BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: r0ach on October 16, 2015, 01:25:01 pm
-
I've seen lots of "hooray referral system" posts like it's the new cure for cancer. I have the exact opposite thoughts about it. Before any pro-referral people post in opposition, let's define exactly what the referral system is. It's an artificial increase in transaction fees to subsidize the equivalent of a bunch of Avon ladies.
Artificially increasing transaction fees is the last thing you would ever want to do in a cryptocurrency. One of Bitcoin's main selling points was low transaction fees. Now people are suddenly pretending like transaction fees don't matter. Sure, you may now end up with some additional people trying to spread Bitshares, but most people view cryptocurrency as a zero sum game where the act of using it is just making someone else rich at their own expense. This isn't far from the truth since any currency that exists whether it's fiat, gold, or crypto is all a pyramid scheme in nature.
Dan talks about how he doesn't like coercion, but the referral system obviously is where you're trying to swoop up people under your influence into a system to enrich yourself. An example would be an employer forcing employees into Bitshares as a payment processor. The employee now has to pay some arbitrary fee to become "a member" or pay large transaction fees instead. Currency doesn't need any more pyramid scheme aspects than it already has. Besides the fact that it's philosophically an abomination, it makes Bitshares less competitive in the free market vs other coins that will have lower fees.
Unless Bitshares became huge, it's not like many people are even going to pay the member fee anyway. It just drives people to other coins due to big transaction fees. If Bitshares became world reserve currency, probably everyone on earth would pay it, but the only function it serves then is an additional pyramid scheme aspect on top of the already pyramid nature of all currencies. Whether you're trying to make a profitable business or a more "fair" world, it's probably bad on both fronts.
-
Your concerns have merit. It goes both ways. Either you cut costs or you bring something new to the table. WIth Bitshares we can charge more right now because you offer greater financial services (dex exchange, hedging, hopefully bond markets). The differences in fees have to be competitive. A consumer is willing to pay more in fees because they gather more services from bitshares. I don't think they will go to lesser transaction altcoins unless they offer the same quality in services. This is the hypothesis at least.
So the referral is not the flagship feature, but a additive one that brings more value when bitshares already has value to offer to begin with. Simply put, referral system cannot work alone as a stand alone feature, but needs the other value additive features of bitshares to bring out the best of the two.
-
Network effect
The classic example is the telephone. The more people who own telephones, the more valuable the telephone is to each owner. This creates a positive externality because a user may purchase a telephone without intending to create value for other users, but does so in any case. Online social networks work in the same way, with sites like Twitter and Facebook becoming more attractive as more users join. (Wikipedia)
Airbnb, Dropbox, Paypal, Uber, Evernote, Amazon Prime, Amuze, Adventure Gear, DapperTime, Typeform, JottaCloud, Lyft, GetAround, Coinbase, EventBrite, iStockPhoto, Elance, World of Warcraft, Hulu Plus, Netflix, Dish, DirecTV, LastPass, Prezi, Google Apps...
-
Our competition is not other crypto. It's legacy payment processors like PayPal and on-line usage of debit cards.
I think BM's approach (https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/) makes a lot of sense:
A well-balanced business model must have a cost of user acquisition that is much lower than its ability to monetize its customers. In the case of BitShares, this means setting transaction fees that are high enough to cover all costs, including the cost of customer acquisition, while still being low enough to compete against real competitors. Most cryptocurrency networks barely charge enough in transaction fees to cover the cost of running the network. They attempt to attract users with low fees. While low fees are important, undervaluing the service provided is counter productive. For this reason, BitShares charges a price that is much higher than competing cryptocurrencies but much lower than traditional exchanges and payment networks like Dwolla or PayPal.
-
I've seen lots of "hooray referral system" posts like it's the new cure for cancer. I have the exact opposite thoughts about it. Before any pro-referral people post in opposition, let's define exactly what the referral system is. It's an artificial increase in transaction fees to subsidize the equivalent of a bunch of Avon ladies.
Artificially increasing transaction fees is the last thing you would ever want to do in a cryptocurrency. One of Bitcoin's main selling points was low transaction fees. Now people are suddenly pretending like transaction fees don't matter. Sure, you may now end up with some additional people trying to spread Bitshares, but most people view cryptocurrency as a zero sum game where the act of using it is just making someone else rich at their own expense. This isn't far from the truth since any currency that exists whether it's fiat, gold, or crypto is all a pyramid scheme in nature.
Dan talks about how he doesn't like coercion, but the referral system obviously is where you're trying to swoop up people under your influence into a system to enrich yourself. An example would be an employer forcing employees into Bitshares as a payment processor. The employee now has to pay some arbitrary fee to become "a member" or pay large transaction fees instead. Currency doesn't need any more pyramid scheme aspects than it already has. Besides the fact that it's philosophically an abomination, it makes Bitshares less competitive in the free market vs other coins that will have lower fees.
Unless Bitshares became huge, it's not like many people are even going to pay the member fee anyway. It just drives people to other coins due to big transaction fees. If Bitshares became world reserve currency, probably everyone on earth would pay it, but the only function it serves then is an additional pyramid scheme aspect on top of the already pyramid nature of all currencies. Whether you're trying to make a profitable business or a more "fair" world, it's probably bad on both fronts.
There are absolutely zero elements of coercion here. Coercion requires force with no option enforced by men with guns, like prison, death, or heavy fines etc, that you cannot avoid. You can easily avoid every aspect of bitshares by simply not using it. Its like saying McDonalds is coercing you to eat the beef they provide in their burgers because you can't get an free range ostrich burger like you prefer. Eat somewhere else.
At first glance I had trouble seeing how the drastic increase in fees would be acceptable, but I think there are many solutions.
One that comes to mind is a wallet provider pays for lifetime membership and offers his customers reduced fees near or at zero profit so every user of that wallet provider essentially has the lowest possible fees, equivalent to a lifetime members fees without having to pay for the upgrade. The fees at this point are on par with bitcoin, at about 3 or 4 cents per transaction.
If anyone can do this there will naturally be competition that drives a fee reduction down to near 80%. Wallet providers can have other sources of income with the higher traffic, so they wouldn't necessarily need to keep any of the referral bonus for themselves, instead passing everything to their customers.
