BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Empirical1.2 on November 14, 2015, 05:41:47 am
-
Please answer the following questions in your response...
A) - At what price would you consider the transfer fee to be too expensive that you would avoid using BTS? (Too expensive)
B) - At what price would you consider the BTS transfer fee to be priced so low that it is too cheap?
C) - At what price would you consider the transfer fee is starting to get expensive, so that it is not out of the question, but you would have to give some thought to transferring often or using BTS? (Expensive/High Side)
D) - At what price would you consider the BTS transfer fee to be a bargain—a great buy for the money? (Cheap/Good Value)
We'll be using the answers to try and find the optimal transfer fee, (according to the survey.)
(http://www.dobney.com/images/vanWestendorp_pricing.jpg)
-
My answers
A) $0.5 (Too expensive)
B) $0.01 (Too cheap)
C) $0.25 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.03 (Good Value)
I personally don't mind higher fees, hence the answers but I imagine Asia, Eastern Europe and S. America will be more price sensitive.
I also don't mind paying higher fees for higher amounts (A percentage based system.)
-
Questions before I can answer yours follow!
Do I still have to pay fee to transfer funds to my xxx-collateral-holder accounts, just so I can pay it once more to adjusting the collateral?
Or is this transfer fee for real transfers? as in transfers outside of my account?
I mean do I have to assume all other fee stupidity gone, or the current state of affairs?
-
Questions before I can answer yours follow!
Do I still have to pay fee to transfer funds to my xxx-collateral-holder accounts, just so I can pay it once more to adjusting the collateral?
Or is this transfer fee for real transfers? as in transfers outside of my account?
This is for the transfer fee for real transfers outside of your account.
-
My answers
A) $0.37 (Too expensive)
B) $0.01 (Too cheap)
C) $0.27 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.02 - $0.03 (Good Value)
-
Regarding transfer only.
A) $0.20 (Too expensive)
B) $0.003 (Too cheap)
C) $0.10 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.02 (Good Value)
Making orders, my opinion is always "as low as but can prevent spam"
-
Compare the market and lower it. For example 5% lower than Bitcoin transfer fees.
-
Regarding transfer only.
A) $0.3 (Too expensive)
B) $0.009 (Too cheap)
C) $0.09 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.03 or R$ 0.12 (Good Value)
-
Regarding transfer only.
A) $0.20 (Too expensive)
B) $0.003 (Too cheap)
C) $0.10 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.02 (Good Value)
+1
-
Regarding transfer only.
A) $0.20 (Too expensive)
B) $0.003 (Too cheap)
C) $0.10 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.02 (Good Value)
+1
pc what is your outlook on marketing and the referral program? just genuinely trying to understand where low fee guys see that going.
-
pc what is your outlook on marketing and the referral program? just genuinely trying to understand where low fee guys see that going.
I think marketing a low-price product is easier than marketing a high-price product.
I think with low fees the marketing people will generate ROI not much slower than with high fees, because with lower fees there will be more transactions.
I think in the long run, marketing people will profit more from low fees due to the network effect from a quicker growing user base.
Of course I'm not a marketing expert, and I haven't seen a marketing expert's business plan yet, so this is just my naive view on things.
-
Regarding transfer only.
A) $0.20 (Too expensive)
B) $0.003 (Too cheap)
C) $0.10 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.02 (Good Value)
Making orders, my opinion is always "as low as but can prevent spam"
[/quote
+5%
-
pc what is your outlook on marketing and the referral program? just genuinely trying to understand where low fee guys see that going.
I think marketing a low-price product is easier than marketing a high-price product.
I think with low fees the marketing people will generate ROI not much slower than with high fees, because with lower fees there will be more transactions.
I think in the long run, marketing people will profit more from low fees due to the network effect from a quicker growing user base.
Of course I'm not a marketing expert, and I haven't seen a marketing expert's business plan yet, so this is just my naive view on things.
+5%
Is that not just common sense?
-
A) $0.50 (Too expensive)
B) $0.03 (Too cheap)
C) $0.30 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.05 (Good Value)
-
pc what is your outlook on marketing and the referral program? just genuinely trying to understand where low fee guys see that going.
I think marketing a low-price product is easier than marketing a high-price product.
I think with low fees the marketing people will generate ROI not much slower than with high fees, because with lower fees there will be more transactions.
I think in the long run, marketing people will profit more from low fees due to the network effect from a quicker growing user base.
Of course I'm not a marketing expert, and I haven't seen a marketing expert's business plan yet, so this is just my naive view on things.
+5%
Is that not just common sense?
No, it's not.
It would be common sense if we targeted "everybody".
But BitShares is a product and it needs to be targeted to a selected group of people.
(Even Bitcoin needs to be targeted to a selected group of people, i.e. those who are unsatisfied with the legacy systems, which is not 100%)
So IMHO the main challenge in marketing is to reach out to this selected group and convince them that our product addresses their needs.
Once you achieve that the price is usually not an obstacle as the customer is aware at this stage what s/he paying for (and sometimes the opposite effect can occur - a low price can make people think that the product is "not good enough").
-
It would be common sense if we targeted "everybody".
But BitShares is a product and it needs to be targeted to a selected group of people.
(Even Bitcoin needs to be targeted to a selected group of people, i.e. those who are unsatisfied with the legacy systems, which is not 100%)
Well, I'd always thought that we do target everybody. As in everybody who's using some form of online payment system, and who doesn't.
-
It would be common sense if we targeted "everybody".
But BitShares is a product and it needs to be targeted to a selected group of people.
