0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Since you cannot print shares (past 3.7b) then you can reduce future flood risk if you let the fund be burned. How are people seriously trying to argue its the same thing?Of course since "don't break share cap" is apparently not enforceable when shareholders can coordinate vote to hard fork then you should assume future owners will try to print shares and so we should just accept it.
Since you cannot print shares (past 3.7b) then you can reduce future flood risk if you let the fund be burned. How are people seriously trying to argue its the same thing?
so far so good, now all that's left is the atomic trading of other major cryptocurrencies....
Quote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 07:59:08 amOverall I think this is many shades of awesome.But the high transaction fees concern me too. If you think about average Joe potentially using it to do his shopping, then saying it compares well to traditional electronic payment methods is irrelevant - because average joe doesn't pay those fees, the merchant does.Convincing someone to pay $0.20 per transaction or buy a subscription and still pay fees on every purchase is a hard sell compared to something which appears to them to be completely free. Since this hypothetical average Joe probably doesn't care about decentralization or disintermediating the banks and won't use things like the bond market or dynamic account permissions, there is very little benefit to this person to make up for the high fees.This update potentially has everything in place for Bitshares to be used as a financial services platform by businesses and investors, but as a payment platform (which price stable currencies should be ideal for) I don't see any target market. Crypto-enthusiasts won't flock to it en masse because they like the idea of a coin possibly appreciating in value over time and don't like perceived centralization. But non crypto-enthusiasts don't have any real reason to want to use it either.What are the benefits for somebody using BitUSD over Paypal and real USD, or bank account and debit card? There needs to be enough advantages to overcome the fees and lack of convenient things like ATMs in every neighbourhood, or it doesn't matter how many people are trying to market it, people won't be interested.BitUSD and other market pegged assets will likely be used in the same ways bitcoin is currently used. Prediction markets, gambling, buying "alternative" items, etc. It won't spread to mom and dad until a decade of more out. Please note that I'm not encouraging these activities, I'm just being brutally logical.
Overall I think this is many shades of awesome.But the high transaction fees concern me too. If you think about average Joe potentially using it to do his shopping, then saying it compares well to traditional electronic payment methods is irrelevant - because average joe doesn't pay those fees, the merchant does.Convincing someone to pay $0.20 per transaction or buy a subscription and still pay fees on every purchase is a hard sell compared to something which appears to them to be completely free. Since this hypothetical average Joe probably doesn't care about decentralization or disintermediating the banks and won't use things like the bond market or dynamic account permissions, there is very little benefit to this person to make up for the high fees.This update potentially has everything in place for Bitshares to be used as a financial services platform by businesses and investors, but as a payment platform (which price stable currencies should be ideal for) I don't see any target market. Crypto-enthusiasts won't flock to it en masse because they like the idea of a coin possibly appreciating in value over time and don't like perceived centralization. But non crypto-enthusiasts don't have any real reason to want to use it either.What are the benefits for somebody using BitUSD over Paypal and real USD, or bank account and debit card? There needs to be enough advantages to overcome the fees and lack of convenient things like ATMs in every neighbourhood, or it doesn't matter how many people are trying to market it, people won't be interested.
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 09, 2015, 05:07:12 amI need some more sub 3k btsNEVER AGAIN.Also, given the cup and handle formation that looks to be forming, you'd better buy the sub 4000 sat BTS as fast as possible.
I need some more sub 3k bts
Quote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am1. There is no more BTS burning. No more dividends ....Anyway this matter is easily fixable – by setting 3 way split instead of the proposed 2 way (80%/20% for referral program/ future spending’s fund), by just adding % to be burntOf course there is another way to do this, another way which allows actually even more aggressively removing/burning of BTShttps://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/37Thanks for listening to the feed back from the community BM!