-
Some random thoughts:
Avon ladies are the ones actually selling the product/making profit for the company. The reason avon can pay the ladies their cut is because their profit margin is large. When your cost is 1$ and sell it for 50$, there is much room for sharing the profit with the "referrer".
Look at Apple products, and their technical equivalents. They are also able to sell with a very large margin for profit.
Bitshares has, let me say, state of the art blockchain backend for the time being. What it needs is the apple product packaging and avon lady referral system. It has the avon lady framework ready to use, and is waiting for some enterpreneurs to build "apple" style wallets.
If you can market your product, and actually provide utility, people will pay you the extra bit.
I dont agree with your last sentence, that it is bad on both fronts. Then again, I am not that smart of a man. Dont take my word for investment advice :)
-
Your concerns have merit. It goes both ways. Either you cut costs or you bring something new to the table. WIth Bitshares we can charge more right now because you offer greater financial services (dex exchange, hedging, hopefully bond markets). The differences in fees have to be competitive. A consumer is willing to pay more in fees because they gather more services from bitshares. I don't think they will go to lesser transaction altcoins unless they offer the same quality in services. This is the hypothesis at least.
So the referral is not the flagship feature, but a additive one that brings more value when bitshares already has value to offer to begin with. Simply put, referral system cannot work alone as a stand alone feature, but needs the other value additive features of bitshares to bring out the best of the two.
I agree with your analysis. However, its still comes back to ease of use. The front end has to look and run professionally without a problem. Personally, i think we need to copy something like cryptsi as a layout with our features.
-
Our competition is not other crypto. It's legacy payment processors like PayPal and on-line usage of debit cards.
I think BM's approach (https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/) makes a lot of sense:
A well-balanced business model must have a cost of user acquisition that is much lower than its ability to monetize its customers. In the case of BitShares, this means setting transaction fees that are high enough to cover all costs, including the cost of customer acquisition, while still being low enough to compete against real competitors. Most cryptocurrency networks barely charge enough in transaction fees to cover the cost of running the network. They attempt to attract users with low fees. While low fees are important, undervaluing the service provided is counter productive. For this reason, BitShares charges a price that is much higher than competing cryptocurrencies but much lower than traditional exchanges and payment networks like Dwolla or PayPal.
+5%
Artificially increasing transaction fees is the last thing you would ever want to do in a cryptocurrency. One of Bitcoin's main selling points was low transaction fees.
Unless Bitshares became huge, it's not like many people are even going to pay the member fee anyway. It just drives people to other coins due to big transaction fees.
Your argument that other users will use alternatives is not backed up by the facts. Most including BTS have had very low fees for nearly two years and new user growth is stagnant. One of the reasons new user growth is stagnant is because there's no incentive to market and promote it.
Unfortunately in the real world, very few products succeed by word of mouth and nearly all require some form of marketing.
You can either pay a marketing team and give them a marketing budget, which is what the marketing delegate system tried to do.
(However this cost still has to be paid for and BitShares was operating at a loss via dilution. It's also hard to effectively manage in a decentralised fashion to ensure you are getting good value. )
Or you can pay marketers for the results they actually achieve in the form of new users. The referral programme does this and requires far less management from shareholders.
It is by far a superior marketing approach for decentralised companies imo.
Obviously Shareholders will have to make sure BTS stays competitive and if non BTC alt-coins were actually gaining adoption on the basis of low fees and no marketing (Which hasn't happened yet) BTS can adjust the programme.
-
I've seen lots of "hooray referral system" posts like it's the new cure for cancer. I have the exact opposite thoughts about it. Before any pro-referral people post in opposition, let's define exactly what the referral system is. It's an artificial increase in transaction fees to subsidize the equivalent of a bunch of Avon ladies.
Artificially increasing transaction fees is the last thing you would ever want to do in a cryptocurrency. One of Bitcoin's main selling points was low transaction fees. Now people are suddenly pretending like transaction fees don't matter. Sure, you may now end up with some additional people trying to spread Bitshares, but most people view cryptocurrency as a zero sum game where the act of using it is just making someone else rich at their own expense. This isn't far from the truth since any currency that exists whether it's fiat, gold, or crypto is all a pyramid scheme in nature.
Dan talks about how he doesn't like coercion, but the referral system obviously is where you're trying to swoop up people under your influence into a system to enrich yourself. An example would be an employer forcing employees into Bitshares as a payment processor. The employee now has to pay some arbitrary fee to become "a member" or pay large transaction fees instead. Currency doesn't need any more pyramid scheme aspects than it already has. Besides the fact that it's philosophically an abomination, it makes Bitshares less competitive in the free market vs other coins that will have lower fees.
Unless Bitshares became huge, it's not like many people are even going to pay the member fee anyway. It just drives people to other coins due to big transaction fees. If Bitshares became world reserve currency, probably everyone on earth would pay it, but the only function it serves then is an additional pyramid scheme aspect on top of the already pyramid nature of all currencies. Whether you're trying to make a profitable business or a more "fair" world, it's probably bad on both fronts.
I take issue to being referred to as a Avon Lady.. I am at least an Amway Guy!
If your concerns and/or opinions hold true with the voting electorate than a committee proposal can change things and become enabled on the blockchain.
I think you have to consider that every successful enterprise needs a sales force.. and you need a method of compensation.. and there are plenty of companies, even fortune 500 that are performance based like what we are doing.
What is more important.. this will prompt for 3rd parties to develop and use the platform... adoption and utility are all that really matter.. the side effect from it is all the stuff people are crying about in regards to a better UI and other features being more usable.. that is all born out of a profit motive which did not exist in 1.0.. and you can see how that went. Lessons learned.
-
Your argument that other users will use alternatives is not backed up by the facts. Most including BTS have had very low fees for nearly two years and new user growth is stagnant. One of the reasons new user growth is stagnant is because there's no incentive to market and promote it.
Bitcoin is backed by the odds of the legacy financial system collapsing because systems tend towards homeostasis and people aren't going to change from one pyramid scheme they're familiar with to a new pyramid where risks are unknown. Having low fees isn't a benefit when 500 other coins exist with low fees. Having high fees when 500 other coins don't is a problem though. Eventually there will be many PoS coins with deterministic node selection using things like the collateral bid system I proposed, or a Tendermint type solution, or transparent forging, or what Darkcoin is doing. They will all have lower fees and high TPS and it will definitely be a problem. You can't simply choose to not compete in the fee market.
