BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: clayop on November 14, 2015, 12:49:24 am
-
BM's new proposal mentions that BitShares will reduce fees EXCEPT transfer, creating order, and account creation fees. This is somewhat disappointing to me because I have been arguing to lower transfer and order creation fees. In this post, I want to point out some reasons why BitShares has to lower its "core" fees.
1. We're in competition. It's the red ocean already.
Believe or not, we're not in the blue ocean. We now have two main products: value transfer service and exchange service.
Regarding transfer service, our main competitor is Bitcoin. Bitcoin transfer service uses a cryptocurrency, which hard to be hacked, and allows users to send money around the world.
Currently, Bitcoin's fee is about $0.03, and its ecosystem is incomparably huge than us. The only disadvantage of Bitcoin is its volatility, but there are many third party service trying to resolve or minimize this weak point.
So think about it, do people really want to use BitShares instead of Bitcoin to transfer money? I would say no.
To overcome Bitcoin, we have to play better than Bitcoin in many aspects. Yes, we have Smartcoins. But we also have higher transfer fees, four times higher than Bitcoin. One may say that BitShares is the premium service like Tesla or Apple. But they're commodities. Is there any premium financial service that only have rich people? Paypal? Chase? The key point in transfer (and even merchant) service is a large user-base. So our focus group in transfer service should be all kinds of people.
Then what should we do? I would suggest to lower the basic transfer fee to at least Bitcoin level (10 BTS, but 9 BTS is better). If we really want to incentivize to people to use our system, I would say 5 BTS. If we keep the transfer fee high, I'd rather use Bitcoin to purchase goods or transfer money.
For the exchange service, our main competitor is centralized exchange. My argument is simple. Which exchange charge order creation fee in addition to a percentage fee? The only exchange is BTS DEX. This is really annoying. Users may think that "BTS already took 0.2% of my money, and now asks me 20 cents more"
If we have percentage fees, order creation fee should be minimized. Thanks to ElMato's effort, we know that 1 BTS can be effective value to prevent spamming attack. So why don't we set the basic order creation fee at 1 BTS?
2. Fees can be increamental as our market cap grows.
Suppose we set our transfer fee at 5 BTS ($0.03). Of course it can be adjusted by committe proposal. But we can increase the fee as our market cap grows. Think about when Bitcoin was $1. Did it charge 0.03 BTC per transfer? As Bitcoin's market cap grows, it automatically increase its fee. If its price becomes $3,000, it will charge $0.3. But people may not care.
We can take the same strategy. I rather want to say, we should be humble. We only have 7.5 mil market cap, one out of tens of Bitcoin. Let's start with low fee and as market cap grows, fix the rate in terms of BTS.
3. A successful referrer in a loss
Someone say we should keep referring system with high fees. But if high fees prohibit our growth of user base and price, is it still important?
Which one do you prefer, doubled price of BTS with 10 refers, or 20 refers with halved price?
The key is the price now. If price goes up, it's easier to advertise BitShares. Then what makes price? Demands and user-base. I would recommend to remove all factors that drive out users. Bad UI? It's getting better. Low liquidity? Many are making market bots now. High fees? One may say lower fee is not the pulling factor. Right, lower fee does not guarantee more users. However, high fee is surely pushing factor. It makes people annoyed and drives out them.
4. Shareholders want lower fees
IMHO, BM's biggest mistake is listening some community members' voices with fluent English (Since my English is not good, I cannot persuade BM now). But see the voting result. Bitcrab and I have the largest votes, and we are both arguing for lowering fees. Shareholders show their opinion by votes. Why does BM keep ignoring shareholder's voice?
TL; DR
My suggestion is to lower the basic transfer fee to BTC level (9 BTS) and to lower the basic order creation fee just for preventing spammy attacks (1 BTS)
-
+5%
-
I agree +5%
-
We are refunding 99% of order creation fee if it is canceled. So the cost to create/cancel is very small (just enough to prevent spam).
The end result is that the "order creation fee" becomes a "minimum fee" for filled orders which has the effect of preventing dust orders.
The minimum order fee will probably be similar to a transfer fee, $0.20 per filled order, $0.05 for lifetime members.
-
We are refunding 99% of order creation fee if it is canceled. So the cost to create/cancel is very small (just enough to prevent spam).
The end result is that the "order creation fee" becomes a "minimum fee" for filled orders which has the effect of preventing dust orders.
The minimum order fee will probably be similar to a transfer fee, $0.20 per filled order, $0.05 for lifetime members.
Do you really think we can compete with other exchanges and bitcoin with these high fees?
-
We are refunding 99% of order creation fee if it is canceled. So the cost to create/cancel is very small (just enough to prevent spam).
The end result is that the "order creation fee" becomes a "minimum fee" for filled orders which has the effect of preventing dust orders.
The minimum order fee will probably be similar to a transfer fee, $0.20 per filled order, $0.05 for lifetime members.
Do you really think we can compete with other exchanges and bitcoin with these high fees?
Yes. Although presception counts for a lot at 40bts a trade any trade over $60 in value is cheaper than the standard 0.2%. Add to that the safety of no counter party risk and it's a no brainer.
I'd rather see effort put to marketing the above points than changing to something that appears better.
We won't attract high frequency bots but they don't really fit on a blockchain based exchange anyway.
Also lifetime members get 80% of those fees back.
-
when pig is small, we have to feed it.
when pig is big, we can eat pork,pig feed us back. but the premise is that the pig grew up.
where is the pig? just new users. :P
no new users, no profit;
no orders, no profit;
what's frequency bots? it's market catalyzer!!!
-
We are refunding 99% of order creation fee if it is canceled. So the cost to create/cancel is very small (just enough to prevent spam).
The end result is that the "order creation fee" becomes a "minimum fee" for filled orders which has the effect of preventing dust orders.
The minimum order fee will probably be similar to a transfer fee, $0.20 per filled order, $0.05 for lifetime members.
Do you really think we can compete with other exchanges and bitcoin with these high fees?
Yes. Although presception counts for a lot at 40bts a trade any trade over $60 in value is cheaper than the standard 0.2%. Add to that the safety of no counter party risk and it's a no brainer.
I'd rather see effort put to marketing the above points than changing to something that appears better.
We won't attract high frequency bots but they don't really fit on a blockchain based exchange anyway.
Also lifetime members get 80% of those fees back.
You're ignoring the percentage fee. IF the percentage fee exist, the order creation fee is always additional.
And who is we? People who believe high fees really work? We should listen shareholders voice.
-
when pig is big, we can eat pork,but the premise is that the pig grew up.
But, you have to kill the pig first or is this a zombie pig? ;)
-
Fav justified the reason Yunbi lowered their BTS transfer/withdrawal fees as perhaps because they needed a temporary promotion because they're not established yet.
I believed it's because our transfer fees are too high and so discourage exchange business for Chinese customers and assumed we'd see BTC38 lower them too.
The two businesses are fairly independent. High transfer fees will not impact the Exchange business and High exchange fees will not impact the payment business.
...whatever the fees are set to are unlikely to impact the decentralized exchange business.
Yunbi may prove to be the exception. But why then did they actively seek to set their BTS withdrawal fee lower and advertise it as a benefit unless they felt high transfer fees impacted their centralized exchange business?
- Lowered the withdrawal fee to 10 BTS!
they get 80% back of their tx fees anyways. that's why the can do it.
Yes... I understand that.
The point is if the high transfer fees didn't impact their exchange business they'd charge the standard transfer fee and keep the difference. But obviously they feel their exchange users care about transfer fees so they pass their LTM discount onto the customers and make their revenue from trading fees instead.
do you know that for sure or is this just another assumption? yunbi is only operatively working since a few days, they're far behind every other working exchange. that's why there's a need for promotion in my opinion.
Possibly, we'll have to wait and see. That's why I also said Yunbi may prove to be the exception. But my 'assumption' is we'd see Chinese exchanges like BTC38 if they upgraded, lower the fee because their customers might be sensitive to it based on the feedback I've seen and Yunbi's actions which as you say might just be a promotion.
Looking at the withdrawal page on BTC38 it seems they've lowered the withdrawal/transfer fee too.
Maybe that's just a temporary promotion too, we'll see.
-
Fav justified the reason Yunbi lowered their BTS transfer/withdrawal fees as perhaps because they needed a temporary promotion because they're not established yet.
I believed it's because our transfer fees are too high and so discourage exchange business for Chinese customers and assumed we'd see BTC38 lower them too.
The two businesses are fairly independent. High transfer fees will not impact the Exchange business and High exchange fees will not impact the payment business.
...whatever the fees are set to are unlikely to impact the decentralized exchange business.
Yunbi may prove to be the exception. But why then did they actively seek to set their BTS withdrawal fee lower and advertise it as a benefit unless they felt high transfer fees impacted their centralized exchange business?
- Lowered the withdrawal fee to 10 BTS!
they get 80% back of their tx fees anyways. that's why the can do it.
Yes... I understand that.
The point is if the high transfer fees didn't impact their exchange business they'd charge the standard transfer fee and keep the difference. But obviously they feel their exchange users care about transfer fees so they pass their LTM discount onto the customers and make their revenue from trading fees instead.
do you know that for sure or is this just another assumption? yunbi is only operatively working since a few days, they're far behind every other working exchange. that's why there's a need for promotion in my opinion.
Possibly, we'll have to wait and see. That's why I also said Yunbi may prove to be the exception. But my 'assumption' is we'd see Chinese exchanges like BTC38 if they upgraded, lower the fee because their customers might be sensitive to it based on the feedback I've seen and Yunbi's actions which as you say might just be a promotion.
Looking at the withdrawal page on BTC38 it seems they've lowered the withdrawal/transfer fee too.
Maybe that's just a temporary promotion too, we'll see.
They may be able to lower the fee because they are lifetime members. High fee actually does not harm business owners. They just toss the fee to the customer. The real problem is that high fee make customers annoyed and make BTS less competitive.
(It's like a tax. With higher fee, we will have more dead weight loss)
You may want to see marketing pitch. But with what advantages? Decentralized? There is Bitcoin with better infrastructure. Market pegged assets? Do they have liquidity now? If I were a outsider (not much understanding cryptos) I'd rather choose Nubits because it seems pegged and decentralized (plus lower fee than us, $0.01)
IMHO, we are killing ourselves from the perspective of marketing.
Plus, some members are ignoring the voice of vote.
-
@bytemaster
If you truly believe the high fee is the only solution, increase fee to 60 BTS ($0.20). Then let's see potential users reaction and market price changes.
IMO, we're in the vicious circle. High fees drives out users, less users decrease the demands, price decreases, and finally higher fees and again.
Someday you will agree with me, but hopefully it's not too late.
-
We won't attract high frequency bots but they don't really fit on a blockchain based exchange anyway.
You're ignoring the percentage fee. IF the percentage fee exist, the order creation fee is always additional.
And who is we? People who believe high fees really work? We should listen shareholders voice.
By "We" I mean that even at one second blocktimes the TPS is still way too slow for high frequency bot traders. Have a look at Yunbi's CNY/BTC pair. It's madness - but granted that is what happens with zero fees which I understand is not what you're proposing.
Which percentage fee? I don't think BTS has one, does it?
-
Fav justified the reason Yunbi lowered their BTS transfer/withdrawal fees as perhaps because they needed a temporary promotion because they're not established yet.
I believed it's because our transfer fees are too high and so discourage exchange business for Chinese customers and assumed we'd see BTC38 lower them too.
The two businesses are fairly independent. High transfer fees will not impact the Exchange business and High exchange fees will not impact the payment business.
...whatever the fees are set to are unlikely to impact the decentralized exchange business.
Yunbi may prove to be the exception. But why then did they actively seek to set their BTS withdrawal fee lower and advertise it as a benefit unless they felt high transfer fees impacted their centralized exchange business?
- Lowered the withdrawal fee to 10 BTS!
they get 80% back of their tx fees anyways. that's why the can do it.
Yes... I understand that.
The point is if the high transfer fees didn't impact their exchange business they'd charge the standard transfer fee and keep the difference. But obviously they feel their exchange users care about transfer fees so they pass their LTM discount onto the customers and make their revenue from trading fees instead.
do you know that for sure or is this just another assumption? yunbi is only operatively working since a few days, they're far behind every other working exchange. that's why there's a need for promotion in my opinion.
Possibly, we'll have to wait and see. That's why I also said Yunbi may prove to be the exception. But my 'assumption' is we'd see Chinese exchanges like BTC38 if they upgraded, lower the fee because their customers might be sensitive to it based on the feedback I've seen and Yunbi's actions which as you say might just be a promotion.