1. There is no more BTS burning. No more dividends ....Anyway this matter is easily fixable – by setting 3 way split instead of the proposed 2 way (80%/20% for referral program/ future spending’s fund), by just adding % to be burnt
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on June 09, 2015, 04:16:46 pmQuote from: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 01:40:57 pmQuote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 01:37:00 pmWe were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it. I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).BitShares can't offer blockchain based gambling either at least not in a way that benefits BTS shareholders because of the risk of losing the Chinese market. But until the current financial system experiences serious problems again, much of the near term profit in crypto will be derived from areas such as gambling. (Over half the companies advertising on CMC/Coindesk these days seem gambling related. ( www.Vitalbet.com , http://www.dragons.tl/ , www.anonibet.com , https://www.betcoin.tm/circle/ ) BTS 2.0 would be ideal for this, it's very unfortunate that we won't be participating & profiting. Hopefully we'll have a prediction market or some other applications from BitShares PLAY at some point. Many BTC based bookmakers have large problems with BTC volatility and are required to hedge quite a lot, BitUSD would be ideal for them so hopefully we'll have some third party sites soon enough bringing in that market and increasing volume even if we won't profit from it directly. Speaking of gambling platforms, I reached out to CoinGaming a few days ago to see if they would be interested in using BitShares to build a casino platform to enhance the usability of their product. Hope they bite.
Quote from: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 01:40:57 pmQuote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 01:37:00 pmWe were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it. I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).BitShares can't offer blockchain based gambling either at least not in a way that benefits BTS shareholders because of the risk of losing the Chinese market. But until the current financial system experiences serious problems again, much of the near term profit in crypto will be derived from areas such as gambling. (Over half the companies advertising on CMC/Coindesk these days seem gambling related. ( www.Vitalbet.com , http://www.dragons.tl/ , www.anonibet.com , https://www.betcoin.tm/circle/ ) BTS 2.0 would be ideal for this, it's very unfortunate that we won't be participating & profiting. Hopefully we'll have a prediction market or some other applications from BitShares PLAY at some point. Many BTC based bookmakers have large problems with BTC volatility and are required to hedge quite a lot, BitUSD would be ideal for them so hopefully we'll have some third party sites soon enough bringing in that market and increasing volume even if we won't profit from it directly.
Quote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 01:37:00 pmWe were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it. I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).
We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it. I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.
Quote from: xeroc on June 09, 2015, 03:34:12 pmQuote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 03:31:30 pmI think the entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..it's up to the marketersit's only possible if we had a secure system to prevent cheating.
Quote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 03:31:30 pmI think the entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..it's up to the marketers
I think the entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
Quote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 03:31:30 pmI think the entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..it's up to the marketers[/quoteThe entry barrier gets high in that case imo. Assuming I spend 100 usd in give aways and noone buys premium, I make no ROI technically. ]
Quote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 03:05:09 pmI don't disagree with most of that, and those are great example uses. I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with what I said or just the comparison with Paypal, but you acknowledge that the referral program provides an incentive to merchants as well as the reduced fees compared to what some are paying now, but seem to be saying merchants still need some additional financial incentive on top of that? I think that's enough of an incentive, and I think customers also need an incentive.I'm only disagreeing with the PayPal comparison. I don't think any cryptocurrency will appeal to "normal" users until much later. It's like computers in the 80s. They started off with niche uses and increasingly became more mainstream with time. Cryptocurrency will follow a similar pattern.I think the best use case is always going to be countries with high inflation or instability of some sort (bail ins). These people literally want an alternative to keeping cash under a mattress. A referral program can go a long way in getting adoption started in places like this.
I don't disagree with most of that, and those are great example uses. I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with what I said or just the comparison with Paypal, but you acknowledge that the referral program provides an incentive to merchants as well as the reduced fees compared to what some are paying now, but seem to be saying merchants still need some additional financial incentive on top of that? I think that's enough of an incentive, and I think customers also need an incentive.