-
Eventually there will be many PoS coins with deterministic node selection using things like the collateral bid system I proposed, or a Tendermint type solution, or transparent forging, or what Darkcoin is doing. They will all have lower fees and high TPS and it will definitely be a problem. You can't simply choose to not compete in the fee market.
Your analysis is based on the fallacy that the best technology always wins. Sadly, this is not the case - in order for something to become dominant, people must know about it first. Marketing is important, like it or not. Whether or not the referral system is the best way to achieve this is another question.
-
I think you have to consider that every successful enterprise needs a sales force.. and you need a method of compensation.. and there are plenty of companies, even fortune 500 that are performance based like what we are doing.
The fact that Bitshares has inflation through delegates means transaction fees should be subsidized to be lower. Havinig inflation + high fees at the same time is an abomination. Yes, I'm aware of all the burning/stock buy back examples to claim there is no inflation. It's just a lot of arbitrary stuff going on which I'm really not into. If there's inflation, I want to see it going directly towards subsidizing fees aka security and be explainable as such, instead of having to involve it in obscure stock buy back examples that may or may not occur at some given point of adoption/market cap.
If you want marketing, explain the witness stock price feeds function and make a T-shirt that says, "Bitshares - First decentralized bucket shop"
-
I've seen lots of "hooray referral system" posts like it's the new cure for cancer. I have the exact opposite thoughts about it. Before any pro-referral people post in opposition, let's define exactly what the referral system is. It's an artificial increase in transaction fees to subsidize the equivalent of a bunch of Avon ladies.
Artificially increasing transaction fees is the last thing you would ever want to do in a cryptocurrency. One of Bitcoin's main selling points was low transaction fees. Now people are suddenly pretending like transaction fees don't matter. Sure, you may now end up with some additional people trying to spread Bitshares, but most people view cryptocurrency as a zero sum game where the act of using it is just making someone else rich at their own expense. This isn't far from the truth since any currency that exists whether it's fiat, gold, or crypto is all a pyramid scheme in nature.
Dan talks about how he doesn't like coercion, but the referral system obviously is where you're trying to swoop up people under your influence into a system to enrich yourself. An example would be an employer forcing employees into Bitshares as a payment processor. The employee now has to pay some arbitrary fee to become "a member" or pay large transaction fees instead. Currency doesn't need any more pyramid scheme aspects than it already has. Besides the fact that it's philosophically an abomination, it makes Bitshares less competitive in the free market vs other coins that will have lower fees.
Unless Bitshares became huge, it's not like many people are even going to pay the member fee anyway. It just drives people to other coins due to big transaction fees. If Bitshares became world reserve currency, probably everyone on earth would pay it, but the only function it serves then is an additional pyramid scheme aspect on top of the already pyramid nature of all currencies. Whether you're trying to make a profitable business or a more "fair" world, it's probably bad on both fronts.
I think referral system is not bad , but the translation fee should decrease , it is too difficult to understand send fee is 20 bts , but exhcang fee is only 5BTS,
I think the fee should send fee < exchange fee
-
Your argument that other users will use alternatives is not backed up by the facts. Most including BTS have had very low fees for nearly two years and new user growth is stagnant. One of the reasons new user growth is stagnant is because there's no incentive to market and promote it.
Bitcoin is backed by the odds of the legacy financial system collapsing because systems tend towards homeostasis and people aren't going to change from one pyramid scheme they're familiar with to a new pyramid where risks are unknown. Having low fees isn't a benefit when 500 other coins exist with low fees. Having high fees when 500 other coins don't is a problem though. Eventually there will be many PoS coins with deterministic node selection using things like the collateral bid system I proposed, or a Tendermint type solution, or transparent forging, or what Darkcoin is doing. They will all have lower fees and high TPS and it will definitely be a problem. You can't simply choose to not compete in the fee market.
Bitcoin is slightly different as it was the first mover & already has 90% market share which is why I excluded it in my response.
if non BTC alt-coins were actually gaining adoption on the basis of low fees and no marketing (Which hasn't happened yet) BTS can adjust the programme.
Unfortunately if you're not the first mover, you need a lot of marketing to gain market share and that costs money.
Having high fees when 500 other coins don't is a problem though.
I'm surprised you can't see the answer lies in your own statement.
500+ coins are out there have already tried low fees. Many of these 500 coins improve considerably on Bitcoin and offer a range of services. None of those 500 coins with low fees & limited/no marketing and no third party incentives have made consistent inroads into Bitcoin's market share or experienced strong growth or user adoption.
A new product or services requires marketing and incentives for middleman to promote it. At least give what's been proven to work for hundred of years a chance instead of hanging onto the idea that the cheapest wins when clearly we have enough evidence from the alt-coin market that it's not the case.
-
I think the fee for placing/cancel of an order and transaction should be very cheap. But the fee for trade success should be more, such as 0.0005 of the liquild.
People are willing to pay when trade success, because both seller and buyer feel earn something at the moment they trade.
-
I strongly believe that this referral system can incentivize people to help BitShares grow. It is also something that partners can plug into and fund the system's growth in ways that you and I cannot yet imagine. Once this technology is fully ready for prime time (getting much closer), then the referral system can power a ground-up marketing push. Time will tell, but I'm guessing it will be well worth the cost. 500 other coins, and eventually Bitcoin itself, may agree when we leave them in our dust.
-
Our competition is not other crypto. It's legacy payment processors like PayPal and on-line usage of debit cards.
This. Exactly this.
-
I think the fee for placing/cancel of an order and transaction should be very cheap. But the fee for trade success should be more, such as 0.0005 of the liquild.
People are willing to pay when trade success, because both seller and buyer feel earn something at the moment they trade.
I think that the current market fee should be split into maker fee and taker fee. So we have order placing fee, cancel fee, maker fee and taker fee where [maker fee percentage]+[taker fee percentage] >= 0. The order placing/cancel fee should be as low as possible just to avoid spamming. To improve the liquidity, we can set the maker fee to -0.2% and taker fee to 0.2%, or maybe -0.1% and 0.2% to get some profit from trades like normal exchanges.
-
Our competition is not other crypto. It's legacy payment processors like PayPal and on-line usage of debit cards.
This. Exactly this.
I fully agree. My post referenced other coins because the OP mentioned them, but we're aiming far beyond cryptos with this. Most Fortune 1000 companies use a referral system of some sort in the marketing. That's our turf now.
