Does Annual Membership stay?
Will it give the user access to advanced features as LTM does?
If not, what is the reason I might want to buy AM?
This proposal does NOT introduce a hard fork, how could it. Everything this proposal changes are the fees. Everything else stays the same.
I think this proposal is very poorly justified.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=21265.0https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21343.30.htmlhttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21183.0/all.htmlThe core idea is this: let's make basic features very cheap and earn profits on advanced features.
This is a major change of business rules since the outline of BitShares 2.0 was announced back in June 2014.
How is that a major change? BitShares is trying to get profitable and
this requires change.
This is in no way contrary to what BitShares 2.0 was made for.
The justification fails in these areas:
(1) Tell us why this change is needed in the first place.
What are the symptoms you've discovered that make you think that this radical change will improve anything?
What is the expected outcome?
- low market cap
- unhappy investors due to low market cap and low usability
- unhappy businesses because they can't attract customers with the platform
- unhappy traders because trading is expensive
The expected outcome is "a change". No matter where it goes, we can
learn from it. My assumption is that people will not stop using
BitShares just because the fees are lower now. My assuptions are also
that it will be way easier to attrack customers if you can tell them
what low fees they have to pay if they are denoted in USD.
(2) The main motivation to buy a subscription is meant to be access to advanced features, such as "individual assets, withdrawal permissions, proposals, prediction markets".
What is your estimate about the percentage of users interested in this stuff?
Seriously, how come you did not even try to estimate this value?
My crystal ball went offline when I tried to read Bytemasters mind.
Seriously, how can we estimate this value? BitShares is running for 4
months only with almost NO traction at all. Basing any "statistics" on
what we have in the blockchain already is a pure waste of time due to
non-significance.
(3) You write:
Keep in mind that this will be a limited-time offer, as the minimum fee may be raised once BSIP#10 is implemented.
Does it look like a serious offer to businesses? A crucial value might or might not be raised. Depending on what?
The idea is to get a solid user base first. If you wanted to sell drugs,
you give the first shot for (almost) free and make money from your
customers later. However, the committee can TECHNICALLY not say that it
will raise the fees at a later point because committee members can be
replaced quickly. For that reason, we state that the fees "may" be
increase with BSIP#10 .. but NOT EARLIER. And if BSIP#10 is not
approved, the fees cannot be raised with in 6 months.
For me, this is proposal is one more episode in our long-lasting
transfer fee debate (that seems to be our favorite distractor from the
main issue: liquidity), wrapped in a big package containing other
non-controversial stuff, which could be just passed in a standard way by
the committee. And the funny thing is that the single most important
number in this package (i.e. $0.018 for the transfer fee) is defined as
quite transient and likely to be revised once again.
Well, I agree. Most discussions about fees are a distraction given that
we have almost no customers at all. So, tell me, what could possible go
wrong when reducing the fees to something MORE COMPETITIVE?
How come you see the transfer fee as "the most important number"? For
whom? The yet to come customers? Or for the yet to be efficient
businesses that want to make some extra money from referrals?
I will definitely not support it.
Assuming your are a shareholder, that is your right to do!