Quote from: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 02:22:13 pmIts a chicken and egs scenario and that makes it difficult, for sure. But they may use it initially for sending money to friends and family, especially with gateways being launched. Hopefully some online shops will start accepting it before too long, and new options such as recurring payments will help with that as will the referral program if those shops think Bitshares may appeal to their customers because they can get paid for introducing them. It will be a slow process at first but it will accelerate as more customers bring more shops on board and more shops introduce more new customers.The referral program encourages both merchant and user adoption. Merchants integrate bitusd and refer users to the platform (getting paid for doing so). To achieve this dynamic, you must first financially incentivise the merchant to recommend bitusd as a payment option in the first place.Take porn for example. Porn merchants are known for having to pay outrageous fees (10 - 20 percent). They won't recommend bitcoin because a) it's too volatile and b) recurring payments are impossible. Bitusd offers an alternative that will make them money on referrals, doesn't take 10 - 20 percent, is stable and allows recurring payments. That's a solid sell assuming easy on/off ramps.Another example is Latin America where demand for USD is high but supply is low. With a referral program, you'll start getting organic user adoption there.BitShares is not an alternative to PayPal and it won't be for quite some time.
Its a chicken and egs scenario and that makes it difficult, for sure. But they may use it initially for sending money to friends and family, especially with gateways being launched. Hopefully some online shops will start accepting it before too long, and new options such as recurring payments will help with that as will the referral program if those shops think Bitshares may appeal to their customers because they can get paid for introducing them. It will be a slow process at first but it will accelerate as more customers bring more shops on board and more shops introduce more new customers.
Quote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it. In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)Go BTS!We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it. I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.
3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it. In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)Go BTS!
Quote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 01:37:00 pmQuote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it. In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)Go BTS!We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it. I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.So your bowing out?
Quote from: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 01:40:57 pmQuote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 01:37:00 pmWe were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it. I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).The user also doesn't need to pay to sign up, just pay more for transaction fees ~$0.4. If freebieservers refers a customer to BitShares then they will receive ~$80.Could you offer your service to Bitshares users at a discount to entice new users to sign up and net you another $80?
Quote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 01:37:00 pmQuote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it. In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)Go BTS!We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it. I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.From what I understand, you could purchase the membership which makes your account its own referrer. Then you can have your own affiliate program where you set a % of the referral fees that goes to an affiliate (i.e. the kid using paypal) that you split with them. As long as the kid doesn't need to have an annual / lifetime membership to take a percent of your referral stream defined by you.
Why would a mainstream user use a currency that isn't accepted anywhere?
I think you lack ambition. With a decent set of wallet options 2.0 will be able to start competing against the likes of Paypal. Yes it will probably take a decade or longer to get any major market penetration, but that's no reason not to start now.I also think it will be difficult to compete against Bitcoin and other cryptos for those markets. Gamblers don't care too much for stable value, buyers of 'alternative' items want strong privacy which isn't really provided by 2.0, and prediction markets are still a very minor use case even for btc.
BitUSD and other market pegged assets will likely be used in the same ways bitcoin is currently used. Prediction markets, gambling, buying "alternative" items, etc. It won't spread to mom and dad until a decade of more out. Please note that I'm not encouraging these activities, I'm just being brutally logical.
There is not a price feed for every possible combination of assets. Even if there was a "price feed" there may not be a market.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 12:13:24 pmThe lender may purchase an option separately (not implemented yet). If a lender has an option and the interest covers the cost of the option then there is no risk to the lender. For now the lender must provide the option themselves and thus is exposed to option risk. Why can't you make the blockchain enforce the contract fully via the same margin call mechanism the bitAssets use?
The lender may purchase an option separately (not implemented yet). If a lender has an option and the interest covers the cost of the option then there is no risk to the lender. For now the lender must provide the option themselves and thus is exposed to option risk.
Quote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am2. The bond market is clearly not well thought and developed. It will take far more features to actually work and work well.Why? – Put yourself in the lenders shoes. You will require collateral equal to the loan amount + interest+ some amount to guarantee for negative price movement of the collateral. So if you are lending bitUSD and accepting say BTS as collateral you will ask for 100% + interest + some% to insure yourself if BTS goes down during the term of the loan. So say 125% of the loan amount in BTS at the current BTS/bitUSD price.I really like all announcements except for this one. I'm always for a secure investment method, and I initially thought bonds would provide just that. however, the risk is completely with the lender it seems. what about the Yield system? will this be gone with 2.0?