-
When does our referral system get launched?
-
Our competition is not other crypto. It's legacy payment processors like PayPal and on-line usage of debit cards.
This. Exactly this.
+5% time to realize this for some of you.
-
Regarding tx costs... bitcoin costs nearly $1,000,000 per day to operate, and each tx costs $7 to its holders.. I think we're ok..
https://blockchain.info/charts/miners-revenue
https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction
-
Look at it this way:
1. User issued assets can set any core-exchange-rate they like and lower the fees for users of the UIA to close to 0
2. UIAs can charge market fees similar to exchanges
3. $0.10 for a normal user or $0.02 cents for a lifetime member are so close to $0 that few would even think about it for a transaction over $10
4. BTS is not meant to be payment currency. How many people buy less than $10 worth of stock in a company? What is the transaction fee on that?
In other words, the ability of users to do "price discrimination" falls apart at values this low. Unless you are executing 1000's of transactions there is almost no perceivable difference. Most people won't even bend over to pick up a DIME on the ground.
In other words from a customer perspective $0.01 and $0.10 are effectively the SAME in low volumes. At high volumes the price approaches $0.02 for lifetime members which is cheaper than Bitcoin.
While the difference in price is insignificant to individual users, it is HUGE for the network. The network is a party to every transaction and thus sees a 5x increase in revenue while the user perceives almost no difference in cost.
-
1. User issued assets can set any core-exchange-rate they like and lower the fees for users of the UIA to close to 0
2. UIAs can charge market fees similar to exchanges
This^ When people trade on exchanges, they trade IOUs, it's exactly the same, here they could trade a UIA issued by the exchange like bitstamp.btc or btce.btc with low fees. However at the user-level of interface they wouldn't see any of this happening.
I think it's too early to say it's a mistake. I mean, we have the chance to create a network effect and that's priceless.
-
1. Referral system is great, but fees should be lower.
2. 20 BTS is too scary number for people.
3. 10 cents now seem low, but with price increase it would be higher. In crypto 2x times price increase is nothing, we could jump 10x, but we won't, because nobody will use system when. Eventually we will be forced to lower it , why don't do this now?
4. By lowering the fees we could increase our marketcap, hence - more publicity.
5. By lowering the fees we could show everyone that our governance model superior than Bitcoin.
6. Maybe people in USA tolerate fees, other regions have different views. But they have difficulties articulate this.
We could debate for a long time or we can show the world our new feature: governance by voting.
My proposal:
Lets reduce all fees by the factor of 4. Our system very good, we should be able to grow by 4x in short time if there will be no such resistance as high fees for people to use Bitshares.
-
The referral pattern is actually one of the best ideas ever. Other crypto will certainly copy Bitshares as they have with sharedropping and many other similar ideas.
Innovation is the only edge the Bitshares community has, and the fact that the Bitshares community will try different ideas to win. If the goal is to take Bitshares viral and bootstrap an industry having the referral program is probably the best thing you can do to help seed the process.
My opinion is the referral program didn't go far enough. It should have been multi-level, but I understand for PR purposes perhaps it couldn't be? So instead someone can create a multi-level referral program on top of the current referral program if they decentralize the referrer into a cooperative.
-
1. Referral system is great, but fees should be lower.
2. 20 BTS is too scary number for people.
3. 10 cents now seem low, but with price increase it would be higher. In crypto 2x times price increase is nothing, we could jump 10x, but we won't, because nobody will use system when. Eventually we will be forced to lower it , why don't do this now?
4. By lowering the fees we could increase our marketcap, hence - more publicity.
5. By lowering the fees we could show everyone that our governance model superior than Bitcoin.
6. Maybe people in USA tolerate fees, other regions have different views. But they have difficulties articulate this.
We could debate for a long time or we can show the world our new feature: governance by voting.
My proposal:
Lets reduce all fees by the factor of 4. Our system very good, we should be able to grow by 4x in short time if there will be no such resistance as high fees for people to use Bitshares.
I think fees should remain high for now. The system is going to be used by people who need to use it because there is no alternative offering lower fees. Until a rival offers lower fees the fees should remain high or even be increased. You don't lower fees until competition forces you to.
And there is no competition right now. Would you rather take your chances with BitReserve aka Uphold?
If 20BTS is a scary number, hide the number so people don't see what the fee is without specifically looking. There is no reason to make the fee an obvious thing and perhaps for psychological reasons you have a point that people spend more when they don't see numbers but that doesn't mean the numbers should be based around their psychology when you can simply move the numbers to a part of the interface they wont see as much. It's a GUI/UX issue not a price issue.
I also think it's not time to add the percentages to the interface. People need to know what percentage of the Bitshares pie they hold. The fees spent could reflect by reducing their percentage of the pie, but they don't need to care how much they pay in fees as long as their percentage of the pie is increasing or staying the same.
The percentages are more accurate for what is really going on and is better for psychology. When your percentage of the pie gets too low you'll have to buy more to keep your percentage.
-
I disagree with reducing fees for two main reasons:
1) It makes the referral program a lot less interesting if you dont expect the users you bring in to generate much of any fees. So then it will fail.
2) A big reason why the BTS price has been trending down for a year is that the supply is increasing, that is, the blockchain is operating at a loss instead of being profitable. As soon as we can demonstrate a blockchain making a profit over a reasonable period of time, even a small profit, it will attract a lot of attention. Everyone is used to inflating blockchains that hemmorhage money (through PoW or whatever), but if you change that around and are actually making a profit, then a lot of investors will want to jump on board. And helping the price break its downtrend is going to help adopting a LOT, because a major inhibitor to adoption right now is that everyone who buys in loses money and gets disillusioned.
-
1. User issued assets can set any core-exchange-rate they like and lower the fees for users of the UIA to close to 0
2. UIAs can charge market fees similar to exchanges
Not currently, but in the future, correct?
Or the commands are there to do it, but not documented?
I guess what I'm saying is, I can't do this currently that I'm aware of and previously you stated it was something that would be added in the future.
-
Ander +5% +5%
Did you see my point about how the interface should switch to percentage display? Bytemaster talked about it over a year ago but never implemented it. Now that he's writing the interface it's a perfect opportunity for him to implement it and I know it's not hard to implement it.