(Even Bitcoin needs to be targeted to a selected group of people, i.e. those who are unsatisfied with the legacy systems, which is not 100%)
Well, I'd always thought that we do target everybody. As in everybody who's using some form of online payment system, and who doesn't.
i'm thinking this as well :)
-
It would be common sense if we targeted "everybody".
But BitShares is a product and it needs to be targeted to a selected group of people.
(Even Bitcoin needs to be targeted to a selected group of people, i.e. those who are unsatisfied with the legacy systems, which is not 100%)
Well, I'd always thought that we do target everybody. As in everybody who's using some form of online payment system, and who doesn't.
Try to run an ad targeting everybody and you'll see how costly it is.
If I go to my dad and tell him that he could use bitusd instead of cash...he wouldn't care since his bank, cash and credit cards work just fine for him. If I tell him that he could make some money trading currencies on the platform during his retirement, he might actually care about going through the process of opening an account.
So at this moment, we are not targeting everybody. The DEX first target market is traders and centralized exchanges. Once we have liquidity then businesses on top of bitshares can start targeting their own target market: POS, remittances, merchants, etc. and create products tailored to solve specific problems.
Targeting everybody is a recipe to get the cost per acquisition through the roof.
Back to transfer fees:
A $0.50 (Too expensive)
B) $0.01 (Too cheap)
C) $0.30 (Getting expensive)
D) $0.05 (Good Value)
-
Try to run an ad targeting everybody and you'll see how costly it is.
So at this moment, we are not targeting everybody. The DEX first target market is traders and centralized exchanges.
Erm, but then there's a difference between what the target group of BitShares is and what the target group of your ads is, right?
If your ads target a subset of the BitShares target group there is no conflict.
-
Try to run an ad targeting everybody and you'll see how costly it is.
So at this moment, we are not targeting everybody. The DEX first target market is traders and centralized exchanges.
Erm, but then there's a difference between what the target group of BitShares is and what the target group of your ads is, right?
If your ads target a subset of the BitShares target group there is no conflict.
Exactly, other campaigns might target just payments. Fast and cheap payments (as an example).
Others might target businesses, create your tokens easily, cheap and send them cheaply.
And of course campaigns on how to make money.
Lending / Bonds at +5% interest.
Referrals (trading, payments, etc)
Prediction markets
Or borrow it.
All of it does not require high volume, but will attract it.
-
Are % fees out of the Question?
-
Exactly, other campaigns might target just payments. Fast and cheap payments (as an example).
But why should I use unknown BitShares if I can use well-known PayPal? It's also fast and even free (in the eyes of an online consumer).
So if we limit our message to "fast and cheap" - nobody will take notice.
And if we enrich this message (e.g. by saying "you'll be the ultimate owner of your money") then we need to target it to those for whom this feature matters.
Others might target businesses, create your tokens easily, cheap and send them cheaply.
So it's not meant to "everybody" but to online merchants. And not just any online merchants but those who are a bit smarter and might be interested in unconventional methods to support their marketing actions by using digital tokens.
And of course campaigns on how to make money.
Lending / Bonds at +5% interest.
Referrals (trading, payments, etc)
Prediction markets
Or borrow it.
And this is again not targeted to "everybody". But to those we might need such tools and are capable of understanding & using them.
Advertising costs money and if we waste it on random people the results will be ineffective.
Whenever there is an advertising process there is some sort targeting, it's never meant to be addressed to "everybody".
-
Are % fees out of the Question?
For this survey. Yes.
(I'm personally in favour of percentage fees, if we can't go with a flat low P2P transfer fee, however percentage fees are apparently quite hard to implement.)
-
Exactly, other campaigns might target just payments. Fast and cheap payments (as an example).
But why should I use unknown BitShares if I can use well-known PayPal? It's also fast and even free (in the eyes of an online consumer).
So if we limit our message to "fast and cheap" - nobody will take notice.
And if we enrich this message (e.g. by saying "you'll be the ultimate owner of your money") then we need to target it to those for whom this feature matters.
Others might target businesses, create your tokens easily, cheap and send them cheaply.
So it's not meant to "everybody" but to online merchants. And not just any online merchants but those who are a bit smarter and might be interested in unconventional methods to support their marketing actions by using digital tokens.
And of course campaigns on how to make money.
Lending / Bonds at +5% interest.
Referrals (trading, payments, etc)
Prediction markets
Or borrow it.
And this is again not targeted to "everybody". But to those we might need such tools and are capable of understanding & using them.
Advertising costs money and if we waste it on random people the results will be ineffective.
Whenever there is an advertising process there is some sort targeting, it's never meant to be addressed to "everybody".
I see your point :)
I guess my perspective: Find all the use cases, not just DEX that require liquidity, and price accordingly.
But you are totally right, we don't market to everybody, but hopefully we are not just targeting a niche market which is interested in crypto trading.
Agreeing with you again cheap and fast does not sell, you have to add other options.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit off topic, but what attract me to Bitshares in the first place, it was a combination of things, not just one aspect.
A +5% interest for holding, together with shares in any other projects and, if you are inclined, the trading of derivatives.
I liked the idea of the platform to have a DFOREX together with availability to create your own assets.
Things like bitUSD which with a real 1:1 peg, could be used as a not volatile currency and as an alternative way for payments, whilst maintaining interest.
Capability to attract many type of users, especially savers, merchant, traders and remittance. Attracting merchants would have a double advantage as it will be a way to market to its customers.
Not to forget non functional features, like fast transactions, anonymity, etc, which allow us to differentiate us from other crypto alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------
I think we have very similar ideas from where we started, but they have spin off in a different way.