Looking at the withdrawal page on BTC38 it seems they've lowered the withdrawal/transfer fee too.
Maybe that's just a temporary promotion too, we'll see.
They may be able to lower the fee because they are lifetime members. High fee actually does not harm business owners. They just toss the fee to the customer. The real problem is that high fee make customers annoyed and make BTS less competitive.
(It's like a tax. With higher fee, we will have more dead weight loss)
You may want to see marketing pitch. But with what advantages? Decentralized? There is Bitcoin with better infrastructure. Market pegged assets? Do they have liquidity now? If I were a outsider (not much understanding cryptos) I'd rather choose Nubits because it seems pegged and decentralized (plus lower fee than us, $0.01)
IMHO, we are killing ourselves from the perspective of marketing.
Plus, some members are ignoring the voice of vote.
I am agreeing with you clayop. We should lower the transfer fee.
I understand that they can lower the fee because they are lifetime members but the fact that they choose to lower it instead of staying at 40 BTS (& keeping the difference), reveals information imo that they feel they can attract more exchange users & increase profits by lowering the transfer fee.
-
We won't attract high frequency bots but they don't really fit on a blockchain based exchange anyway.
You're ignoring the percentage fee. IF the percentage fee exist, the order creation fee is always additional.
And who is we? People who believe high fees really work? We should listen shareholders voice.
By "We" I mean that even at one second blocktimes the TPS is still way too slow for high frequency bot traders. Have a look at Yunbi's CNY/BTC pair. It's madness - but granted that is what happens with zero fees which I understand is not what you're proposing.
Which percentage fee? I don't think BTS has one, does it?
BTS doesn't but will. (Proposal 2)
But you may not understand this because you're not much involved in trading. You will meet many UIAs with market fees, if you trade.
-
If you truly believe the high fee is the only solution, increase fee to 60 BTS ($0.20). Then let's see potential users reaction and market price changes.
IMO, we're in the vicious circle. High fees drives out users, less users decrease the demands, price decreases, and finally higher fees and again.
Someday you will agree with me, but hopefully it's not too late.
Higher pay brings more Devs, I hear (I can't see them yet, but I hear it).
So I guess the reasoning is that higher fees should bring in more users.
It's a well known fact that the un-banked love high fees. (Source : myass.com) <-- I'm going to guess that you don't want to click that.
I mean, don't you seek out the bank that has the highest fees? I know I do! I'm always looking to pay the most fees I can so that I can support the fat cats running the bank. But like all cryptocurrencies, BitShares was built so that you can be your own bank! So I'm running the bank and paying high fees, but I get some of my high fees back if I pay another high fee to be a Lifetime Member!
So I'm pretty sure I'm going to be rich very soon!
The un-banked are the target audience for cryptocurrency, so we must raise fees as high as possible to attract more high quality un-banked people.
I hope that helps! ;)
-
Higher pay brings more Devs, I hear (I can't see them yet, but I hear it).
So I guess the reasoning is that higher fees should bring in more users.
It's a well known fact that the un-banked love high fees. (Source : myass.com) <-- I'm going to guess that you don't want to click that.
I mean, don't you seek out the bank that has the highest fees? I know I do! I'm always looking to pay the most fees I can so that I can support the fat cats running the bank. But like all cryptocurrencies, BitShares was built so that you can be your own bank! So I'm running the bank and paying high fees, but I get some of my high fees back if I pay another high fee to be a Lifetime Member!
So I'm pretty sure I'm going to be rich very soon!
The un-banked are the target audience for cryptocurrency, so we must raise fees as high as possible to attract more high quality un-banked people.
I hope that helps! ;)
You can send BTC with fee setting of 0.5 or 1 BTC per transfer, if you really want higher fee.
-
We won't attract high frequency bots but they don't really fit on a blockchain based exchange anyway.
You're ignoring the percentage fee. IF the percentage fee exist, the order creation fee is always additional.
And who is we? People who believe high fees really work? We should listen shareholders voice.
By "We" I mean that even at one second blocktimes the TPS is still way too slow for high frequency bot traders. Have a look at Yunbi's CNY/BTC pair. It's madness - but granted that is what happens with zero fees which I understand is not what you're proposing.
Which percentage fee? I don't think BTS has one, does it?
BTS doesn't but will. (Proposal 2)
But you may not understand this because you're not much involved in trading. You will meet many UIAs with market fees, if you trade.
If the person who ran (and I believe as well wrote) the single biggest market making bot on any exchange ever for BTS is considered not into trading. At least for the purposes of this discussion...I think we are in trouble...
Also, as it stands now everyone involved in alts crypto is into trading, out of pure necessity.
-
You can send BTC with fee setting of 0.5 or 1 BTC per transfer, if you really want higher fee.
You've underestimated me clayop.
I set my BTC fees to 5 BTC per transaction ... like a real man.
Raise all teh fees! It's the only way to attract more people, especially those who really need cryptocurrency in the looming global financial apocalypse.
-
Let's come at it from a different direction.
- How much does it actually cost a witness to process a transaction?
- What is the storage cost per trade in terms of bloat?
Econ-101 has that graph of price vs volume where the zenith is max profit. Playing with the fees up or down is the only way to add data points. Too bad our sample size is so small.
How low could the fees go before the exchange was losing money per transaction? May be worth a promotional period to spurn adoption.
-
Too bad our sample size is so small.
Hmmm, I wonder why that is.
-
You can send BTC with fee setting of 0.5 or 1 BTC per transfer, if you really want higher fee.
You've underestimated me clayop.
I set my BTC fees to 5 BTC per transaction ... like a real man.
Raise all teh fees! It's the only way to attract more people, especially those who really need cryptocurrency in the looming global financial apocalypse.
Lol yeah I underestimated you haha
-
Econ-101 has that graph of price vs volume where the zenith is max profit. Playing with the fees up or down is the only way to add data points. Too bad our sample size is so small.
That's why A/B testing with price isn't a good idea and you should instead do customer research in the form of a forum survey as a way to get a better starting point imo.
http://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/bid/180676/Why-You-Should-Never-A-B-Test-Your-Pricing-Strategy
I prefer.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Westendorp%27s_Price_Sensitivity_Meter
(http://www.dobney.com/images/vanWestendorp_pricing.jpg)
-
Too bad our sample size is so small.
Hmmm, I wonder why that is.
More than fees on trades but your point is taken.
IMHO the social good of bts to the repressed masses is true ownership, decentralized governance, and to some degree anonymity. Not a discount trading house.
From a blockchain perspective it's better to have fewer expensive trades than many cheap ones like we see on the crypto exchanges.
From that perspective we're better off courting the E-Trade crowd ( fewer trades with higher fees) than the crypto micro trades crowd. Refunding 99% of the fee for a canceled order is a good move.
Maybe we need one before we can get the other..I didn't know. I just know a large volume of tiny cheap transactions will bloat the chain very quickly.
-
;)why not set fee to 100 BTS and LT gets 92% back or 1000 and get 97% back
A bank account might require 5 - 10 transactions a month to avoid a fee.
I think a $.04 fee at $.003 /BTS value is a limit . At $.01 BTS value it is already a $.14 fee . This could happen in a week, a month, ...
a lower limit is natural to expect a full fee. what real transactional value is there is in a $.001 or lower BTS, perhaps 300 BTS fee by the end of the year.
I suspect strongly that BTS value is up from here if there is any utility at all. I know there is. A $. 20 fee should be a target at some market value.
Everyone can expect it.
at 20million ? that would make it 4-5 BTS
at 50million?
i hope my math good
-
... you should instead do customer research in the form of a forum survey as a way to get a better starting point imo.
https://youtu.be/ZXsQAXx_ao0
-
;)why not set fee to 100 BTS and LT gets 92% back or 1000 and get 97% back
A bank account might require 5 - 10 transactions a month to avoid a fee.
I think a $.04 fee at $.003 /BTS value is a limit . At $.01 BTS value it is already a $.14 fee . This could happen in a week, a month, ...
a lower limit is natural to expect a full fee. what real transactional value is there is in a $.001 or lower BTS, perhaps 300 BTS fee by the end of the year.
I suspect strongly that BTS value is up from here if there is any utility at all. I know there is. A $. 20 fee should be a target at some market value.
Everyone can expect it.
at 20million ? that would make it 4-5 BTS
at 50million?
i hope my math good
That's one of my point!
-
Once the api is updated for use with 3rd party trading platforms, bts is going to rocket. Stay focused on the exchange side. That is our niche, and a very lucrative niche at that. Forget about competing with bitcoin for transaction scraps.
If we keep having this argument about lowering transfer fees, I'm guessing we will eventually try them out of pure annoyance. Then we will see the price not go up at all and we will be sitting here with an ultra inflating blockchain. Devs will disappear because of the lack of funding. And we will have crushed all the businesses that are building models around the current structure.
Just have a little patience.
-
Once the api is updated for use with 3rd party trading platforms, bts is going to rocket. Stay focused on the exchange side. That is our niche, and a very lucrative niche at that. Forget about competing with bitcoin for transaction scraps.
If we keep having this argument about lowering transfer fees, I'm guessing we will eventually try them out of pure annoyance. Then we will see the price not go up at all and we will be sitting here with an ultra inflating blockchain. Devs will disappear because of the lack of funding. And we will have crushed all the businesses that are building models around the current structure.
Just have a little patience.
You have so many hopes. Do traders like high fees? Lower fee always generate low revenue? (If you say yes, you maybe skeptical about Black Friday's sales).
I'm trying to increase the value (or attractiveness) of BTS. Since I'm a active user (you can see my account page with many trade and transfer records), I have a right to say this.
-
i would say -"everyone, look at your own behavior"
- i changed a long time my bank, because they are charging ZERO fees
- i always go to the cheapest electricity provider
- i always be on the cheapest telco and internet provider
where i have a choice i will go to the cheapest place - IF - the service is compareable to other companies.
so, in my opinion clayop said a good point - we should match the fees with our competition
- in the sense of transfering i would say, at the moment the competition is bitcoin and not the banks or paypal, this could change in the future but not right now, so we should match our fees to bitcoin fees.
(i think with the same transferfees, in the future it is a now brainer to use bitshares, because we will be so much more convenient then bitcoin)
- in the sense of trading (our core feature) at the moment our competition are the crypto exchanges and most of them charging 0.2 % per trade or less.
Why we can not charge ZERO placing fees for traders?
- because we think we will get spammed with orders, but let us discuss if we can find other ways to prefend this
what can we do, that someone will not spam our network?
- we want liquidity and what about solutions like - if the order is at least 0.5% away and x amount high and will be active for x hours we will charge ZERO fees
at least on pegged assets we should find this kind of solution. We should implement an order typ that i can place my order % away from settlement(feedprice), then if i match the
other criterias like amount and time this order will be for free.
i am not a coder and i suspect this will not bloat our system, because only serious people will get this advantage. a "normal" trader dont care how much the fees are, he will go to the best
place he can aquire the needed shares. So we have to create liquidity and i presented just an idea how we can create liquidity, without the problem of to much bloat.
-
BM's new proposal mentions that BitShares will reduce fees EXCEPT transfer, creating order, and account creation fees. This is somewhat disappointing to me because I have been arguing to lower transfer and order creation fees.
TL; DR
My suggestion is to lower the basic transfer fee to BTC level (9 BTS) and to lower the basic order creation fee just for preventing spammy attacks (1 BTS)
+1
We have *working infrastructure in place* for at least several dozen TPS. I doesn't make sense to raise fees while we're several orders of magnitude away from saturating the infrastructure.
-
i would say -"everyone, look at your own behavior"
- i changed a long time my bank, because they are charging ZERO fees
- i always go to the cheapest electricity provider
- i always be on the cheapest telco and internet provider
where i have a choice i will go to the cheapest place - IF - the service is compareable to other companies.
so, in my opinion clayop said a good point - we should match the fees with our competition
- in the sense of transfering i would say, at the moment the competition is bitcoin and not the banks or paypal, this could change in the future but not right now, so we should match our fees to bitcoin fees.
(i think with the same transferfees, in the future it is a now brainer to use bitshares, because we will be so much more convenient then bitcoin)
- in the sense of trading (our core feature) at the moment our competition are the crypto exchanges and most of them charging 0.2 % per trade or less.
Why we can not charge ZERO placing fees for traders?
- because we think we will get spammed with orders, but let us discuss if we can find other ways to prefend this
what can we do, that someone will not spam our network?
