For me the 10/90 or 20/80 choice is a bit artificial and only hides the underlying problem.
And the underlying problem is this: if we reduce the transfer fees to something like 6 BTS, businesses like
@kenCode or
@merivercap get this:
- their customers are pleased because the default transfer fee becomes really low - so their mobile apps become more useful for small payments
- on the other hand the motivation to upgrade to LTM drops drastically for most of their customers - so their referral income is likely to drop
Therefore, if I put myself in kenCode's shoes, the switch from 20/80 to 10/90 split is less important than maintaining a healthy balance between the low transfer fee and the expected drop in LTM sales.
I guess it's a little consolation for kenCode to be on 10/90 split if there is a general drop in his referral income and this drop in LTM sales is much bigger than the benefits from the 10/90 split.
I'm not saying it's such a bad idea to rebrand LTM from a product for *frequent* users to a product for *advanced* users, and thus offer low transfer fees by default as a non-advanced feature.
But I think 6 BTS is too low, it should be more like 10 or 12 BTS to leave some space for LTM.
Paying 10 BTS per transfer is still very cheap but if I'm a frequent user I might still be tempted to lower it to 2 BTS by buying LTM.
Whereas if I pay 6 BTS by default, the temptation to reduce it further is almost non-existent.