It would take one day of coding to implement it, probably not even a whole day for someone as skilled as him. And it will dramatically improve the psychology, because when people care about their percentages instead of meaningless numbers people will buy more to maintain their percentage of ownership. Because of the referral program and other expenses, the percentage of ownership may change slightly, but people need to know.
There needs to be an interface titled "expenses" or something similar. And an interface titled "profit" or something similar. Profit should be then organized by per hour, per day, per week, per year, or whatever the user wants to see. There also needs to be an interface titled "ownership" with percentages and graphs showing how much of each DAC they own.
-
I disagree with reducing fees for two main reasons:
1) It makes the referral program a lot less interesting if you dont expect the users you bring in to generate much of any fees. So then it will fail.
2) A big reason why the BTS price has been trending down for a year is that the supply is increasing, that is, the blockchain is operating at a loss instead of being profitable. As soon as we can demonstrate a blockchain making a profit over a reasonable period of time, even a small profit, it will attract a lot of attention. Everyone is used to inflating blockchains that hemmorhage money (through PoW or whatever), but if you change that around and are actually making a profit, then a lot of investors will want to jump on board. And helping the price break its downtrend is going to help adopting a LOT, because a major inhibitor to adoption right now is that everyone who buys in loses money and gets disillusioned.
+5%
If we could advertise ourselves as being profitable more people would join in as holders.
Would it be good to have something display the number of bitshares being burnt per day? or if we are operating at a profit or at loss? It sounds nice while we're operating at profit, but at a loss it seems it could create some psychological panic, I dunno. But showing the fees burnt per day or month would be nice I guess
-
Would it be good to have something display the number of bitshares being burnt per day?
Yes, that would be awesome.
Honestly, this number (and the corresponding inflation or deflation rate) probably matters to investors more than anything else. Show people that their ownershake stake is no longer being diluted, and that in fact they are owning a larger and larger portion of BTS every day that they hold, and they will want to buy more and hold their BTS!
-
I think the fee for placing/cancel of an order and transaction should be very cheap. But the fee for trade success should be more, such as 0.0005 of the liquild.
People are willing to pay when trade success, because both seller and buyer feel earn something at the moment they trade.
I think that the current market fee should be split into maker fee and taker fee. So we have order placing fee, cancel fee, maker fee and taker fee where [maker fee percentage]+[taker fee percentage] >= 0. The order placing/cancel fee should be as low as possible just to avoid spamming. To improve the liquidity, we can set the maker fee to -0.2% and taker fee to 0.2%, or maybe -0.1% and 0.2% to get some profit from trades like normal exchanges.
The fee to place an order is high, I am unwilling to place an order, because the order may not make a deal. Lower the fee, can attract more people place order to make a stronger and deeper order book.
I have plenty of experience that i am willing pay houndreds of bts fee to trade in the centered exchange, because of the market deep. I feel i made a good deal, so even 0.5 percent is not high for me.
-
I think the fee for placing/cancel of an order and transaction should be very cheap. But the fee for trade success should be more, such as 0.0005 of the liquild.
People are willing to pay when trade success, because both seller and buyer feel earn something at the moment they trade.
I think that the current market fee should be split into maker fee and taker fee. So we have order placing fee, cancel fee, maker fee and taker fee where [maker fee percentage]+[taker fee percentage] >= 0. The order placing/cancel fee should be as low as possible just to avoid spamming. To improve the liquidity, we can set the maker fee to -0.2% and taker fee to 0.2%, or maybe -0.1% and 0.2% to get some profit from trades like normal exchanges.
The fee to place an order is high, I am unwilling to place an order, because the order may not make a deal. Lower the fee, can attract more people place order to make a stronger and deeper order book.
unless placing orders can create some kind of spam attack, I agree with this,
-
I disagree with reducing fees for two main reasons:
1) It makes the referral program a lot less interesting if you dont expect the users you bring in to generate much of any fees. So then it will fail.
2) A big reason why the BTS price has been trending down for a year is that the supply is increasing, that is, the blockchain is operating at a loss instead of being profitable. As soon as we can demonstrate a blockchain making a profit over a reasonable period of time, even a small profit, it will attract a lot of attention. Everyone is used to inflating blockchains that hemmorhage money (through PoW or whatever), but if you change that around and are actually making a profit, then a lot of investors will want to jump on board. And helping the price break its downtrend is going to help adopting a LOT, because a major inhibitor to adoption right now is that everyone who buys in loses money and gets disillusioned.
+5%
If we could advertise ourselves as being profitable more people would join in as holders.
Would it be good to have something display the number of bitshares being burnt per day? or if we are operating at a profit or at loss? It sounds nice while we're operating at profit, but at a loss it seems it could create some psychological panic, I dunno. But showing the fees burnt per day or month would be nice I guess
I think the referral system is good. I also think we should increase the fee, but we should be more clever to do it:
Lower the transaction fee, fee for place/cancel orders. This makes strong and deep order book.
Increase trade fee rate to 0.0005(more or less) when order success. So a average 20000 bts order will create 20 bts profit. Why? Because of a simple research result: both side of a trade feel themself is winner, when they trade totally freely. In this situation, people are willing to pay more.
(I have many experice in this, that i am willing to pay hundreds of bts to central exchanges as fee when i feel making a good deal. 0.005 fee rate is not high for me in this case). We have plenty of knowledge to learn from the central exchange.
-
20 BTS is too scary number for people.
Yep, right after BTS 2.0 was released, the first thing I saw someone type was "20 BTS transaction fee??? What the #%@#%???" I feel the spread between member and non-member fees is WAY too huge. 20 BTS vs 5 BTS? If you plan to keep this referral system, the spread needs to be much lower, something like 10 vs 5 instead. Even then I still don't like it.
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction ! "
-
The referral system creates strong incentives, cuts through politics, and rewards anyone who can find a way to genuinely grow the system. I'm a big fan.
Honestly generated revenue from fees is totally superior to inflating supply and using dilution to fund activity.
-
There's my post to Ander about it:
I don't see it as a referral system. The gap in fees between members and non-members is so large it's more like a hostage system. 20 vs 5? Come on? A real referral system would have the referrer gaining some small percent like 5-20% of fees, not this extortion system that exists now. The gap between the two needs to be far smaller.
Even if you believe the referral system is a good idea, there's obviously a point at which subsidizing the referrer through astronomical taxation is counter productive to growth. The referral system should have been designed under the assumption that most people will not become members. The current system does not look enticing to anyone that doesn't become a member.