- we want liquidity and what about solutions like - if the order is at least 0.5% away and x amount high and will be active for x hours we will charge ZERO fees
at least on pegged assets we should find this kind of solution. We should implement an order typ that i can place my order % away from settlement(feedprice), then if i match the
other criterias like amount and time this order will be for free.
i am not a coder and i suspect this will not bloat our system, because only serious people will get this advantage. a "normal" trader dont care how much the fees are, he will go to the best
place he can aquire the needed shares. So we have to create liquidity and i presented just an idea how we can create liquidity, without the problem of to much bloat.
+5% +5%
There are 2 types of markets in the world. 1st market luxury / niche / highly specialised with low number of trades but high returns. (rolls royce aircraft engines). 2nd market best value for money (efficiency) with high number of trades, high volume returns based on the number of trades. (Amazon, supermarket chain) Which one are we?
-
my good friend :P
i think bytemaster will find a reasonable level +5% +5% +5%
-
my good friend :P
i think bytemaster will find a reasonable level +5% +5% +5%
This sort of discussion is very meaningful and clayop is doing an excellent job presenting his case. There has never been access to these levers and dials before so there is going to be passionate debate about their settings as we try to define ourselves.
If there was ever a shoe-in for committee member it is clayop.
-
Once the api is updated for use with 3rd party trading platforms, bts is going to rocket. Stay focused on the exchange side. That is our niche, and a very lucrative niche at that. Forget about competing with bitcoin for transaction scraps.
If we keep having this argument about lowering transfer fees, I'm guessing we will eventually try them out of pure annoyance. Then we will see the price not go up at all and we will be sitting here with an ultra inflating blockchain. Devs will disappear because of the lack of funding. And we will have crushed all the businesses that are building models around the current structure.
Just have a little patience.
You have so many hopes. Do traders like high fees? Lower fee always generate low revenue? (If you say yes, you maybe skeptical about Black Friday's sales).
I'm trying to increase the value (or attractiveness) of BTS. Since I'm a active user (you can see my account page with many trade and transfer records), I have a right to say this.
1. Traders trade where their money is safest and the order execution is best. Their are hundreds of ultra low spread brokers out there. Most go out of business within 2-5 years because they can't do both things listed above well. Plus bitshares is $.15 per transaction... That's nothing. Stop looking at it in bts terms where you think bts should be $1 per share.
2. Black Friday is similar to bait and switch... A low priced item is advertised to get you in the store where you will pay full price for 90% of all the other items you buy. Plus this low priced items is usually held in low stock.
3. Low fees MIGHT generate more revenue, but it definitely will lower our margins. If low fees don't increase the transactions enough, we are dead in the water as we have just killed any business trying to build on our current fee structure.
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
-
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
+5%
-
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
+5%
Couldn't have said it better myself.
What is the value of a decentralized exchange that no centralized exchange can replicate? Sell that value. If the value is non existent then the whole thing is pointless. If it is there then people will pay.
-
The un-banked are the target audience for cryptocurrency, so we must raise fees as high as possible to attract more high quality un-banked people.
I hope that helps! ;)
Most unbanked people are not going to be that into crypto. They're unbanked because they are poor and uneducated. The only people who are unbanked and will use crypto are those ducking the IRS/government.
Anyway I don't think the fees are slowing down adoption to the extent others believe.
-
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
At this stage, our focus group is existing traders who are already accustomed to the fee system of centralized exchanges. They don't really care about decentralized. They care interface, speed, and other superficial things. In this sense, we already have disadvantages. Why are we going to add another disadvantage?
-
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
+5%
Couldn't have said it better myself.
What is the value of a decentralized exchange that no centralized exchange can replicate? Sell that value. If the value is non existent then the whole thing is pointless. If it is there then people will pay.
Absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3f/3f4516519f0be17b920c231c8ce6ff066f74677afd9e35d67bae6c0d83617d42.jpg)
I don't really think you're idiots but are perhaps too close to the project & are over-estimating it's value to the end user without first attracting liquidity.
Liquidity > Decentralized > Centralized
You only have more value than a Centralized exchange when you pass a minimum liquidity threshold and if you cross that you may have a tsunami of customers but without it you are guaranteed to attract very few.
You need to use any means possible, promotions/low fees/marketing & advertising/other to attract those initial users. Even BTC38, an established, liquid, top 10 exchange still ran a free Doge promotion when they opened BTS 2.0 to trading.
Would you use a better constructed shopping mall with no shops/customers? A marketplace with no traders? A better dating site with no profiles? A club with no singles? A better social network site that no-one is on or a content site with no media?
Platforms and two-sided markets are difficult to kick off, in general.
There is often no inherent value in the standalone product for the user without users from the other side.
PayPal: When Paypal figured that eBay was their key distribution platform, they came up with an ingenious plan to simulate demand. They created a bot that bought goods on eBay and then, insisted on paying for it using PayPal. Not only did sellers come to know about the service, they rushed onto it as it already seemed to be getting popular. The fact that it was way better than every other payment mechanism on eBay only helped repeated usage.
Reddit: Reddit co-founder Steve Huffman admitted that the link-sharing site was initially seeded with fake profiles posting links to simulate activity.
Quora and AirBnB: Quora admins answered a lot of questions themselves at first. Brian Chesky talks about how they got the first users on AirBnB themselves literally going door-to-door.
Rentoid: A platform is useless without complementary products. Marketplaces, especially, are dead without sellers posting on them. To solve the chicken-egg problem, some marketplaces create fake supply to attract buyers. Services marketplaces put up fake projects to show activity. Steve Sammartino talks of how he seeded Rentoid.com by essentially buying the initial items himself and renting them out
Dating services know what men want (who doesn’t) and seed the network with photos of Latin American models with eclectic interests (not that the latter matters).
https://medium.com/platform-thinking/how-paypal-and-reddit-faked-their-way-to-traction-9411fb583205#.ajc28n7os
Nearly every successful business understands the importance of those initial users and liquidity to making their business a success and they're willing to get it by hook or by crook. The fact that you think the exchange has high value as it stands without those initial users and liquidity is absurd imo.
While the referral programme needs to be lucrative, fees need to be competitive. Which might mean that the low referral income will only be attractive in 'World excl. North America & Western Europe' to start.
While the exchange can charge high fees once it's more established given it's advantages, in general, if you don't like competing with Centralized businesses on razor thin margins then you'd have to engage in business activities Centralized companies are often unable too.
-
Once the api is updated for use with 3rd party trading platforms, bts is going to rocket. Stay focused on the exchange side. That is our niche, and a very lucrative niche at that. Forget about competing with bitcoin for transaction scraps.
If we keep having this argument about lowering transfer fees, I'm guessing we will eventually try them out of pure annoyance. Then we will see the price not go up at all and we will be sitting here with an ultra inflating blockchain. Devs will disappear because of the lack of funding. And we will have crushed all the businesses that are building models around the current structure.
Just have a little patience.
You have so many hopes. Do traders like high fees? Lower fee always generate low revenue? (If you say yes, you maybe skeptical about Black Friday's sales).
I'm trying to increase the value (or attractiveness) of BTS. Since I'm a active user (you can see my account page with many trade and transfer records), I have a right to say this.
1. Traders trade where their money is safest and the order execution is best. Their are hundreds of ultra low spread brokers out there. Most go out of business within 2-5 years because they can't do both things listed above well. Plus bitshares is $.15 per transaction... That's nothing. Stop looking at it in bts terms where you think bts should be $1 per share.
2. Black Friday is similar to bait and switch... A low priced item is advertised to get you in the store where you will pay full price for 90% of all the other items you buy. Plus this low priced items is usually held in low stock.
3. Low fees MIGHT generate more revenue, but it definitely will lower our margins. If low fees don't increase the transactions enough, we are dead in the water as we have just killed any business trying to build on our current fee structure.
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
+5% This guy gets it.
-
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
+5%
Couldn't have said it better myself.
What is the value of a decentralized exchange that no centralized exchange can replicate? Sell that value. If the value is non existent then the whole thing is pointless. If it is there then people will pay.
Absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3f/3f4516519f0be17b920c231c8ce6ff066f74677afd9e35d67bae6c0d83617d42.jpg)
I don't really think you're idiots but are perhaps too close to the project & are over-estimating it's value to the end user without first attracting liquidity.
Liquidity > Decentralized > Centralized
You only have more value than a Centralized exchange when you pass a minimum liquidity threshold and if you cross that you may have a tsunami of customers but without it you are guaranteed to attract very few.
You need to use any means possible, promotions/low fees/marketing & advertising/other to attract those initial users. Even BTC38, an established, liquid, top 10 exchange still ran a free Doge promotion when they opened BTS 2.0 to trading.
Would you use a better constructed shopping mall with no shops/customers? A marketplace with no traders? A better dating site with no profiles? A club with no singles? A better social network site that no-one is on or a content site with no media?
Platforms and two-sided markets are difficult to kick off, in general.
There is often no inherent value in the standalone product for the user without users from the other side.
PayPal: When Paypal figured that eBay was their key distribution platform, they came up with an ingenious plan to simulate demand. They created a bot that bought goods on eBay and then, insisted on paying for it using PayPal. Not only did sellers come to know about the service, they rushed onto it as it already seemed to be getting popular. The fact that it was way better than every other payment mechanism on eBay only helped repeated usage.
Reddit: Reddit co-founder Steve Huffman admitted that the link-sharing site was initially seeded with fake profiles posting links to simulate activity.
Quora and AirBnB: Quora admins answered a lot of questions themselves at first. Brian Chesky talks about how they got the first users on AirBnB themselves literally going door-to-door.
Rentoid: A platform is useless without complementary products. Marketplaces, especially, are dead without sellers posting on them. To solve the chicken-egg problem, some marketplaces create fake supply to attract buyers. Services marketplaces put up fake projects to show activity. Steve Sammartino talks of how he seeded Rentoid.com by essentially buying the initial items himself and renting them out
Dating services know what men want (who doesn’t) and seed the network with photos of Latin American models with eclectic interests (not that the latter matters).
https://medium.com/platform-thinking/how-paypal-and-reddit-faked-their-way-to-traction-9411fb583205#.ajc28n7os
Nearly every successful business understands the importance of those initial users and liquidity to making their business a success and they're willing to get it by hook or by crook. The fact that you think the exchange has high value as it stands without those initial users and liquidity is absurd imo.
While the referral programme needs to be lucrative, fees need to be competitive.
Also if you don't like competing with Centralized businesses on razor thin margins then you'd have to engage in business activities Centralized companies are often unable too.
We're talking about the transfer fees, not the trading fees. The transfer area is where the razor thin margins are. Bitshares will never win in that arena... And wisely it is not trying to.
Bytemasters worker proposal to update the trading fees is a good solution for bringing our exchange in line with other exchanges. It will also allow liquidity bots to run which will in turn bring more liquidity. The api will be upgraded for use with multiple interfaces, which will bring more liquidity.
Bottom line: leave transfer fees alone at 15-20 cents. Update the trading fees per cryptonomex worker proposal.
-
We're talking about the transfer fees, not the trading fees. The transfer area is where the razor thin margins are. Bitshares will never win in that arena... And wisely it is not trying to.
Bottom line: leave transfer fees alone at 15-20 cents. Update the trading fees per cryptonomex worker proposal.
I am talking about both.
My argument: Change transfer fee to BTC level (0.03 cents). Lower trading fee as low as possible but efficient to prevent spam (1 BTS)
-
I don't really think you're idiots but are perhaps too close to the project & are over-estimating it's value to the end user without first attracting liquidity.
Liquidity > Decentralized > Centralized
Would you use a better constructed shopping mall with no shops/customers? A marketplace with no traders? A better dating site with no profiles? A club with no singles? A better social network site that no-one is on or a content site with no media?
This gets my full support +5%
-
Bottom line: leave transfer fees alone at 15-20 cents. Update the trading fees per cryptonomex worker proposal.
+5%
If we lower the transfer fees below 15-20 cents, we might as well scrap the referral program.
For the referral program program to work we need the transfer fees to remain at 15-20 cents and they need to be paid by the sender (i.e. online consumer).
Otherwise the referral program is killed both in economic terms and incentive terms (as online merchants lose incentive to advertise BitShares to their customers).
-
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
+5%
Couldn't have said it better myself.
What is the value of a decentralized exchange that no centralized exchange can replicate? Sell that value. If the value is non existent then the whole thing is pointless. If it is there then people will pay.
Absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3f/3f4516519f0be17b920c231c8ce6ff066f74677afd9e35d67bae6c0d83617d42.jpg)
I don't really think you're idiots but are perhaps too close to the project & are over-estimating it's value to the end user without first attracting liquidity.
