By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.
What if the issuer of Mode A brings in 1,000,000,000 new users because of low fees and brings new users to pay higher fees for another asset that uses Mode B or C? The network should take just one low fee to sustain itself for maximum network effect. Issuers should have flexibility on pricing, not the committee. The committee should simply determine the network fee. Any UIA, FBA, Privatized Smartcoin issuer should be able to set fees on top of the network fee. Technically an issuer can try to add fees outside of the Bitshares system, but it's much more natural to just add that as a standard feature to the system to attract far more businesses to use the platform.
Issuers don't bring in users by their own alone. When they bring in users, they act as registrars or referrers. In this case, the issuer is able to reimburse the users the extra fees paid by users and split to referral program (actually to the issuer in this case), no matter what fee mode she selected for her product.
More important, if the issuer selected a fee mode which doesn't split fees to referral program, OTHER REGISTRARS/REFERRERS would be not willing to bring users FOR THE ISSUER, even worse, they may try to isolate/hurt the issuer's product since it does nothing good to them but probably get benefit from THEIR user bases. Which means the issuer has to fight alone, even against other parties. Which will do no good to the whole system.
Sure you can think of issuers of assets as a mini-platform for various businesses to use. Bitshares BTS is the broader platform. Wallet/Exchange/Referral businesses can choose any issuer/asset they want. If a wallet or exchange want lower basic fees they can choose an asset with Mode A. If a wallet or exchange wants to have a referral/membership model they can choose an asset with Mode B or C.
It seems that you are trying to save the issuers from themselves rather than give them a choice? If an issuer chooses a fee Mode A that has no referral/membership program and many registrars/referrers don't promote them they will have to find other methods to gain users with outside capital, but they will have an advantage of offering lower basic fees. Why is that a problem especially when a predominant contingent in China want Mode A?
What are your thoughts on Privatized Smartcoins? My thought is that people will naturally want to promote Public Smartcoins instead of a BitCash Privatized Smartcoin or even TCNY so we who issue Privatized Smartcoins are at a disadvantage. Do you want to save us from ourselves? Privatized Smartcoins need to find users by improving parameters, providing liquidity, acquiring different customer segments etc. The positive is that they aren't forced into using particular parameters or price feeds. In the same way they shouldn't be forced into a particular fee Mode or fee schedule especially because their business and customer demographic may be different than other businesses.
As I see it, if we have three modes it may look something like this for Smartcoins:
CNY Public Smartcoins: Mode A - 1 cent transfers
TCNY Privatized Smartcoins: Mode A - 1 cent transfers
USD /Eur Public Smartcoins: Mode B or C - 1% or 20 cent transfers, 1 cent for members
BitCash Privatized Smartcoins: Mode B or C - 1% or 20 cent transfers, 1 cent for members
Wallets/Registrars/Referral:
OpenLedger
Moonstone
Lime
Bunker
Transwiser
BitCash
Referral Businesses/Blogs/Affiliates
Can you explain to me what will go wrong in this example? What will businesses be doing to each other rather than focusing on building their own user bases for their business models and target consumer demographic?
What I've seen, and said again and again:
You keep insist that you'll provide services to "your own users", and build your user base somehow.
You don't think "your own users" will use services provided by others, which will benefit you via referral income.
You don't think users who are brought in BitShares by other referrers will use your services, and you refuse to share profit with the referrers when you gain benefit from these users.
In short, I think you're trying to rob other referrers.
If you still don't understand, sorry, I think I'm unable to reach you.
Show Posts