-
Would it be good to have something display the number of bitshares being burnt per day?
Yes, that would be awesome.
Honestly, this number (and the corresponding inflation or deflation rate) probably matters to investors more than anything else. Show people that their ownershake stake is no longer being diluted, and that in fact they are owning a larger and larger portion of BTS every day that they hold, and they will want to buy more and hold their BTS!
Great ideas! We could add this data to indexes and revolutionize how altcoins are traded. If we knew for example the deflation rate, burn rate, etc of every coin on coinmarketcap or if we had a DAC Index which had clear fundamentals, then we could really bring big smart money into it.
If a DAC is deflationary, and you have a number which represents the rate of deflation.
If you have a DAC which shows you the percentage ownership you have of it at any time.
If you have the ability to trade or invest in the DAC Index itself, or only in DACs which have a high enough deflation rate, as represented by a number, then your bots could buy and sell based on "profitability" of the DACs, measured by deflation rate number on an index, so that the top 10 for example get the most liquidity.
Tidy up these ideas and present them to Bytemaster in the form of a worker proposal. Make it some sort of Bitshares UX improvement proposal because UX is what is missing the most and these will improve on it dramatically. It's not hard to attract liquidity when you create certainty and reduce certain kinds of risks, and by having additional metrics you can reduce risks.
-
Look at it this way:
1. User issued assets can set any core-exchange-rate they like and lower the fees for users of the UIA to close to 0
2. UIAs can charge market fees similar to exchanges
3. $0.10 for a normal user or $0.02 cents for a lifetime member are so close to $0 that few would even think about it for a transaction over $10
4. BTS is not meant to be payment currency. How many people buy less than $10 worth of stock in a company? What is the transaction fee on that?
In other words, the ability of users to do "price discrimination" falls apart at values this low. Unless you are executing 1000's of transactions there is almost no perceivable difference. Most people won't even bend over to pick up a DIME on the ground.
In other words from a customer perspective $0.01 and $0.10 are effectively the SAME in low volumes. At high volumes the price approaches $0.02 for lifetime members which is cheaper than Bitcoin.
While the difference in price is insignificant to individual users, it is HUGE for the network. The network is a party to every transaction and thus sees a 5x increase in revenue while the user perceives almost no difference in cost.
+5%
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction ! "
When people are framing this issue within a market cap of 3 billion, BTS has already won them over.
-
I wouldn't care about the referral program if it was a benign entity, but it's currently holding the entire network hostage. I could understand 5-20% higher transaction fees to fund the thing, but going from 5 to 20 transaction fee is a 400% increase, not 5% to 20%.
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Can fees be displayed as USD? Seeing something like 5 cents has a much lower perceived value than 20 BTS.
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Maybe they should pay the fee in bitUSD or another bitAsset...and be forced to have SOME of it in their account. Skype does it...and so do many others...and that seems to work. Once people see that it is framed differently, their perspective will change...
Seeing $.1 bUSD as opposed to 20bts looks a heck of alot cheaper.
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Can fees be displayed as USD? Seeing something like 5 cents has a much lower perceived value than 20 BTS.
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
To put it in context most US trading companies charge between 1500 - 5000 BTS per trade.
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Can fees be displayed as USD? Seeing something like 5 cents has a much lower perceived value than 20 BTS.
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
To put it in context most US trading companies charge between 1500 - 5000 BTS per trade.
Yeh but what method is talking about is changing the perception to users...especially with consideration to the demographic. Ironically he came to the same conclusion i did...now if only i hadnt missed his previous post...lol.
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Can fees be displayed as USD? Seeing something like 5 cents has a much lower perceived value than 20 BTS.
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
To put it in context most US trading companies charge between 1500 - 5000 BTS per trade.
Yeh but what method is talking about is changing the perception to users...especially with consideration to the demographic. Ironically he came to the same conclusion i did...now if only i hadnt missed his previous post...lol.
Method-x has the right of it. I only meant to highlight the absurdity of the debate over fees vs the "real" world.
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Can fees be displayed as USD? Seeing something like 5 cents has a much lower perceived value than 20 BTS.
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
To put it in context most US trading companies charge between 1500 - 5000 BTS per trade.
Yeh but what method is talking about is changing the perception to users...especially with consideration to the demographic. Ironically he came to the same conclusion i did...now if only i hadnt missed his previous post...lol.
Method-x has the right of it. I only meant to highlight the absurdity of the debate over fees vs the "real" world.
Yeh, definitely...
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Can fees be displayed as USD? Seeing something like 5 cents has a much lower perceived value than 20 BTS.
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
To put it in context most US trading companies charge between 1500 - 5000 BTS per trade.
That's for average joes tho.... What is the Nasdaq trading fee for a company directly plugged into their APIs? It might be a few cents at most.
Makes me want to ask........who is more important to BTS... guys going through brokers or institutional traders?
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Can fees be displayed as USD? Seeing something like 5 cents has a much lower perceived value than 20 BTS.
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
To put it in context most US trading companies charge between 1500 - 5000 BTS per trade.
Yeah I definitely agree. My bank charges about $20 CAD per trade, which is ridiculous.
-
Either way it's best to start high then go lower than start too low and deal with PR from raising it later.
-
There is some wisdom in this entirely optional massive discount being offered to anyone who calculates that it suits them. It's a loyalty scheme, not a hostage scheme.
I also think xiahui135 might have a point about differing fees for order cancellation, successful trade, transfer etc.
-
The order execution fees are set by the issuer of the respective assets (not by the blockchain)
The order cancelation fee is 0
The order placing fee is 5 BTS for normal users and 1 BTS for lifetime users.
1 BTS is $0.004 right now. It is just big enough to prevent users from spamming the blockchain.
-
While obviously polarizing, I think the referral system is brilliant because you're giving people a business opportunity while simultaneously growing the network. At the very least it's worth a try.
I particularly like the analogy to PayPal, but has anyone else noticed that the actual way PayPal bootstrapped growth is being misremembered?
It wasn't primarily about the referral program, it was the fact that you got $10 free PayPal dollars when you opened an account. What would it take for Bitshares to do this? Obviously you'd have to protect against gaming the system somehow, possibly by *gasp* identity verification.
Obviously the other problem facing the referral system right now is that there isn't a clear use case for joining the network (yet).