Liquidity > Decentralized > Centralized
You only have more value than a Centralized exchange when you pass a minimum liquidity threshold and if you cross that you may have a tsunami of customers but without it you are guaranteed to attract very few.
You need to use any means possible, promotions/low fees/marketing & advertising/other to attract those initial users. Even BTC38, an established, liquid, top 10 exchange still ran a free Doge promotion when they opened BTS 2.0 to trading.
Would you use a better constructed shopping mall with no shops/customers? A marketplace with no traders? A better dating site with no profiles? A club with no singles? A better social network site that no-one is on or a content site with no media?
Platforms and two-sided markets are difficult to kick off, in general.
There is often no inherent value in the standalone product for the user without users from the other side.
PayPal: When Paypal figured that eBay was their key distribution platform, they came up with an ingenious plan to simulate demand. They created a bot that bought goods on eBay and then, insisted on paying for it using PayPal. Not only did sellers come to know about the service, they rushed onto it as it already seemed to be getting popular. The fact that it was way better than every other payment mechanism on eBay only helped repeated usage.
Reddit: Reddit co-founder Steve Huffman admitted that the link-sharing site was initially seeded with fake profiles posting links to simulate activity.
Quora and AirBnB: Quora admins answered a lot of questions themselves at first. Brian Chesky talks about how they got the first users on AirBnB themselves literally going door-to-door.
Rentoid: A platform is useless without complementary products. Marketplaces, especially, are dead without sellers posting on them. To solve the chicken-egg problem, some marketplaces create fake supply to attract buyers. Services marketplaces put up fake projects to show activity. Steve Sammartino talks of how he seeded Rentoid.com by essentially buying the initial items himself and renting them out
Dating services know what men want (who doesn’t) and seed the network with photos of Latin American models with eclectic interests (not that the latter matters).
https://medium.com/platform-thinking/how-paypal-and-reddit-faked-their-way-to-traction-9411fb583205#.ajc28n7os
Nearly every successful business understands the importance of those initial users and liquidity to making their business a success and they're willing to get it by hook or by crook. The fact that you think the exchange has high value as it stands without those initial users and liquidity is absurd imo.
While the referral programme needs to be lucrative, fees need to be competitive.
Also if you don't like competing with Centralized businesses on razor thin margins then you'd have to engage in business activities Centralized companies are often unable too.
We're talking about the transfer fees, not the trading fees. The transfer area is where the razor thin margins are. Bitshares will never win in that arena... And wisely it is not trying to.
Bytemasters worker proposal to update the trading fees is a good solution for bringing our exchange in line with other exchanges. It will also allow liquidity bots to run which will in turn bring more liquidity. The api will be upgraded for use with multiple interfaces, which will bring more liquidity.
Bottom line: leave transfer fees alone at 15-20 cents. Update the trading fees per cryptonomex worker proposal.
Personally I believe given that both Yunbi & BTC38 seem to have passed their LTM transfer savings onto the customer by lowering the withdrawal fee, that it's likely they feel the high transfer fee impacts their exchange business. The forum feedback is also that it's a barrier to adoption in China (Alt plus many more) Eastern Europe (a few) & South America (El Mato)
The argument might be that some of those users are not traders, but what else is there to do on BTS besides trading, isn't every current owner of crypto, a speculative trader in some capacity? So I don't really see a major distinction in the market at the moment.
I'm also not suggesting we attempt to 'win' in that area but being the most 'apparently' expensive in your market by a wide margin is likely to equal losing when your platform still has no/low value due to no/low liquidity.
-
Bottom line: leave transfer fees alone at 15-20 cents. Update the trading fees per cryptonomex worker proposal.
+5%
If we lower the transfer fees below 15-20 cents, we might as well scrap the referral program.
For the referral program program to work we need the transfer fees to remain at 15-20 cents and they need to be paid by the sender (i.e. online consumer).
Otherwise the referral program is killed both in economic terms and incentive terms (as online merchants lose incentive to advertise BitShares to their customers).
My advice: don't be obsessed by referral program. Referral program will work only when our product is attractive than our competitors. If we have bigger ecosystem than Bitcoin, $0.2 fee may not matter. If you were a merchant, do you really want to use Bitshares? (Instead of Bitcoin with 3rd party services or even Nubits). If yes, why?
-
@clayop, @Empirical1.2
You keep repeating over and over again that the transfer fees are too high for two reasons:
(a) because some community members "feel" it this way
(b) because other crypto-currencies are offering lower prices
It makes little sense to discuss a pricing policy without specifying a target group and a marketing strategy.
If your aim is to just target "everyone", then I think we will not find a common ground.
In this thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19945.0.html) I made an effort to describe a marketing strategy which includes both online merchants and online consumers.
If you are willing to offer an alternative strategy - I'll be happy to see it.
-
@clayop, @Empirical1.2
You keep repeating over and over again that the transfer fees are too high for two reasons:
(a) because some community members "feel" it this way
(b) because other crypto-currencies are offering lower prices
It makes little sense to discuss a pricing policy without specifying a target group and a marketing strategy.
If your aim is to just target "everyone", then I think we will not find a common ground.
In this thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19945.0.html) I made an effort to describe a marketing strategy which includes both online merchants and online consumers.
If you are willing to offer an alternative strategy - I'll be happy to see it.
You're distorting my arguments in some points (actually b is correct)
(1) Our competitors are providing much lower fees than us (as you mentioned)
(2) Fee is relatively high compared to our market cap. You may want the number. We have 4,000 times higher fee relative to market cap than BTC
(3) If high fee drives out customers, referral program won't work
(4) Voting result suggests that shareholders want lower fees
If you truly believe high fees are better, why don't you complaining about currently lowered fee (now transfer fee is only $0.13)? Let's increase the fee :)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19981.0.html
Add: @jakub I think high-fee advocates are also based on their own feelings. If not, can you provide reasonable numbers and statistics?
-
+5% to all for this complicated but interesting and useful discussion from many key viewpoints, imo :)
Just to share, there are a few interesting articles about popular crypto exchanges and a little bit on their fee structures/solutions:
http://www.coindesk.com/bucks-to-bitcoin-top-exchange-platform-fees-compared/
While anyone who is/will be interested in Bitshares could be willing to pay a little more due to the philosophy/current brand(what we have and are aiming for that noone else provides yet: no counter-party risk, privacy, stability(but still dependent on liquidity), blockchain speed & DAC platform, economically fair/ideal ecosystem & more), it's very important to keep our existing users preferences in mind, of course, as well. And bc the crypto exchange business is competitive- Gemini has low volume currently, though they seem to be aiming for more institutional traders http://www.coindesk.com/winklevoss-bitcoin-exchange-gemini-win-traders/ , maybe there are some ideas in them to consider(possibly another way to support the merchants as well)?:
http://theblogchain.com/bitcoin-exchange-reviews/bitfinex-review/
"Another benefit of Bitfinex is a very nice fee structure. They run a partial maker-taker system, where the market maker ends up paying between .1% and 0(!)%, and the taker pays .2%. I believe they’re able to offer these fees because of the unique free market leverage system they utilize. By moving their risk to the lenders, they lower fees. They also pick up a percentage of the interest (15%), which again helps to keep their advertised fees down while keeping profits up."
Also, I believe OKcoin uses withdrawal fees though not sure how well that's going as their CTO left to work for Bitfinex.
And Bitstamp seems to have lowered their fees to .25%.
http://www.coindesk.com/high-frequency-trading-on-the-coinbase-exchange/
"Market-making also delivers real social utility. The deeper the liquidity provided by market makers, the more difficult it is to cause erratic spikes in price. Market makers also reduce the bid-ask spread, a concept most people aren’t even aware of: a testament to successful practitioners on Wall Street.
Even at current trading volumes, a lot of value can be captured by smoothing out market fluctuations. If bitcoin were to grow, the need for liquidity would also increase. I’ve learned that infrastructure isn’t just servers and github repos. It’s also financial middlemen(bots) who make markets work. The mere fact that I could dabble in this, as nobody, illustrates the wonderful openness of bitcoin."
(Bitshares currently seems to be working on this now)
-
@clayop, @Empirical1.2
You keep repeating over and over again that the transfer fees are too high for two reasons:
(a) because some community members "feel" it this way
(b) because other crypto-currencies are offering lower prices
It makes little sense to discuss a pricing policy without specifying a target group and a marketing strategy.
If your aim is to just target "everyone", then I think we will not find a common ground.
In this thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19945.0.html) I made an effort to describe a marketing strategy which includes both online merchants and online consumers.
If you are willing to offer an alternative strategy - I'll be happy to see it.
I find that you continually distort responses and use subjective arguments to forward your point of view. I've already countered the majority of your points here and often had to repeat myself, so I would advise referencing my position there... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19833.msg255105.html#msg255105
+5% to all for this complicated but interesting and useful discussion from many key viewpoints, imo :)
Just to share, there are a few interesting articles about popular crypto exchanges and a little bit on their fee structures/solutions...
+5% Very interesting and relevant to look at what other exchanges are doing.
Trying to break into a business field where the established competition already has razor thin margins is almost a guaranteed failure. We need to focus on staying profitable and exploiting our niche market of decentralized trading.
+5%
Couldn't have said it better myself.
What is the value of a decentralized exchange that no centralized exchange can replicate? Sell that value. If the value is non existent then the whole thing is pointless. If it is there then people will pay.
While the exchange can charge high fees once it's more established given it's advantages, in general, if you don't like competing with Centralized businesses on razor thin margins then you'd have to engage in business activities Centralized companies are often unable too.
An example of decentralized business that I predict will do well (because it adds massive value and is not competing against razor thin margins) is Augur sports betting.
- The average sportsbook operator charges up to 10% vig, and betting exchanges like Betfair charge a base rate of 5%. Augur will charge just 1%.
- Unlike crypto-exchanges which most markets have access too, sports betting is limited in many major markets.
- To address the problem of intial liquidity, it looks like Augur will have an automatic market maker to offer tight spreads.
So all the ingredients are there. Massive added value, initial liquidity and all for a vastly reduced price. Add a referral programme or even not and it's incredibly easy to see how they'll be successful.
This isn't a pitch for Augur, though I'd support prediction markets. It's just to demonstrate there are decentralized business models that leverage the benefits of decentralization to add massive value while at the same time charging less & hopefully also addressing (yet to be seen) the initial liquidity problem.
Getting into the crowded, competitive exchange business with the intention of charging more with low/no initial liquidity even with the benefits of decentralization is very challenging. I think you will ultimately settle on lower transfer fees or it may require a significant catalyst, like a major centralized exchange failure to focus the market on it's benefits & justification for charging more. (Similar to the way Cyprus and Greece were positive for Bitcoin.)
As stated previously if a $0.2 basic transfer is too expensive for users in many markets, the referral income from a lower transfer fee would logically still be meaningful too. Depending on customer acquisition and transfer rates, less may also ultimately be more, for all markets at this stage.
-
We are refunding 99% of order creation fee if it is canceled. So the cost to create/cancel is very small (just enough to prevent spam).
The end result is that the "order creation fee" becomes a "minimum fee" for filled orders which has the effect of preventing dust orders.
The minimum order fee will probably be similar to a transfer fee, $0.20 per filled order, $0.05 for lifetime members.
@bytemaster
Why charge a % fee on the maker just to maybe refund that if he cancels the order, when you can just charge all on the taker. Is the taker that pays the fee anyway by agreeing with the price + fee of the book, think about it.
Also I'm with clayop on fees, today I was showing the system to a friend of my and he asked about the high fee, we need to a least find some middle term acceptable, I think our main niche on short time are going to be exchange anyways, just look at centralized ones, They try to not charge much money on the in out process but only the actual match of order, but then charge high. I totally agree with this approach, is the exchange of goods that create most value for the parts, not transference.
-
The fees are high compared to other crypto exchanges but their model is different. They issue IOU's in exchange for cheaper fees because the trading is all done off chain with the promise to honor the transactions (assuming they don't get robbed). Our trades are done on chain, no trust required, and therefore cost more. When compared to traditional exchange businesses we are insanely cheap. Best price the average consumer can get on the NYSE is about $7/trade - and that's not even "on chain".
So we can target the tiny crypto market or make it a fertile ground for people to run their businesses on and go after the "real" markets.
-
The fees are high compared to other crypto exchanges but their model is different. They issue IOU's in exchange for cheaper fees because the trading is all done off chain with the promise to honor the transactions (assuming they don't get robbed). Our trades are done on chain, no trust required, and therefore cost more. When compared to traditional exchange businesses we are insanely cheap. Best price the average consumer can get on the NYSE is about $7/trade - and that's not even "on chain".
