On the other thread I did not really get why we have to lower all other fees if we are trying to attract traders? Seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?
I have a similar feeling. I see a contradiction between our trying to be competitive in the trading business and at the same time trying to make it our main source of revenue from the very beginning.
Those two are hard to reconcile and we need to make a choice. The trading business can be and will be our main source of revenue but not at this initial stage when we are in the middle of this difficult process of jump-starting liquidity.
We need to earn profit to maintain the referral program. And if we cannot rely on trading for generating enough revenue (at this initial stage), there is only one option left: we need to charge extra on our non-core business which is money transfers.
So keep the transfers fees high as they are now. Let them carry the weight of keeping us profitable at this stage. And let us take advantage of this situation: if a BTS user has a valid reason to make a transfer he will make the transfer no matter if it costs $0.20 or $0.05. His main concern is not the transfer fee but whether a SmartCoin can be easily converted to fiat without incurring a big spread. So the conversion spread is the crux of the matter here, not the transfer fee. And to keep the conversion cost low we need to have healthy liquidity, which brings us back to realization that the trading business is sacred and cannot be expected to be highly profitable at this initial stage.
If BTS users keep crying about high transfer fees - so be it. Those users are not important at this stage, we can survive without them (while we cannot survive without traders & trading bots).
It's a bit tough but currently we are not in a position to please everyone.
The general idea must be - we lower the fees to practically zero so they come in bunches, some of them start to trade and we earn trading fees from the volume traders. Do not get me wrong, the trading fees can and should be vastly improved as a design.
The problem with this logic is that this assume they have not come yet,
because of the "high" fees. Which is totally not the reason why, im[not so]ho.
There are a ton of other far more important factors - being way too yearly, hard to transfer accounts [why did you not spend the time to have o.9.x export keys that take 30 sec to import, instead of days to move to 2.0???]; Not only poorly documented API but one missing essential functions for the simplest bot, and that when we needed one so powerful that everybody can as easily as possible make his version of a wallet or integrate/move his exchange on the BTS blockchain ; I will not talk about the badly reinvented margin call rules, here... although they do no faviours to liquidity to such extend that having those rules mean never having liquidity; Having an 'official' gui that is missing so much important functions - why for example one cannot yet claim his vested balances? It is a button and calling one api function, isn't it?
And after all this and more essential stuff is missing, we will have a worker proposal, so we can jump and pivot and spend 6 mo. fighting the imaginary main cause of all ills? Because after 3 days we discovered that the high fees are the main reason for no instant adoption?