Anyways kudos to the team for getting this thing shipped, but let's get it straight about PayPal: the free cash to join is what got things moving.
-
I love the referral system. It is truly innovative in the cryptocurrency space and will help Bitshares grow via magnified network effects.
I do have a question about how it works though. Is is multi-level or single level?
If I refer someone I get a portion of their fees, I get that. What if they in turn refer someone? Then that someone refers someone else?
Is a MLM affiliate scheme better than a single level affiliate scheme? I have my own opinion, but I am interested in hearing everyone else's. I am thinking I may be in the minority on this... pro MLM. MLM structures promote users to recruit other users that will then recruit other users, and so on so forth. Recruiting mainly other users that will recruit other users is currently in the best interest of Bitshares as we are very early in the game. Magnifying the network affect of the referral system is in our best interest IMO. How many levels deep should it go, or should it ideally be unlimited down to a fraction of a percent?
-
I love the referral system. It is truly innovative in the cryptocurrency space and will help Bitshares grow via magnified network effects.
I do have a question about how it works though. Is is multi-level or single level?
If I refer someone I get a portion of their fees, I get that. What if they in turn refer someone? Then that someone refers someone else?
Is a MLM affiliate scheme better than a single level affiliate scheme? I have my own opinion, but I am interested in hearing everyone else's. I am thinking I may be in the minority on this... pro MLM. MLM structures promote users to recruit other users that will then recruit other users, and so on so forth. Magnifying the network affect of the referral system is in our best interest IMO. How many levels deep should it go, or should it ideally be unlimited down to a fraction of a percent?
it's single level, so no MLM.
-
I love the referral system. It is truly innovative in the cryptocurrency space and will help Bitshares grow via magnified network effects.
I do have a question about how it works though. Is is multi-level or single level?
If I refer someone I get a portion of their fees, I get that. What if they in turn refer someone? Then that someone refers someone else?
Is a MLM affiliate scheme better than a single level affiliate scheme? I have my own opinion, but I am interested in hearing everyone else's. I am thinking I may be in the minority on this... pro MLM. MLM structures promote users to recruit other users that will then recruit other users, and so on so forth. Recruiting mainly other users that will recruit other users is currently in the best interest of Bitshares as we are very early in the game. Magnifying the network affect of the referral system is in our best interest IMO. How many levels deep should it go, or should it ideally be unlimited down to a fraction of a percent?
I'm pro-levels also. This thing would take over the world. But what they've done is a big step in the right direction.
-
When the outside world looks at this thing, they don't even know the fee rate can be changed over time, so they're thinking, "nice, if this coin hits 3 billion market cap like Bitcoin, I get to pay $15 in fees per transaction!
had the same thought the other day :-\
Can fees be displayed as USD? Seeing something like 5 cents has a much lower perceived value than 20 BTS.
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
To put it in context most US trading companies charge between 1500 - 5000 BTS per trade.
I use Robinhood and it has much lower fees.
-
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
I'm kind of shocked most of you people don't seem to understand what Bitshares actually is. Even Bytemaster doesn't seem to acknowledge it. Bitshares is a decentralized bucket shop (world first?). You are not trading real stocks or assets. You can't compare anything about it to real stock markets. It's a gambling market where you're betting against the somewhat decentralized but non-autonomous house that operates price feeds. You don't own real assets. You're not investing in real assets. All you're doing is gambling.
It's virtualy impossible for there to be a situation where there's X dollars invested in Y stock and the same amount of money or higher invested in the Bitshares prediction market of said stock because the prediction market offers you no real legal standing or ownership. You can't compare real stock markets to this because the value proposition of the real stock market is always higher. I'm not saying the market has no value, it's just nothing close to the real stock market.
As for the referral system, I stand by my statement that the referral system is currently holding the entire network hostage. 5 to 20 is a 400% increase. No real referral system places such a huge burden on it's base system. Going from 5 to 7 or 5 to 8 I could stomach, but the current system, no way, not ever.
There also needs to be more emphasis on the BTS native currency as an intstrument of value and trade settlement instead of market pegged or user issued assets, and the referral system's huge burden is an impediment to that. Gold isn't really a valid monetary instrument for the modern world, cryptocurrency is, so why would people do backflips over BitGold or a BitUSD? The cryptocurrency is the actual thing with a future. My statement on gold here:
I don't think precious metals are a solution in the modern world in the first place. They'll only be useful in a hard collapse where/if we go back to the dark ages. Precious metals have low granularity and high friction in use. They were useful in an age of barter where you show up at a market and want a chicken and the vendor estimates which coin in your pocket the chicken is most closely valued to. He then has to toss in a loaf of bread or something else until you both agree on value.
Most business owners don't run their own floor nowadays and nobody is even allowed to barter. Let's not forget gold backed currency is how fractional reserve was created in the first place. In other words, it's almost useless because the market demands higher granularity and lower friction.
Yes, it's ok for short term hedging, but in the long run, it's mostly useless. Native cyrptocurrency is the long run asset/currency, not pegged assets. The pegged assets are more of a short term bandaid for acceptance or for stabalizing against a more succesful crypto like BTC.
-
You are not trading real stocks or assets. You can't compare anything about it to real stock markets. It's a gambling market where you're betting against the somewhat decentralized but non-autonomous house that operates price feeds. You don't own real assets. You're not investing in real assets. All you're doing is gambling.
But if you're interested in just trading (and not ownership in a legal sense) how is the profit earned on a derivative market (like BitShares) in any way inferior to the profit earned on a "real" market?
For me, both these profits have the same value so the market fees ARE comparable.
And I'd assume 99% of people are interested in just profits, not legal ownership, provided the profits are legally or contractually guaranteed.
(this 99% is just my common sense, not based on any market research)
-
In the US Scottrade is seen as a bargain basement trading firm at $7 per trade!! Seriously. Other houses charge $25+ USD PER TRADE!!. Let's get some perspective on what the market will bear.
I'm kind of shocked most of you people don't seem to understand what Bitshares actually is. Even Bytemaster doesn't seem to acknowledge it. Bitshares is a decentralized bucket shop (world first?). You are not trading real stocks or assets. You can't compare anything about it to real stock markets. It's a gambling market where you're betting against the somewhat decentralized but non-autonomous house that operates price feeds. You don't own real assets. You're not investing in real assets. All you're doing is gambling.