So we can target the tiny crypto market or make it a fertile ground for people to run their businesses on and go after the "real" markets.
Theoretically, you're right. We have a different and better model and we can differentiate our product.
But, do we only have advantages? No. We also have two realistic problems.
First, many of our active trading pair are UIAs. They are not free from trust issue, so our advantage of "trustless" disappears. (but we still have the honest order book advantage)
Second, there may be additional fees to convert to Smartcoins. For instance, Transwiser charges 0.3% fee on converting CNY to bitCNY. So using trustless system is somewhat expensive to customers.
Using DEX is not that cheap realistically. Can you really persuade traders in Poloniex to use our DEX instead of Polo? The first reaction of them is "liquidity is low", and the second one would be "fee system is not attractive".
-
You're distorting my arguments in some points (actually b is correct)
OK, let's see.
(1) Our competitors are providing much lower fees than us (as you mentioned)
Makes no sense for two reasons:
- our competitors do not offer the product that we have: price-stable & counterparty-risk-free currencies
- our competitors are not running a sustainable DAC (the real cost of producing a BTC transaction is something like $5-$7)
(2) Fee is relatively high compared to our market cap. You may want the number. We have 4,000 times higher fee relative to market cap than BTC
None of our customers (i.e. online merchants or online consumers) cares about things like "market cap".
(3) If high fee drives out customers, referral program won't work
Once again you seem to know better about the business model of a referral entity than the referral entity itself.
(4) Voting result suggests that shareholders want lower fees
Are you really treating poll results among our shareholders on this forum as a valid replacement for a market research regarding our customers?
If you truly believe high fees are better, why don't you complaining about currently lowered fee (now transfer fee is only $0.13)? Let's increase the fee :)
You are mixing transfer fees with trading fees. They are entirely different as they affect different customer groups. We are discussing transfer fees here.
Add: @jakub I think high-fee advocates are also based on their own feelings. If not, can you provide reasonable numbers and statistics?
None of us is able to provide "reasonable numbers and statistics" as this would require very costly market research.
What I can offer is a referral business point of view and a viable marketing plan.
And I put my money where my mouth is as I am going to invest my resources to execute this plan.
And once again I've challenged you to present a marketing plan and/or a description of our target customers - and you come with nothing.
You strategy boils down to this: let's target everyone and let's have the prices low enough to match the lowest offer on the market.
-
I find that you continually distort responses and use subjective arguments to forward your point of view. I've already countered the majority of your points here and often had to repeat myself, so I would advise referencing my position there...
@Empirical1.2 , I have a similar feeling: I've already countered all of your points so I won't repeat myself.
And I am not distorting your responses, I am just rephrasing them to expose their weakness.
-
IMHO, all we need to get more liquidity is an API that compares to Poloniex's API. Our current API is not really useful to traders. That's why we don't see many bots etc ..
Once, the API is "nice", I would be happy to provide the infrastrucure similar to poloniex's api implementations to make bot writing as easy as running a webpage.
Actually, once the Api is more powerfull, we could easily add a bot infrastructure into the wallet and let people shop and execute 3rd party bots within the client.
Anyway.. in the short term, once the API is powerfull enough, providing liquidity for OPENBTC:bitBTC should be so easy that every community member can provide liquidity and earn some profit!
-
You're distorting my arguments in some points (actually b is correct)
OK, let's see.
(1) Our competitors are providing much lower fees than us (as you mentioned)
Makes no sense for two reasons:
- our competitors do not offer the product that we have: price-stable & counterparty-risk-free currencies
- our competitors are not running a sustainable DAC (the real cost of producing a BTC transaction is something like $5-$7)
(2) Fee is relatively high compared to our market cap. You may want the number. We have 4,000 times higher fee relative to market cap than BTC
None of our customers (i.e. online merchants or online consumers) cares about things like "market cap".
(3) If high fee drives out customers, referral program won't work
Once again you seem to know better about the business model of a referral entity than the referral entity itself.
(4) Voting result suggests that shareholders want lower fees
Are you really treating poll results among our shareholders on this forum as a valid replacement for a market research regarding our customers?
If you truly believe high fees are better, why don't you complaining about currently lowered fee (now transfer fee is only $0.13)? Let's increase the fee :)
You are mixing transfer fees with trading fees. They are entirely different as they affect different customer groups. We are discussing transfer fees here.
Add: @jakub I think high-fee advocates are also based on their own feelings. If not, can you provide reasonable numbers and statistics?
None of us is able to provide "reasonable numbers and statistics" as this would require very costly market research.
What I can offer is a referral business point of view and a viable marketing plan.
And I put my money where my mouth is as I am going to invest my resources to execute this plan.
And once again I've challenged you to present a marketing plan and/or a description of our target customers - and you come with nothing.
You strategy boils down to this: let's target everyone and let's have the prices low enough to match the lowest offer on the market.
Did you carefully read my op? I mentioned both transfer and trading fee and talking about them, but you seems that you stuck in your own thoughts.
Anyway, (1) customers don't much care about them. This means you can fully differentiate our service. BTC already sustained 5 years and expected to be alive in the future too. This is the reality unfortunately.
(2) Do customers care? Maybe not. But shareholders and investors care.
(3) So what is your the optimal fee level and why? $0.2? $0.1? $0.3? You're just saying high fee is good for businesses without specific numbers.
(4) This presents your full ignorance of BTS2 decision-making system. See the committee voting result. If you want to keep fees high, create a committee member and get higher votes than Bitcrab.
You may want to increase fee to 60 BTS. Yes it's $0.2 now.
-
IMHO, all we need to get more liquidity is an API that compares to Poloniex's API. Our current API is not really useful to traders. That's why we don't see many bots etc ..
Once, the API is "nice", I would be happy to provide the infrastrucure similar to poloniex's api implementations to make bot writing as easy as running a webpage.
Actually, once the Api is more powerfull, we could easily add a bot infrastructure into the wallet and let people shop and execute 3rd party bots within the client.
Anyway.. in the short term, once the API is powerfull enough, providing liquidity for OPENBTC:bitBTC should be so easy that every community member can provide liquidity and earn some profit!
+5%
Our current problem is not the pricing policy but lack of liquidity & fiat gateways.
So those who advocate lowering transfer fees at this stage are barking at the wrong tree.
We had the pricing strategy announced back in June (https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/).
Everybody seemed to be happy about it at that time and the current campaign for lowering transfer fees started AFTER the Oct 13 launch and BEFORE we had a working product to sell.
I appreciate your advice @clayop not to be "obsessed" with the referral business but it is a bit hard to implement because actually I am the referral business.
And I've invested my time and resources to build my business model around the June announcement.
Do you recommend to follow this path of constantly changing rules so that no business can treat us seriously?
And to change those rules even BEFORE they had a chance to prove their viability?
Or do you believe that BitShares can become viral WITHOUT retail shops (i.e. people like @bitmarket or @fav) advertising & selling the product?
-
IMHO, all we need to get more liquidity is an API that compares to Poloniex's API. Our current API is not really useful to traders. That's why we don't see many bots etc ..
Once, the API is "nice", I would be happy to provide the infrastrucure similar to poloniex's api implementations to make bot writing as easy as running a webpage.
Actually, once the Api is more powerfull, we could easily add a bot infrastructure into the wallet and let people shop and execute 3rd party bots within the client.
Anyway.. in the short term, once the API is powerfull enough, providing liquidity for OPENBTC:bitBTC should be so easy that every community member can provide liquidity and earn some profit!
Yes, API is important, and we need more trader friendly infrastructure.
However, high fee still matter. If I have to pay additional $0.2 for filled or "partially" filled orders, do I really want to run market making bots?
Lowered fees are not the pulling factors. However, high fees obviously are the pushing factors that drive out customers and 3rd party services.
-
this whole fee debate is starting to go out of control. we're wasting too much time for this, and it's holding back many people. Just look how much time each and everoyne of you wasted in the threads in the last weeks.
I will stop watching / reading this and will vote to keep the status quo until bitshares is stable and we can measure our business.
some of you are too obsessed with 15 cent in my opinion.
-
IMHO, all we need to get more liquidity is an API that compares to Poloniex's API. Our current API is not really useful to traders. That's why we don't see many bots etc ..
Once, the API is "nice", I would be happy to provide the infrastrucure similar to poloniex's api implementations to make bot writing as easy as running a webpage.
Actually, once the Api is more powerfull, we could easily add a bot infrastructure into the wallet and let people shop and execute 3rd party bots within the client.
Anyway.. in the short term, once the API is powerfull enough, providing liquidity for OPENBTC:bitBTC should be so easy that every community member can provide liquidity and earn some profit!
+5%
Our current problem is not the pricing policy but lack of liquidity & fiat gateways.
So those who advocate lowering transfer fees at this stage are barking at the wrong tree.
We had the pricing strategy announced back in June (https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/).
Everybody seemed to be happy about it at that time and the current campaign for lowering transfer fees started AFTER the Oct 13 launch and BEFORE we had a working product to sell.
I appreciate your advice @clayop not to be "obsessed" with the referral business but it is a bit hard to implement because actually I am the referral business.
And I've invested my time and resources to build my business model around the June announcement.
Do you recommend to follow this path of constantly changing rules so that no business can treat us seriously?
And to change those rules even BEFORE they had a chance to prove their viability?
Or do you believe that BitShares can become viral WITHOUT retail shops (i.e. people like @bitmarket or @fav) advertising & selling the product?
I'm not trying to break referral system, if so I will tell "let's decrease the referral percentage"
What I'm doing here is to adjust the fee level to acceptable level for customers. If we charge too high fees than our competitors, customers never come and our total system will be broken.
And till some points, we'd better run the business at loss. Now, the most important things are the number of users and the price. You may not agree with the price. But you can remember that bitasset pegging worked better during the price increases.
-
this whole fee debate is starting to go out of control. we're wasting too much time for this, and it's holding back many people. Just look how much time each and everoyne of you wasted in the threads in the last weeks.
I will stop watching / reading this and will vote to keep the status quo until bitshares is stable and we can measure our business.
some of you are too obsessed with 15 cent in my opinion.
People already voted to the change, but no one who argue for "keep the fees high" is listening the voice. That's why I'm raising my tone here.
If you want to stop this, edit your committee proposal (don't say "lower fee" in any place) and get the votes higher than bitcrab or me.
-
Did you carefully read my op? I mentioned both transfer and trading fee and talking about them, but you seems that you stuck in your own thoughts.
It only shows your ignorance as you treat them equally.
Anyway, (1) customers don't much care about them. This means you can fully differentiate our service. BTC already sustained 5 years and expected to be alive in the future too. This is the reality unfortunately.
What customers do you mean? Define your customer or stop using this word.
Where is the distinction between online merchants and online consumers? Your ignorance is just amazing.
If your online consumer is someone who does not care about "financial independence" he should stick to PayPal or debit card and we cannot win him over at this stage even if we had zero transfer fees.
If your online merchant is stupid enough not to include BTC volatility (or the cost of eliminating this volatility) - yes, he should stick to BTC and find out what it really costs to use BTC.
(2) Do customers care? Maybe not. But shareholders and investors care.
Are you selling your product to shareholders and investors?
Or online merchants and online consumers?
(3) So what is your the optimal fee level and why? $0.2? $0.1? $0.3? You're just saying high fee is good for businesses without specific numbers.
Something around $0.15-$0.20 is optimal.
And I support this level because it makes my referral business sustainable and because it makes it attractive for a merchant to join our selling efforts.
(4) This presents your full ignorance of BTS2 decision-making system. See the committee voting result. If you want to keep fees high, create a committee member and get higher votes than Bitcrab.
No, it proves your ignorance about marketing.
If you want to keep transfer fees low it's you who needs to create a committee member and get the votes.
You may want to increase fee to 60 BTS. Yes it's $0.2 now.
I'd support that.
And if people to whom I present BTS keep telling me "I like the product but it's a bit too expensive to use" I will offer to prefund them to get them started.
-
What I'm doing here is to adjust the fee level to acceptable level for customers.
...and I'm questioning your competence to know what level is "acceptable for customers" if you are not even able to define who your customer is.
-
(4) This presents your full ignorance of BTS2 decision-making system. See the committee voting result. If you want to keep fees high, create a committee member and get higher votes than Bitcrab.
No, it proves your ignorance about marketing.
If you want to keep transfer fees low it's you who needs to create a committee member and get the votes.
Don't tell me you already looked at the voting result...
http://cryptofresh.com/
-
What I'm doing here is to adjust the fee level to acceptable level for customers.
