's the money going to come from to pay them, and what is there incentive to sign up "big" clients?At the same time, no one will try out a superior product if cost appears to be a barrier to entry. Look at what google's doing now with google docs enterprise... they are making it free/cheap so you adopt them and don't even try microsoft.What is unique to the BTS network? These can have high fees1) Decentralized Market2) Smart CoinsWhat is not unique to BTS? these can have low fees1) Transfer of cryptocoins (e.g, the BTS coins themselves)Each fee should be set based on a competitive pricing model. BTS should trade with BTC level of fees.Market and SmartCoins should trade with polo and paypal level fees, respectively.If network bandwidth starts limiting transactions, then fees can be made proportional to the true "network cost" (which might mean raising transaction fees). Assuming unlimited network bandwidth, fees should maximize revenue and therefore at least be competitive with competing tech.
I think low transfer fees will also render the referral system ineffective. There would be very little reason to upgrade memberships and people won't be incentivized by getting a few cents trickling in each month from referrals.
I like the idea of lowering transfer fees but keeping trading fees higher.
I would support regional based pricing if it was possible. $0.2 for US and Western Europe is fine. We've had feeback from South America (ElMato) , Eastern and Southern Europe (Noisy and Liondani) and China (Alt + many many more) saying the fee is too high for their market.
If we have $0.2 transfer fee for USD, it's okay. But if the fee of CNY is $0.2, it may not be acceptable. Differentiate transfer fees for each assets (especially smartcoins) would be the solution.
Quote from: roadscape on October 21, 2015, 07:45:10 pmAre we able to vote for different transfer fees PER bitasset? So USD can stay on the expensive side... CNY can be cheaper, etc. Whatever makes sense for each currency/country-demographic.It would give us an easy way to have region-based pricing.. a must-have strategy for competitive pricing globallyThat is possible by setting the core exchange rate and keeping the fee pool funded (subsidizing some transfers).
Are we able to vote for different transfer fees PER bitasset? So USD can stay on the expensive side... CNY can be cheaper, etc. Whatever makes sense for each currency/country-demographic.It would give us an easy way to have region-based pricing.. a must-have strategy for competitive pricing globally
I would support regional based pricing if it was possible. $0.2 for US and Western Europe is fine. Quote from: phillyguy on October 21, 2015, 08:06:14 pmWhy is a $0.20 USD transfer fee considered high? Even in developing markets, or for the unbanked, is 20 cents per transaction really a financial burden that will hinder adoption?I also think a lower fee is not needed. Lifetime membership returns $.16 of those cents anyway.We've had feeback from South America (ElMato) , Eastern and Southern Europe (Noisy and Liondani) and China (Alt + many many more) saying the fee is too high for their market. You're competing with BTC, Centralized crypto exchanges and their local banking services at the moment with a by comparison new, risky, somewhat complicated alternative. When you have a liquid and popular derivative stock market/ Popular BitAssets with easy BitAsset to real asset crossover/third parties offering full service remittance via BTS/BitGold to real vault options etc. Then you will start to be offering products and services they are used to and willing to pay much for and also in some cases won't be able to get anywhere else. Then you can look at raising fees substantially.
Why is a $0.20 USD transfer fee considered high? Even in developing markets, or for the unbanked, is 20 cents per transaction really a financial burden that will hinder adoption?I also think a lower fee is not needed. Lifetime membership returns $.16 of those cents anyway.
This is a very good perspective. The fees are already very low from a merchants perspective. A simple change in the GUI / billing / transfer page can make it looks like the sender is paying no fees.
I would not lower it to 5 BTS, 10 BTS should be the minimum, that is 4 cents. Very reasonable IMHO.
I would set fees very low at this time. (transfer and market orders) As a sort of introductory rate. No sense in generating "high fee" press at this point. As the price of BTS rises, the $ rate on fees will rise without doing or changing anything. As the $ price of fees approaches the ideal rate (~$0.20) begin lowering the fee (in terms of BTS) to maintain this.I think its important to reach as many people as possible right now, and fees should be so small as to not even be a factor. If you're selling the idea of lifetime member to someone the % savings is still the same and the idea of slowly reaching a target of 20 cents can be communicated.