1. Regarding transferable account names and subscription fees:
1A. A BitShares account can have multiple account names associated with it and any of these names can be transferred to another BitShares account.
1B. The choice between the pay-as-you go mode and prepaid mode (obtained by paying a subscription fee) refers to a BitShares account, not a particular account name.
1C. A new account is pay-as-you-go by default and if the user wants to upgrade to the prepaid mode s/he needs to acquire some bitUSD and buy the subscription from the BTS blockchain.
2. Regarding HWP business model:
2A. Main revenue stream for HWP is supposed to come from the referral program for signing up new users for the BitShares ecosystem.
2B. Let's assume a user opens a BitShares account by signing up with my HWP and then decides to switch to another HWP:
- if the user has already paid the subscription fee: my referral income is unaffected
- if the user has not paid the subscription fee: I will most likely lose the referral income from this user as the other HWP will create a new account for her/him and s/he will probably transfer her/his existing account name to this new account. As a result the initial account signed up with my HWP will most probably be abandoned.
if i understand it correct, you have to "license" the wallet from Cryptonomex and make a fee sharing agreement with them to do it.Or I can build the hosted wallet infrastructure myself, as bitsapphire did with the moonstone wallet.
so not for everyone possible.
[/b]if i understand it correct, you have to "license" the wallet from Cryptonomex and make a fee sharing agreement with them to do it.Or I can build the hosted wallet infrastructure myself, as bitsapphire did with the moonstone wallet.
so not for everyone possible.
Yes, I am aware of this but first I need to understand how the HWP business is going to work in terms of possible competition and revenue streams.
@bytemaster or @Stan - could you shed some light on this?
If we all agree we need a rich ecosystem around BitShares 2.0, it's time to clearly define the rules so that these businesses have time to be set up and start operating soon after 2.0 is launched.
Anyone will be able to have a "privately hosted" and "manually upgraded" wallet by:
1. cloning a github repo containing static files and then visiting ${username}.github.io
2. configuring the javascript to connect to a "full node" of your choice.
This wallet will not be integrated with a faucet and thus be unable to sign up new users and therefore unable to participate in the referral system.
If you want the server code for the faucet and automatic signup then you must license that from us.
Anyone will be able to have a "privately hosted" and "manually upgraded" wallet by:
1. cloning a github repo containing static files and then visiting ${username}.github.io
2. configuring the javascript to connect to a "full node" of your choice.
This wallet will not be integrated with a faucet and thus be unable to sign up new users and therefore unable to participate in the referral system.
If you want the server code for the faucet and automatic signup then you must license that from us.
Anyone will be able to have a "privately hosted" and "manually upgraded" wallet by:
1. cloning a github repo containing static files and then visiting ${username}.github.io
2. configuring the javascript to connect to a "full node" of your choice.
This wallet will not be integrated with a faucet and thus be unable to sign up new users and therefore unable to participate in the referral system.
If you want the server code for the faucet and automatic signup then you must license that from us.
i hear the first time of this. I was under the impression, that anyone will be part of the referral program. So this is not true! But how is then the fee structure for this kind of wallet and who will be this "full nodes"?
Is a full node any delegate?
Stan, do you not worry that by licensing the software and retaining direct ownership of it you have a greater likelihood of coming under regulatory pressure, like Ripple did when they were asked to modify their network to add KYC checks into it? Its a lot easier to argue that the community is in control of what goes into BitShares if all its software is GPL.
Is it possible to sign up users without licensing something from Cryptonomex (just by upgrading one's account)?sure and of course
Would it be possible for some other development company to come along and offer the same sign up for licensing services cnx provides for Bitshares?
+5%Is it possible to sign up users without licensing something from Cryptonomex (just by upgrading one's account)?sure and of course
Would it be possible for some other development company to come along and offer the same sign up for licensing services cnx provides for Bitshares?