...and I'm questioning your competence to know what level is "acceptable for customers" if you are not even able to define who your customer is.
In payment business: As many kinds of user as possible, because the most important key of payment service is ecosystem. I haven't heard about the premium payment service of Chase or Paypal.
In exchange business: Crypto traders for the first.
-
So this is your strategy: "as many kinds of user as possible".
OK, cool.
I agree with fav, this discussion has become irrational so for me it's a waste of time.
-
In payment business: As many kinds of user as possible, because the most important key of payment service is ecosystem. I haven't heard about the premium payment service of Chase or Paypal.
Something for everybody is very risky way of doing business. We can do that in the long run, but it has to be done with one market segment at a time.
I agree with jakub, you have to define the customers first and then look what kind of fee structures they find accetable.
And I think we should focus on developing Bitshares so good that people will pay gladly 0.20 cents per transfer. It is already better than Paypal, because it is fast global network, where payments can't be cancelled, and where anybody can make an account (no KYC) and start to use it instantly. Also stealth transfers!
You have to also take into account the business models when comparing to other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is very expensive when you look the real cost per transaction (https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction), lately it has been around 8-10 dollars. It is clearly very bad business, so why we should compete with it? Let's just wait and have it lose it's market share because people do not want to pay so much for service that isn't nearly as good as many altcoins (like Bitshares).
-
So this is your strategy: "as many kinds of user as possible".
OK, cool.
I agree with fav, this discussion has become irrational so for me it's a waste of time.
Please create a committee and get more votes than bitcrab. It's waste of vote and waste of Democracy for the community.
-
So this is your strategy: "as many kinds of user as possible".
OK, cool.
I agree with fav, this discussion has become irrational so for me it's a waste of time.
Please create a committee and get more votes than bitcrab. It's waste of vote and waste of Democracy for the community.
This is not a democracy lol 1 vote = 1 BTS, simple as that. Democracy would be 1 vote per user. If people decided to use bitcrab as a proxy, then it's what they want. Don't we support the so called free market? The market has decided to give bitcrab its votes. If the time comes, they will take them back.
-
IMHO, all we need to get more liquidity is an API that compares to Poloniex's API. Our current API is not really useful to traders. That's why we don't see many bots etc ..
Once, the API is "nice", I would be happy to provide the infrastrucure similar to poloniex's api implementations to make bot writing as easy as running a webpage.
Actually, once the Api is more powerfull, we could easily add a bot infrastructure into the wallet and let people shop and execute 3rd party bots within the client.
Anyway.. in the short term, once the API is powerfull enough, providing liquidity for OPENBTC:bitBTC should be so easy that every community member can provide liquidity and earn some profit!
+5%
Our current problem is not the pricing policy but lack of liquidity & fiat gateways.
So those who advocate lowering transfer fees at this stage are barking at the wrong tree.
We had the pricing strategy announced back in June (https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/).
Everybody seemed to be happy about it at that time and the current campaign for lowering transfer fees started AFTER the Oct 13 launch and BEFORE we had a working product to sell.
I appreciate your advice @clayop not to be "obsessed" with the referral business but it is a bit hard to implement because actually I am the referral business.
And I've invested my time and resources to build my business model around the June announcement.
Do you recommend to follow this path of constantly changing rules so that no business can treat us seriously?
And to change those rules even BEFORE they had a chance to prove their viability?
Or do you believe that BitShares can become viral WITHOUT retail shops (i.e. people like @bitmarket or @fav) advertising & selling the product?
+ 1 I think I like your opinions more and more with every passing day
this whole fee debate is starting to go out of control. we're wasting too much time for this, and it's holding back many people. Just look how much time each and everoyne of you wasted in the threads in the last weeks.
I will stop watching / reading this and will vote to keep the status quo until bitshares is stable and we can measure our business.
some of you are too obsessed with 15 cent in my opinion.
+ 1
Agree with this as will.
Actually, as much as clayop claims the voters want low fees, the ONLY thing preventing me to vote for him as committee member is this fight of his for low fees.
-
+ 1 I think I like your opinions more and more with every passing day
thanks @tonyk
I also need to admit that I've learned to appreciate your input.
-
Does anybody know how serious the situation actually is?
I mean how close are we from having clayop committee member succeed in killing the referral program?
And why bitcrab and clayop are below mindphlux and dele-puppy even though they seem to have bigger support?
(http://i.imgur.com/gR9j2oc.png)
-
Does anybody know how serious the situation actually is?
I mean how close are we from having clayop committee member succeed in killing the referral program?
And why bitcrab and clayop are below mindphlux and dele-puppy even though they seem to have bigger support?
(http://i.imgur.com/gR9j2oc.png)
That's because Bitcrab forgot to vote. Glad to see committee members obviously and concretely show their opinions. Tomorrow we will see somewhat different result.
-
Does anybody know how serious the situation actually is?
I mean how close are we from having clayop committee member succeed in killing the referral program?
And why bitcrab and clayop are below mindphlux and dele-puppy even though they seem to have bigger support?
(http://i.imgur.com/gR9j2oc.png)
that's because bitcrab voted himself in and messed up with some proxies it seems. and then he voted clayop in. talking about majority
-
Clayop is BitCrab getting a lot of support from the Chinese community or is he just a massive whale?
-
Who can I vote via proxy to keep the status quo?
This whole fee change gives me the willy and destabilize any business who's trying to make their profit and loss calculation.
-
Who can I vote via proxy to keep the status quo?
This whole fee change gives me the willy and destabilize any business who's trying to make their profit and loss calculation.
To preserve the status quo set your proxy to fav or jakub.
We are competing proxies but we both agree on this issue.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/board,104.0.html
-
@rgcrypto I'm not supporting a change of transfer fee
edit: and jakub
-
Who can I vote via proxy to keep the status quo?
This whole fee change gives me the willy and destabilize any business who's trying to make their profit and loss calculation.
I think your best bet is to use your perfect English and talent to write/speak in that language to persuade BM to not be swayed from his original stance on fees.
-
Any easy guide on how to vote for the reduction in fee? I had done some transfers but have no idea how to vote for anything.
-
Any easy guide on how to vote for the reduction in fee? I had done some transfers but have no idea how to vote for anything.
The simplest way to support the reduction is to set clayop as your proxy.
But please be advised that by doing so you are effectively eliminating the incentive for other people to explain & present BitShares to the outside world.
-
Any easy guide on how to vote for the reduction in fee? I had done some transfers but have no idea how to vote for anything.
In your account
- choose Voting on the left, type in clayop as a proxy voting account and publish the changes.
- Alternatively go to 'committee members' and type in clayop as a comittee member and also bitcrab. Both have proposals that support lower fees.
-
Any easy guide on how to vote for the reduction in fee? I had done some transfers but have no idea how to vote for anything.
The simplest way to support the reduction is to set clayop as your proxy.
But please be advised that by doing so you are effectively eliminating the incentive for other people to explain & present BitShares to the outside world.
+ 1
I was about to post basically the same.
@clayop I do believe both camps have the best interest of BTS at heart. Disagreeing on the path to achieve that better future is a GOOD thing!
-
Any easy guide on how to vote for the reduction in fee? I had done some transfers but have no idea how to vote for anything.
In your account
- choose Voting on the left, type in clayop as a proxy voting account and publish the changes.
- Alternatively go to 'committee members' and type in clayop as a comittee member and also bitcrab. Both have proposals that support lower fees.
Thanks, it means I don't have to do any transfer?
-
Any easy guide on how to vote for the reduction in fee? I had done some transfers but have no idea how to vote for anything.
In your account
- choose Voting on the left, type in clayop as a proxy voting account and publish the changes.
- Alternatively go to 'committee members' and type in clayop as a comittee member and also bitcrab. Both have proposals that support lower fees.
Thanks, it means I don't have to do any transfer?
Yes after you have selected them, I think you have to choose 'publish changes', which updates your vote.
(This might do a transfer to yourself and charge you a transfer fee I'm not sure.)
-
@clayop I do believe both camps have the best interest of BTS at heart. Disagreeing on the path to achieve that better future is a GOOD thing!
@clayop, I also believe that you have the best intentions at heart but please note that by continuing this campaign your are effectively:
(a) breaking a social contract that was agreed in June.
(b) dismantling the emerging business ecosystem around BitShares 2.0.
Hopefully BM's vote will prevent this craziness but this is a very bad symptom of not being able to think outside one's own perspective.
Actually it's quite selfish and short-sighted.
-
@clayop I do believe both camps have the best interest of BTS at heart. Disagreeing on the path to achieve that better future is a GOOD thing!
@clayop, I also believe that you have the best intentions at heart but please note that by continuing this campaign your are effectively:
(a) breaking a social contract that was agreed in June.
(b) dismantling the emerging business ecosystem around BitShares 2.0.
Hopefully BM's vote will prevent this craziness but this is a very bad symptom of not being able to think outside one's own perspective.
Actually it's quite selfish and short-sighted.
This is bad and feels that it could well lead to a fork. Hopefully neither constituency walks out, but if it has to be done, I'm with the side that encourages marketers to build marketing tools. Like ShareBot.
-
(This might do a transfer to yourself and charge you a transfer fee I'm not sure.)
It doesn't transfer anything, it just updates your account metadata. And for that it charges a fee of (currently) 20 BTS.
-
Some active voting going on.[in BTS terms]... On both sides.
http://cryptofresh.com/
slow to update on vote tallies, though. and the gui [well at least mine] shows only counts for the active committee/witnesses
-
IMHO, all we need to get more liquidity is an API that compares to Poloniex's API. Our current API is not really useful to traders. That's why we don't see many bots etc ..
Once, the API is "nice", I would be happy to provide the infrastrucure similar to poloniex's api implementations to make bot writing as easy as running a webpage.
Actually, once the Api is more powerfull, we could easily add a bot infrastructure into the wallet and let people shop and execute 3rd party bots within the client.
Anyway.. in the short term, once the API is powerfull enough, providing liquidity for OPENBTC:bitBTC should be so easy that every community member can provide liquidity and earn some profit!
@xeroc if you are against the fee reduction, please remove your support for clayop and bitcrab.
Your proxy has 32 mln BTS so your vote makes a significant impact.
-
Please let me wrap up my argument.
1. I don't want to destroy the referral system. Instead I want to facilitate it by attracting (or not driving out) users and by spurring more transactions (especially market orders)
2. Desirable transfer fee is about $0.03 (at most), the same as Bitcoin level. Because Bitcoin is our main competitor.
3. Desirable order creation fee is about 1 BTS. Because it can effectively prevent spam at the same time it is as low as possible.
4. There can be possibility to keep transfer fee at the current rate, but to lower order creation fee only. This may need more discussions.
-
Please let me wrap up my argument.
1. I don't want to destroy the referral system. Instead I want to facilitate it by attracting (or not driving out) users and by spurring more transactions (especially market orders)
2. Desirable transfer fee is about $0.03 (at most), the same as Bitcoin level. Because Bitcoin is our main competitor.
3. Desirable order creation fee is about 1 BTS. Because it can effectively prevent spam at the same time it is as low as possible.
4. There can be possibility to keep transfer fee at the current rate, but to lower order creation fee only. This may need more discussions.
Bitcoin is not our main competitor... centralized exchanges are. They have lower fees, but we have better security and transparency. We need to sell that... unfortunately we will have no one to sell the product after the affiliate system is blown up with these changes.
I still have not seen any evidence that supports your theory that lowering the transfer fee will increase user transactions.
-
Please let me wrap up my argument.
1. I don't want to destroy the referral system. Instead I want to facilitate it by attracting (or not driving out) users and by spurring more transactions (especially market orders)
2. Desirable transfer fee is about $0.03 (at most), the same as Bitcoin level. Because Bitcoin is our main competitor.
3. Desirable order creation fee is about 1 BTS. Because it can effectively prevent spam at the same time it is as low as possible.
4. There can be possibility to keep transfer fee at the current rate, but to lower order creation fee only. This may need more discussions.
Bitcoin is not our main competitor... centralized exchanges are. They have lower fees, but we have better security and transparency. We need to sell that... unfortunately we will have no one to sell the product after the affiliate system is blown up with these changes.
I still have not seen any evidence that supports your theory that lowering the transfer fee will increase user transactions.
Yes, we have two businesses: payment business and exchange business. Bitcoin is regarding to the former.
Regarding exchange business, I provided some real world problems here, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19980.msg256944.html#msg256944
-
The hardest hit transfers obviously are smaller amounts. Transfers under the $10 mark quickly approach a 50% fee. Spending anything under $20 and your paying more than 1% in fees
if .1% were an acceptable fee that people wouldn't even think about. every transfer over $200 would produce *more referral income than the current $.20 fee.