2. The bond market is clearly not well thought and developed. It will take far more features to actually work and work well.Why? – Put yourself in the lenders shoes. You will require collateral equal to the loan amount + interest+ some amount to guarantee for negative price movement of the collateral. So if you are lending bitUSD and accepting say BTS as collateral you will ask for 100% + interest + some% to insure yourself if BTS goes down during the term of the loan. So say 125% of the loan amount in BTS at the current BTS/bitUSD price.
I would like clarification on whether the rate that is pulled from the reserve pool is set by delegates or hard coded (or maybe it is set by delegates but with a hard-coded upper limit?).
int64_t dt = (now - dpo.last_budget_time).to_seconds(); share_type reserve = core.burned(*this) + core_dd.accumulated_fees; fc::uint128_t budget_u128 = reserve.value; budget_u128 *= uint64_t(dt); budget_u128 *= GRAPHENE_CORE_ASSET_CYCLE_RATE; //round up to the nearest satoshi -- this is necessary to ensure // there isn't an "untouchable" reserve, and we will eventually // be able to use the entire reserve budget_u128 += ((uint64_t(1) << GRAPHENE_CORE_ASSET_CYCLE_RATE_BITS) - 1); budget_u128 >>= GRAPHENE_CORE_ASSET_CYCLE_RATE_BITS;
>>> (1 - (1 - (17. / 2**32 * 60 * 60 * 24)) ** (365*1)) * 1.2e9 / 2.5e90.0563356758462306
share_type available_funds = get_max_budget( now ); share_type witness_budget = gpo.parameters.witness_pay_per_block.value * blocks_to_maint; witness_budget = std::min( witness_budget, available_funds ); available_funds -= witness_budget; fc::uint128_t worker_budget_u128 = gpo.parameters.worker_budget_per_day.value; worker_budget_u128 *= uint64_t(time_to_maint); worker_budget_u128 /= 60*60*24; share_type worker_budget; if( worker_budget_u128 >= available_funds.value ) worker_budget = available_funds; else worker_budget = worker_budget_u128.to_uint64(); available_funds -= worker_budget; share_type leftover_worker_funds = worker_budget; pay_workers( leftover_worker_funds ); available_funds += leftover_worker_funds; // available_funds is money we could spend, but don't want to. // we simply let it evaporate back into the reserve. }
I was just thinking about the high fees issue again when going for my run this morning. I really think consumer fees this high will harm the chances of mass market appeal, but at the same time I really do like the referral program.Would it be possible to force shopping carts to use a kind of pending transaction, and to place all of the fees on the person initiating the transaction, allowing the consumer to approve or deny it at no charge?Under a system like that a person going to their wallet and making a transfer would still pay a fee, but a person going to a shop and clicking buy at the checkout to make a transaction would not pay a fee - the merchant would pay instead. I really think moving the cost burden from the consumer to the merchant would get rid of a massive barrier in the way of average Joe public adopting this technology, whilst potentially still maintaining the required level of total fees paid.Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin already massively favour the merchant over the consumer, and the result of this is lots of merchants starting to use it but not so many consumers. But on the other hand, favouring the consumer may not reduce the number of merchants getting involved. Many retailers have mark ups of 50-200%. I don't think payment processing fees are a major cost burden on most retailers, but acquiring and keeping customers is. If consumers want to use Bitshares then merchants will come on board to get that extra business. Since the cost to them would still be comparable to the cost of credit cards or paypal, I don't see how that would be a problem. Also, the referral program already ads a potential extra level of monetization to merchants' checkouts, because they can add a link for people to create an account if they don't use Bitshares already.An additional benefit of re-balancing fees towards merchants rather than consumers may be that referring a merchant account would be a lot profitable than referring a consumer, possibly allowing people to make money from marketing merchants solutions or on-boarding new retailers.