It's virtualy impossible for there to be a situation where there's X dollars invested in Y stock and the same amount of money or higher invested in the Bitshares prediction market of said stock because the prediction market offers you no real legal standing or ownership. You can't compare real stock markets to this because the value proposition of the real stock market is always higher. I'm not saying the market has no value, it's just nothing close to the real stock market.
I don't think you understand the state of legacy markets today. The stock market is just a daisy chain of contractual obligations. Some folks believe the backend is a house of cards ready to fall. So for all intents and purposes, trading stocks directly is not much better than trading a derivative form of those stocks. Bitshares has the potential to be a far superior platform for companies to issue stock on through user issued assets.
The bitasset market most closely resembles futures markets, which are bucket shops by your definition. We should see some real fireworks once things such as gas, corn, wheat, sugar, soybean, and cocoa can be traded freely and fully collateralized by native sound money and even be used as currency. These things are all traded digitally today anyway, so by definition they have to be derivatives.
Think about this use case: Joe travels 3,000 miles a month for his job and uses 100 gallons of gas each month. He wants to budget for for his gas expenses for the entire year and right now gas prices are relatively cheap at $2.00/gallon. Joe buys 1200 bitgas for $2400. Joe will pay $2.00/gallon all year as he redeems bitgas every time he fills up his car. If prices jump to $3.00/gallon, then joe will save money. Perhaps in the future gas stations will accept bitgas directly.
-
I'm kind of shocked most of you people don't seem to understand what Bitshares actually is. Even Bytemaster doesn't seem to acknowledge it. Bitshares is a decentralized bucket shop (world first?). You are not trading real stocks or assets. You can't compare anything about it to real stock markets. It's a gambling market where you're betting against the somewhat decentralized but non-autonomous house that operates price feeds. You don't own real assets. You're not investing in real assets. All you're doing is gambling.
Bitshares aims to replace the ECN, rather than to be one actor on someone else's ECN, like an actual bucket shop would be. It's only gambling in the same way that you might argue any trading is gambling.
However, your actions on the DEX do affect the internal orderbook and therefore the prices, and because of that, I have to say it is not a bucket shop.
-
I'm kind of shocked most of you people don't seem to understand what Bitshares actually is. Even Bytemaster doesn't seem to acknowledge it. Bitshares is a decentralized bucket shop (world first?). You are not trading real stocks or assets. You can't compare anything about it to real stock markets. It's a gambling market where you're betting against the somewhat decentralized but non-autonomous house that operates price feeds. You don't own real assets. You're not investing in real assets. All you're doing is gambling.
You think we dont know that already? BitShares is the best damn bucketshop around.
And whats wrong with a bucketshop anyway? The are only illegal because:
1) Authorities dont want money diverted from inflating the stock market
2) Wall street lobbying
It might be gambling, but its not against the House. Get your facts right its p2p.
-
The bucket shop talk is just an unrelated thing to this thread. Everyone keeps skipping over the main point:
"As for the referral system, I stand by my statement that the referral system is currently holding the entire network hostage. 5 to 20 is a 400% increase. No real referral system places such a huge burden on it's base system. Going from 5 to 7 or 5 to 8 I could stomach, but the current system, no way, not ever."
If the referral system is going to be legit, it should only affect the base by something like 5-30% max. 400% is absurd. It's like Mark Lyford was given free reign to design it.
-
If the referral system is going to be legit, it should only affect the base by something like 5-30% max. 400% is absurd. It's like Mark Lyford was given free reign to design it.
So it seems that, contrary to this thread's title, your conclusion is that nothing is wrong with the referral program but just the transaction fees are set too high.
I think we've already had this discussion:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19159.0.html
-
If the referral system is going to be legit, it should only affect the base by something like 5-30% max. 400% is absurd. It's like Mark Lyford was given free reign to design it.
So it seems that, contrary to this thread's title, your conclusion is that nothing is wrong with the referral program but just the transaction fees are set too high.
I think we've already had this discussion:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19159.0.html
If someone ideologically opposed it, there's no reason to make a big deal out of the referral system if it has little or no impact on the system as a whole. The fact of the matter is, it has a huge impact on the system as a whole in current form. So yes, if it doesn't have a huge impact on fees, I would not care that it exists, but it does, therefore I oppose it.
-
The bucket shop talk is just an unrelated thing to this thread. Everyone keeps skipping over the main point:
"As for the referral system, I stand by my statement that the referral system is currently holding the entire network hostage. 5 to 20 is a 400% increase. No real referral system places such a huge burden on it's base system. Going from 5 to 7 or 5 to 8 I could stomach, but the current system, no way, not ever."
If the referral system is going to be legit, it should only affect the base by something like 5-30% max. 400% is absurd. It's like Mark Lyford was given free reign to design it.
Your verbage when you try to be manipulative is amusing. "holding the entire network hostage". loool.
-
This is Post # 68 in the current thread. R0ach, based on the responses, let me take a stab at answering the original question.
Q: Am I the only one that thinks referral system is Bitshares largest mistake ever?
A: Pretty much. There are a few people who don't want fees of any sort involved in BitShares, but it seems that a super-majority of this community are pretty excited about the referral system.
Take Away: Few of us agree 100% with every decision made on BitShares, but I know we're all very high on its potential. The jury's still out on this referral system, but it's something no one else has in this field. Some of us have tried marketing an insular product (0.x) that was more like a savings account, that no one knew about, using basically no marketing budget, and that's not an experience I wish to repeat. Give the referral system a chance to help us spread the word and grow the ecosystem. If it sucks, then we'll change it or stop using it, but I really feel that it could be the secret sauce. Longer term, maybe we won't need such a thing. Your feedback will be important.
-
Ｉdon`t think referral system is a mistake , but I think high fee is the biggest mistake at so low Tx volume.
-
Ｉdon`t think referral system is a mistake , but I think high fee is the biggest mistake at so low Tx volume.
Agreed... Referral system is a good idea, but we don't have to stick to high fee scheme to sustain it. Let's attract more people and make them like BTS system. Then they will become lifetime members, which generates a lot of profit.
-
Ｉdon`t think referral system is a mistake , but I think high fee is the biggest mistake at so low Tx volume.
This is where i stand too, personally. Though i have little trading experience to qualify my comment as valuable beyond a simple consumer datapoint..