The fee on a 100 BTS tip would be only .1 but who would complain about a lower bound of 1 BTS fee for every transfer. Or minimum $.03 fee so 8 BTS currently.
I wonder if we used the current history of transfers data and compared a $.20 fee vs a .1% fee which would produce greater referral income?
I think we could set an upper and lower bound to a percentage fee, but it seems to me to be more profitable as well as more accommodating to more market use-cases. (small transactions)
What is the downside to a percentage based transfer fee with upper and lower bounds?
Does it produce more or less referral income?
say, no less than $.03, no more than $3 fee on transfers. (markets would have no upper bound) or maybe just no upper bound at all.
perhaps even a .2% fee if need be.
-
Please let me wrap up my argument.
1. I don't want to destroy the referral system. Instead I want to facilitate it by attracting (or not driving out) users and by spurring more transactions (especially market orders)
2. Desirable transfer fee is about $0.03 (at most), the same as Bitcoin level. Because Bitcoin is our main competitor.
3. Desirable order creation fee is about 1 BTS. Because it can effectively prevent spam at the same time it is as low as possible.
4. There can be possibility to keep transfer fee at the current rate, but to lower order creation fee only. This may need more discussions.
1. The referral system would effectively be gone for those that want to create payment businesses.
2. Traders don't really care about infrequent fixed transfer fees especially if it's only 20 cents. They might be a bit annoyed if it's percentage based and it's close to 1% and they are moving thousands of dollars... Bitcoin is not our main competitor. Bitcoin is hardly used for payments or even p2p transfers. Most people just buy/hold/invest/trade Bitcoin. Online banking, Venmo, Square Cash, Paypal, Apple Pay (will most likely be in p2p payments in 2016) are the competitors and they are all free for p2p payments. We shouldn't try to compete with free. However with our referral system and our focus on merchants, we can actually grow rapidly despite the competition and actually be sustainable.
3 & 4. I believe order creation fees are refunded if cancelled. I'm open to discussing order creation fees, but I'd like to defer to people who are creating their own exchanges like CCEDK and other companies. I'd let new exchange startups decide what are good fees. Exchange businesses can subsidize fees with promotions if they want . We should make the blockchain protocol and parameters fairly stable and sustainable and let businesses who build on top of it figure out various fee structures. It's extremely difficult for entrepreneurs and startups to work if the parameters and protocol change so often.
We're focused on building a payments business and the transfer fees and the referral program are core to our strategy. I made the decision to start working on Bitshares 2.0 because of the fantastic design of the referral system and the protocol features. That was nearly eight months ago. It takes a long time to formulate strategies, build teams, raise money etc. and to have to change our strategy and business model would be extremely difficult. I speak mainly from the payments side of the protocol, because that's our focus.
-
@merivercap
How many merchants accept crypto payments without the additional services of a payment processor?
The transfer fee by itself may be competitive for merchants in isolation. The question is how easily & frequently can merchants get
BTS/Smartcoin payments into their traditional bank account and what is the total round-trip cost? That is the service you are competing with in the merchant space.
BitShares/Partner would have to offer both a BitPay type competing service and do it for less than BitPay https://bitpay.com/pricing
Without that service you have limited value to most merchants.
-
Please let me wrap up my argument.
1. I don't want to destroy the referral system. Instead I want to facilitate it by attracting (or not driving out) users and by spurring more transactions (especially market orders)
2. Desirable transfer fee is about $0.03 (at most), the same as Bitcoin level. Because Bitcoin is our main competitor.
3. Desirable order creation fee is about 1 BTS. Because it can effectively prevent spam at the same time it is as low as possible.
4. There can be possibility to keep transfer fee at the current rate, but to lower order creation fee only. This may need more discussions.
1. The referral system would effectively be gone for those that want to create payment businesses.
2. Traders don't really care about infrequent fixed transfer fees especially if it's only 20 cents. They might be a bit annoyed if it's percentage based and it's close to 1% and they are moving thousands of dollars... Bitcoin is not our main competitor. Bitcoin is hardly used for payments or even p2p transfers. Most people just buy/hold/invest/trade Bitcoin. Online banking, Venmo, Square Cash, Paypal, Apple Pay (will most likely be in p2p payments in 2016) are the competitors and they are all free for p2p payments. We shouldn't try to compete with free. However with our referral system and our focus on merchants, we can actually grow rapidly despite the competition and actually be sustainable.
3 & 4. I believe order creation fees are refunded if cancelled. I'm open to discussing order creation fees, but I'd like to defer to people who are creating their own exchanges like CCEDK and other companies. I'd let new exchange startups decide what are good fees. Exchange businesses can subsidize fees with promotions if they want . We should make the blockchain protocol and parameters fairly stable and sustainable and let businesses who build on top of it figure out various fee structures. It's extremely difficult for entrepreneurs and startups to work if the parameters and protocol change so often.
We're focused on building a payments business and the transfer fees and the referral program are core to our strategy. I made the decision to start working on Bitshares 2.0 because of the fantastic design of the referral system and the protocol features. That was nearly eight months ago. It takes a long time to formulate strategies, build teams, raise money etc. and to have to change our strategy and business model would be extremely difficult. I speak mainly from the payments side of the protocol, because that's our focus.
That's exactly how I feel. If someone starts working on a business model, we shouldn't pull the rug under their feet every 6 months. That's just delaying development and prevent businesses from jumping on board. We need developers and entrepreneurs who will attract customers. Bitshares should provide a solid and stable environment for them.
Regime uncertainty is a real issue and we should be VERY careful before affecting the fee structure., especially when we do not have all committee members slots full.
-
Bitcube will post an arbitration. Hopefully we can understand each other and make a better plan.
-
Bitcube will post an arbitration. Hopefully we can understand each other and make a better plan.
+5% voted
-
Bitcube will post an arbitration. Hopefully we can understand each other and make a better plan.
I share my thoughts in a new post here - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20019.msg257241.html#msg257241
-
@merivercap
How many merchants accept crypto payments without the additional services of a payment processor?
The transfer fee by itself may be competitive for merchants in isolation. The question is how easily & frequently can merchants get
BTS/Smartcoin payments into their traditional bank account and what is the total round-trip cost? That is the service you are competing with in the merchant space.
BitShares/Partner would have to offer both a BitPay type competing service and do it for less than BitPay https://bitpay.com/pricing
Without that service you have limited value to most merchants.
Yes gateway functionality for merchants are vital. We can be a processor like BitPay & Coinbase, but essentially they both act as a gateway and so we just have to connect merchants with gateways. We can use CCEDK, BunkerLabs and other gateways as they come online and provide the same type of service very easily. We can even partner with BitPay/Coinbase who have merchant relationships and convert via Bitcoin ..or partner with other traditional merchant processing companies like Heartland. There are a variety of different business models you can use...Bitpay/Coinbase have raised tens of millions so they have much more flexibility,... they both essentially charge 1% for larger businesses, but make it free for smaller ones... (Despite raising $30 million Bitpay doesn't seem to be in great shape partly because people really just don't spend Bitcoin.) Bitcoin is volatile and people don't like spending it so I don't think Bitcoin processors are a direct competitor. Smartcoins are far more convenient and have far more potential than Bitcoin in the payment space.
-
@merivercap
How many merchants accept crypto payments without the additional services of a payment processor?
The transfer fee by itself may be competitive for merchants in isolation. The question is how easily & frequently can merchants get
BTS/Smartcoin payments into their traditional bank account and what is the total round-trip cost? That is the service you are competing with in the merchant space.
BitShares/Partner would have to offer both a BitPay type competing service and do it for less than BitPay https://bitpay.com/pricing
Without that service you have limited value to most merchants.
Yes gateway functionality for merchants are vital. We can be a processor like BitPay & Coinbase, but essentially they both act as a gateway and so we just have to connect merchants with gateways. We can use CCEDK, BunkerLabs and other gateways as they come online and provide the same type of service very easily. We can even partner with BitPay/Coinbase who have merchant relationships and convert via Bitcoin ..or partner with other traditional merchant processing companies like Heartland. There are a variety of different business models you can use...Bitpay/Coinbase have raised tens of millions so they have much more flexibility,... they both essentially charge 1% for larger businesses, but make it free for smaller ones... (Despite raising $30 million Bitpay doesn't seem to be in great shape partly because people really just don't spend Bitcoin.) Bitcoin is volatile and people don't like spending it so I don't think Bitcoin processors are a direct competitor. Smartcoins are far more convenient and have far more potential than Bitcoin in the payment space.
Yeah, I mostly agree.
The point is until BTS/Partner has an automated BTS to bank processor in place, BTS won't be particularly appealing to merchants imo.
The round-trip cost is also likely to be circa 1% + $0.2, so probably a little bit more than accepting payment for Bitcoin.
So focusing on merchants as a key market to gaining traction right now might not be that successful especially when we don't have a big userbase who will use BTS to buy their products and services yet either.
The referral programme could sweeten the deal & make it more appealing once a partner processor is in place though.
-
Yet another reason to go to % based fees and allowing for transactions as low as 2 BTS (for example, the donation button in our mobile wallets). Our Smartcoins POS systems will allow people to buy everything from a single pack of chewing gum all the way up to a Ferrari and beyond. Percentage based fees must be implemented ASAP, please!
RE: https://news.bitcoin.com/dash-powered-soda-machine-to-debut-at-miami-bitcoin-conference/
"Also, the fee to purchase from the Dash N’ Drink machine is one of the lowest for any crypto, at only 3 cents per InstantX transaction. After the upcoming Dash Evolution release, this fee will be omitted for most transactions."
If DASH can do it, why can't we?
-
I'm not a fan of percentage based fee's. The fee's are paying for the cost of doing the work to process the transaction. It doesn't cost, computer power wise, anymore to process a $.01 transaction or a $1 million dollar transaction.
I think there may be a better answer to micropayments, other than percentage based fees. Percentage based fee's are really a legacy form of tax, and we should look at some alternative and innovative forms of fees while we are still young.
-
I'm not a fan of percentage based fee's. The fee's are paying for the cost of doing the work to process the transaction. It doesn't cost, computer power wise, anymore to process a $.01 transaction or a $1 million dollar transaction.
I think there may be a better answer to micropayments, other than percentage based fees. Percentage based fee's are really a legacy form of tax, and we should look at some alternative and innovative forms of fees while we are still young.
So tell us what it might be.
-
Set a special kind of account. User pays a fee to get it similar to lifetime membership. Has extremely low fees. Only allows small transactions. That allows for micro payments. Still can be used to spam the network though.
Maybe add some kind of restriction where those type of accounts can perform more than X amount of transactions per second. 1 per second seems fine by now. Only way to spam the network would be to have 1000s of accounts of that type and have them all perform transactions at the same time but if members have to pay a fee to register then that makes the attack way way more difficult. No one will pay a fee of 5k bts or 10k bts thousands of times.
This also doesnt make life time membership obsolete since it still has more advantages like no restriction on the amount of bts per transaction, referral program, etc members could even have them both on the same account
-
I'm not a fan of percentage based fee's. The fee's are paying for the cost of doing the work to process the transaction. It doesn't cost, computer power wise, anymore to process a $.01 transaction or a $1 million dollar transaction.
I think there may be a better answer to micropayments, other than percentage based fees. Percentage based fee's are really a legacy form of tax, and we should look at some alternative and innovative forms of fees while we are still young.
So tell us what it might be.
I'm not sure what it will be exactly, but I don't want us to think that % based fees are the best or only solution.
-
I'm not a fan of percentage based fee's. The fee's are paying for the cost of doing the work to process the transaction. It doesn't cost, computer power wise, anymore to process a $.01 transaction or a $1 million dollar transaction.
I think there may be a better answer to micropayments, other than percentage based fees. Percentage based fee's are really a legacy form of tax, and we should look at some alternative and innovative forms of fees while we are still young.
Thinking in terms of costs is a mistake.
It just happens that we have a technology where sending $.01 costs the same as sending $1 million.
But the user does not care about technology. We do but the final user does not.
We need to think in terms of perceived usefulness.
That's why percentage based fees do make sense.
-
I'm not a fan of percentage based fee's. The fee's are paying for the cost of doing the work to process the transaction. It doesn't cost, computer power wise, anymore to process a $.01 transaction or a $1 million dollar transaction.
I think there may be a better answer to micropayments, other than percentage based fees. Percentage based fee's are really a legacy form of tax, and we should look at some alternative and innovative forms of fees while we are still young.
Thinking in terms of costs is a mistake.