I do wish I am unnecessarily worried on all fronts in this thread - aka all fees are adjustable and reasonable; there is now way to dump/ distribute to the workers the 1.2Bill BTS from the 'reserve fund' in 1 just week instead of at 5BTS/sec clip max; we do have way to decide what % to burn; the bonds work like charm; etc etc.
Quote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 07:54:19 amNow this is pure optimism... I wish you are right, but I have not read anything confirming that different [deeply thought out and reasoned] fees for different transactions are coming to BTS. Are they?In the hangout yesterday BM claimed there will be about 30 fees that have to be defined by delegates (maybe I misheard it and he meant 13 .. not sure)
Now this is pure optimism... I wish you are right, but I have not read anything confirming that different [deeply thought out and reasoned] fees for different transactions are coming to BTS. Are they?
Well first all these numbers including the total supply can be changed with hard forks if there is enough shareholder approval. But let's consider what is possible without hard forks. Also, let's assume another change to increase total supply above 3.7 billion BTS is so undesirable that we would "never" hard fork to do it. If the rate at which BTS is pulled from the reserve pool follows the same hard-coded rules of the current BitShares system (5 BTS/sec and halving every 4 years), then there is effectively no difference from a dilution standpoint. However, if a majority of the delegates are able to change this number, then that is a different system than what we currently have. Dynamically adjusting the number makes it much easier for a large enough quorum of stakeholders to effectively retroactively reclaim funds that we earlier "burned" (but still never exceeding the 3.7 billion BTS hard limit, assuming no hard fork). But I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I would like clarification on whether the rate that is pulled from the reserve pool is set by delegates or hard coded (or maybe it is set by delegates but with a hard-coded upper limit?).Regarding the bond market, I have some other concerns actually, but I rather just wait until more information is provided. Personally, I consider it a work-in-progress that will likely be greatly improved over time. I'm just glad that it is being considered a priority though.
Regarding the high transaction fees, I believe different operations can have different fees set by the delegates (is that correct?). If so, my concerns about the fees is greatly reduced. I think that certain operations like updating an account's votes and placing and cancelling limit orders should have very low fees (in fact, I think we could just get away with making cancelling orders free without worrying about spam issues). We shouldn't penalize people who update their votes because they help keep the system secure and running properly. And high fees on placing and cancelling limit orders hurts bots which will hurt market makers and thus liquidity. I would rather have very low fixed fees on placing market orders and have percentage fees on the matched volume instead (but still at a lower rate than our centralized exchange competitors). But I am fine with all other operations (including transferring assets from one account to another) having the higher fixed fees for the sake of the referral system.
Workers can run on a platform of burning their wage - shareholders just have to vote them to the top if they want BTS burned. Right? Am I misunderstanding the worker branch of DPOS 2.0?
Burning BTS is very important. I didnt read anything that suggested no burning would take place, I assumed that part of the fees were going to be burned, and part go to referrals. If there is actually no burning, then there is no reason to hold BTS, because it could not be profitable. Burning is essential.
1. We haven't had BTS burnging since BitsharesX. We've already agreed to the dilution model. Burning really doesn't constitute a dividend. You're not going to see an appreciation in value from the process of burning BTS. While dilution might add a marginal amount of short term sell pressure it ultimately adds long term value creation which is what is most important.
2. The bond market works like the margin accounts on various other crypto exchanges. You don't need to a reputation system for collateralized lending. The bond market is primarily a means for traders to short BitAssets relative to other BitAssets or BTS relative to BitAssets.
3. I think the pricing makes sense. If you make more than 200 trades in a year it is more economical for you to purchase a yearly subscription. Any trade greater than 100 dollars you are paying less in fees than btc38.com which charges a 0.1% (probably the lowest fee of any crypto exchange that charges fees). If you make more than 625 trades in a "life time" then it is in your best interest to purchase a lifetime membership. Any trade greater than 40 dollar you are paying less than the 0.1% fee of btc38.com. I think that these are pretty reasonable price points and the fees are negligible enough that no one except market makers with automated trading bots would care about having to pay a fee to place an order.