It just happens that we have a technology where sending $.01 costs the same as sending $1 million.
But the user does not care about technology. We do but the final user does not.
We need to think in terms of perceived usefulness.
That's why percentage based fees do make sense.
Charging percentage based fees just links us back to legacy finance... There is no advantage in crypto if it is going to cost me $1000 to buy $100,000 of something whether I use cash or crypto.
Low fee's and less friction is crypto's biggest selling point. Let the merchants charge percentage based fee's if they find they can still sell their products and services with it.
-
I'm not a fan of percentage based fee's. The fee's are paying for the cost of doing the work to process the transaction. It doesn't cost, computer power wise, anymore to process a $.01 transaction or a $1 million dollar transaction.
I think there may be a better answer to micropayments, other than percentage based fees. Percentage based fee's are really a legacy form of tax, and we should look at some alternative and innovative forms of fees while we are still young.
So tell us what it might be.
Maybe: "Rate Limiting Transactions", point 1.0 of the "BitShares Development Proposals by BunkerChain Labs and Cryptonomex, Inc".
IF someone can retrieve the older/not edited version of this document, we could better evaluate that proposal.
Document--> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hWyasMJ5mL1fboAt9ZK8FEf0c7o_q-1bwm5ItsLNGo
-
I'm not a fan of percentage based fee's. The fee's are paying for the cost of doing the work to process the transaction. It doesn't cost, computer power wise, anymore to process a $.01 transaction or a $1 million dollar transaction.
I think there may be a better answer to micropayments, other than percentage based fees. Percentage based fee's are really a legacy form of tax, and we should look at some alternative and innovative forms of fees while we are still young.
Thinking in terms of costs is a mistake.
It just happens that we have a technology where sending $.01 costs the same as sending $1 million.
But the user does not care about technology. We do but the final user does not.
We need to think in terms of perceived usefulness.
That's why percentage based fees do make sense.
Charging percentage based fees just links us back to legacy finance... There is no advantage in crypto if it is going to cost me $1000 to buy $100,000 of something whether I use cash or crypto.
Low fee's and less friction is crypto's biggest selling point. Let the merchants charge percentage based fee's if they find they can still sell their products and services with it.
I agree, paying a fee of $1000 to send $100,000 does not make any sense.
Percentage-based fess (at least in my understanding (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/3)) need to have a floor and a cap.
For me percentage-based fess are needed to let us make profit on big transfers while we forgo revenue on smaller ones.
As a result we earn money in areas where users can accept it and use those profits to subsidize areas where users will not tolerate higher fees.
-
No to percentage based fees. People like the idea that it is like it is. Easy for marketing. Maybe gonna change mind but WU also makes perc. Based and it's annoying and not nice
-
I've been a BIG fan for % based fees for some time now. There's so many moving parts within Bitshares that there isn't a one size fits all "fix" for our fee structure.
I still believe in what I said awhile back...
Someone mentioned earlier we need a sales person's perspective... so I'll throw in my 2 bits.
I agree that the majority here is correctly identifying that Bitshares main core is (and I'm listing in order what I see as priority)...
1) The DEX
2) Core SmartCoins (USD, CNY, EURO, etc.)
Since the DEX is the main backbone of our system, IMO it would be silly to over tax the activity of the exchange and in turn, dry up any incentive for future/present trading. The only way (again IMO) is to set trading activity fees pegged to a percentage. I can see 0.5% being a great starting charge for trading fee's, but capped at 300 or so BTS, allowing those Large Quantity (ie Big Player) traders ample breathing room to play.
Putting this in a number perspective...
3000 BTS order = 15 BTS fee
20,000 BTS order = 100 BTS fee
60,000+ BTS order = 300 BTS fee
I don't see how you can effectively and fairly asses a "regional" fee or flat fee when it comes to DEX trading.
Obviously we all know that BTS (the underlying share) is the crucial life force, so squeezing that available supply of BTS will help increase BTS value while also "guiding" people to start utilizing SmartCoin's more as the primary currency, while also giving more demand for creating more USD, which is what we want correct?
So for a BTS Transfer fee, in my mind, should be a flat somewhat higher tiered fee...
1 to <100 BTS = 1 BTS fee
100> -1000 BTS = 5 BTS flat fee
and then 1 BTS per 1000 BTS thereafter and cap it a 500 BTS threshold.
For CORE SmartCoin transfer fee's.. I'd make it a percentage base fee of 0.05% and cap it at $5 USD (or it's equivalent to that specific SmartCoin).
So a $100 USD transfer would cost five cents ($0.05).
$10,000+ USD would be $5 USD fee
Again, this will help keep Big players in the game to do big money transfers utilizing SmartCoins.
For UIA's transfer fees... again, I'd make it a low percentage like the CORE asset fees I just mentioned. I almost hate saying this... but I could see it making sense to ONLY use CORE SmartCoin's for the transfer fee's of UIA's.
So all-in-all keep DEX fees low. Create higher friction for BTS transfers. SmartCoin fees low to keep the flow!
-
Easy for marketing.
So you tell your customer that s/he needs to spend $1.10 so that the recipient gets $1.00 - that's easy marketing for you?
Even a debit card does not charge people like that.
-
Easy for marketing.
So you tell your customer that s/he needs to spend $1.10 so that the recipient gets $1.00 - that's easy marketing for you?
Even a debit card does not charge people like that.
Good point, in the beginning it was 3 cent.
Dunno, 10 cent for 1 euro is ok. But only when we heavily start to make bts loveable through social real approach. So the people have a reason to use us.
-
Percentage based transfer fees for bitassets with a minimum and maximum would be a great development. UIA's could keep a single transfer fee.
-
Set a special kind of account. User pays a fee to get it similar to lifetime membership. Has extremely low fees. Only allows small transactions. That allows for micro payments. Still can be used to spam the network though.
Maybe add some kind of restriction where those type of accounts can perform more than X amount of transactions per second. 1 per second seems fine by now. Only way to spam the network would be to have 1000s of accounts of that type and have them all perform transactions at the same time but if members have to pay a fee to register then that makes the attack way way more difficult. No one will pay a fee of 5k bts or 10k bts thousands of times.
This also doesnt make life time membership obsolete since it still has more advantages like no restriction on the amount of bts per transaction, referral program, etc members could even have them both on the same account
This is interesting.
-
Set a special kind of account. User pays a fee to get it similar to lifetime membership. Has extremely low fees. Only allows small transactions. That allows for micro payments. Still can be used to spam the network though.
Maybe add some kind of restriction where those type of accounts can perform more than X amount of transactions per second. 1 per second seems fine by now. Only way to spam the network would be to have 1000s of accounts of that type and have them all perform transactions at the same time but if members have to pay a fee to register then that makes the attack way way more difficult. No one will pay a fee of 5k bts or 10k bts thousands of times.
This also doesnt make life time membership obsolete since it still has more advantages like no restriction on the amount of bts per transaction, referral program, etc members could even have them both on the same account
This is interesting.
That's very interesting.
It can be easily implemented (I hope) and can be easily explained to the user.
-
Plus 5 percent!
-
Charging percentage based fees just links us back to legacy finance... There is no advantage in crypto if it is going to cost me $1000 to buy $100,000 of something whether I use cash or crypto.
Set 1% fee with $1 maximum. This will encourage large transactions (more than $100) and discourage smaller transactions, but not hard enough to prohibit shopping in a dollar store.
Minimum, like $0.001, will also be required to prevent spam.
-
Set a special kind of account. User pays a fee to get it similar to lifetime membership. Has extremely low fees. Only allows small transactions. That allows for micro payments. Still can be used to spam the network though.
Maybe add some kind of restriction where those type of accounts can perform more than X amount of transactions per second. 1 per second seems fine by now. Only way to spam the network would be to have 1000s of accounts of that type and have them all perform transactions at the same time but if members have to pay a fee to register then that makes the attack way way more difficult. No one will pay a fee of 5k bts or 10k bts thousands of times.
This also doesnt make life time membership obsolete since it still has more advantages like no restriction on the amount of bts per transaction, referral program, etc members could even have them both on the same account
This is interesting.
That's very interesting.
It can be easily implemented (I hope) and can be easily explained to the user.
It's perhaps not practicable.
From my personal experience, an average Joe doesn't want to pay a fee in advance if don't know how much will spend on fees in the future. People intend to spend less money now and care less about costs in the future, that's why installment loans have market.
A common user of a bank will be always charged a fee if she withdraw from other bank's ATM, but a premium user won't be charged since she has already paid a higher annual fee or similar. So rich people are more likely to pay for a premium, but actually they care less about fees in micro payments. On opposite, the ones who have more needs on micro payments are less likely to pay for a premium in advance.
-
Set a special kind of account. User pays a fee to get it similar to lifetime membership. Has extremely low fees. Only allows small transactions. That allows for micro payments. Still can be used to spam the network though.
Maybe add some kind of restriction where those type of accounts can perform more than X amount of transactions per second. 1 per second seems fine by now. Only way to spam the network would be to have 1000s of accounts of that type and have them all perform transactions at the same time but if members have to pay a fee to register then that makes the attack way way more difficult. No one will pay a fee of 5k bts or 10k bts thousands of times.
This also doesnt make life time membership obsolete since it still has more advantages like no restriction on the amount of bts per transaction, referral program, etc members could even have them both on the same account
This is interesting.
That's very interesting.
It can be easily implemented (I hope) and can be easily explained to the user.
It's perhaps not practicable.
From my personal experience, an average Joe doesn't want to pay a fee in advance if don't know how much will spend on fees in the future. People intend to spend less money now and care less about costs in the future, that's why installment loans have market.
A common user of a bank will be always charged a fee if she withdraw from other bank's ATM, but a premium user won't be charged since she has already paid a higher annual fee or similar. So rich people are more likely to pay for a premium, but actually they care less about fees in micro payments. On opposite, the ones who have more needs on micro payments are less likely to pay for a premium in advance.
But this would be directed to services and not users though.. If people registered an account through that service what really could happen would be the service creating a "sub-account" with the same proprieties and share some of it's permissions to the user could use it. That way you have user's benefiting from this without having to pay the fee. Only micropayment services would pay for this, not the users
-
Nice to see a lower fee schedule for some functions.. and reasonable fees for the Asset-specific operations..
Except when one withdraws vesting balance with a minimum fee of 467 right now.. quite a large jump from 2 BTS... I didn't notice that yesterday when I withdrew 139 bts with a fee of 467 bts... losing 328 bitshares in the process...Also looking at the fee schedule, since I'm a lifetime member... shouldn't that charge me 93.54571 BTS? seems to have charged me a standard fee...
-
Nice to see a lower fee schedule for some functions.. and reasonable fees for the Asset-specific operations..
Except when one withdraws vesting balance with a minimum fee of 467 right now.. quite a large jump from 2 BTS... I didn't notice that yesterday when I withdrew 139 bts with a fee of 467 bts... losing 328 bitshares in the process...Also looking at the fee schedule, since I'm a lifetime member... shouldn't that charge me 93.54571 BTS? seems to have charged me a standard fee...
The everyday transactions were drastically reduced while occasional or one time transactions were increased. Vesting balances were among them as they are generally used only once or twice a month generally per user on the high frequency end.
-
Nice to see a lower fee schedule for some functions.. and reasonable fees for the Asset-specific operations..
Except when one withdraws vesting balance with a minimum fee of 467 right now.. quite a large jump from 2 BTS... I didn't notice that yesterday when I withdrew 139 bts with a fee of 467 bts... losing 328 bitshares in the process...Also looking at the fee schedule, since I'm a lifetime member... shouldn't that charge me 93.54571 BTS? seems to have charged me a standard fee...
Yes, there is a rise from 2bts to 467 bts due to the recent fee schedule change (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21368.msg281599.html#msg281599). There were no feedback on vesting withdrawal change nor any objection from users in that thread. If you find the increase too high or not right, you may feedback your view to the committee who can consider revising it.
You are being charged 467 bts now but the difference (457-93 bts) would go into your vesting balance.
-
Thanks. No problem on those fees. It is still a big jump from 2 BTS. I hope the committee charge a percentage of the amount e.g. 1-5% per transaction rather than a fixed rate.
Just making sure the figures are right since I have to discuss these fees within my network.
-
Thanks. No problem on those fees. It is still a big jump from 2 BTS. I hope the committee charge a percentage of the amount e.g. 1-5% per transaction rather than a fixed rate.
Just making sure the figures are right since I have to discuss these fees within my network.
IIRC, the proposed schedule has had a high fee in the beginning an was reduced to the equivalent of $2 after hearing input from businesses and shareholders.