BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitcrab on January 20, 2016, 07:59:28 am
-
percent based transfer fee will be implemented, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21080.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21080.0.html) the next step will be determining the parameters. let's see what a parameter combination will be welcome, you can also suggest other combination if you do not like the listed ones.
-
I asked @roadscape to get historical data of transfer activities to estimate potential impacts of each possible scenario.
We may need more solid base to justify a certain fee structure.
Addition:
I think percentage based fee can satisfy both sides (micropayment vs. network profit/referral system). So I would suggest like,
1 BTS (lower than the current) / 100 BTS (higher than the current) / 0.1% (These are just my rough hypothetical numbers)
-
I think percentage based fee can satisfy both sides (micropayment vs. network profit/referral system). So I would suggest like,
1 BTS (lower than the current) / 100 BTS (higher than the current) / 0.1% (These are just my rough hypothetical numbers)
I do not understand why you set cap to 100 BTS, which means each time one transfer more than 100k BTS will pay 100BTS, about $0.3
in my view the cap should be close or a little above 0.0001 BTC, that's why I prefer 20 BTS.
it will be funny if the BTS transfer be more expensive than inter-Bank CNY transfer.
-
I think percentage based fee can satisfy both sides (micropayment vs. network profit/referral system). So I would suggest like,
1 BTS (lower than the current) / 100 BTS (higher than the current) / 0.1% (These are just my rough hypothetical numbers)
I do not understand why you set cap to 100 BTS, which means each time one transfer more than 100k BTS will pay 100BTS, about $0.3
in my view the cap should be close or a little above 0.0001 BTC, that's why I prefer 20 BTS.
it will be funny if the BTS transfer be more expensive than inter-Bank CNY transfer.
They are hypothetical examples. The main idea is it can be higher than the current level.
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wS1MU8AsmNbUpaXzZid0JSWjQ/view?usp=sharing (98M)
Based on some descriptive analysis, I think 0.05% / 1 Min / 300 Max is reasonable numbers.
P.S Special thanks to @roadscape for providing the data!
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wS1MU8AsmNbUpaXzZid0JSWjQ/view?usp=sharing (98M)
Based on some descriptive analysis, I think 0.05% / 1 Min / 300 Max is reasonable numbers.
Thanks for the analysis. Would you like to provide a summary of the analysis here? It's a bit hard to download a 98M file or open it in Google Sheets.
-
What fee are we talking about here? Trading fee or transfer fee?
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wS1MU8AsmNbUpaXzZid0JSWjQ/view?usp=sharing (98M)
Based on some descriptive analysis, I think 0.05% / 1 Min / 300 Max is reasonable numbers.
Thanks for the analysis. Would you like to provide a summary of the analysis here? It's a bit hard to download a 98M file or open it in Google Sheets.
Yup that's my plan. Sometime today :)
-
There can be another point, which has a higher fee percentage (over 1%) and higher upper limit. Still digging in the data.
-
OK, here'are some summaries of analysis.
1. Minimum fee does not significantly influence total fee. Given 1% and 300 max (as suggested by jakub), min fee change from 1 to 6 only increases 1.8% of total fee. So I easily conclude that minimum fee is not that important, and lower minimum fee is more preferable to encourage micro-transactions. However, the minimum fee should be efficient to prevent spam. Therefore, I fixed the minimum fee to 1 BTS.
2. Given 1 BTS minimum, I tested scenarios proposed by bitcrab and jakub (0.1%/20 and 1%/300). Bitcrab's was 137k BTS fee in total while Jakub's is 1,830k BTS. I think the former is too small compared to transfer fees collected with 30 BTS flat fee. (137k vs. 13,212k, roughly 1%). While, the latter is 14%.
3. I tried to find a way to have the same level of fee as actually collected. But all scenarios are less then the 13mil BTS. So I conclude that it is impossible to have equal amount of fee under percentage-based fee system.
4. I checked how many txs are supposed to pay more (over 30 BTS) under 1% fee. It is found that 45% (7317/16243) of all transfers are affected implying more burdens in general. However, the rate decreases to 30% with 0.1% fee, and 25% with 0.05%. Meanwhile, 55% of transfers are benefited with 1% fee system, 69% with 0.1%, and 75% with 0.05%. The ratio of minimum-fee-paying transfers are 37%, 50%, 53% respectively (under 1%/0.1%/0.05% fee system).
These are my findings so far, and the followings are my opinions and suggestions.
1. I tried to have 5% of total fee actually collected. That is around 600k BTS.
2. I compared two fee rates, 0.1% and 0.05%. With 0.1%, 150 BTS maximum has 593k BTS fee. With 0.05%, 300 BTS maximum has 615k BTS fee.
3. I think lower percentage+high maximum is preferred to higher percentage+low maximum, because it is easy to justify "the bigger, the more". Given 0.05%/300, transfers over 600k BTS ($1800) pay the maximum fee of 300 BTS ($1).
So my suggestion is 0.05%/1/300. If you want to analyze by yourself, https://cryptofresh.com/bts_tx_history.csv will be the starting point (Thanks Roadscape).
Something I made wrong significantly. (didn't remove non-BTS). I will make it again soon.
-
Thanks for your hard work @clayop .
One more thing need to be considered add into analysis: If we apply % fee to an asset, hopefully quantity of micro payments in that asset will increase, and perhaps quantity of big payments will decrease. If we make an estimation for example apply *5 to the former and 1/3 to the latter(depends on the parameters change), how will the result change?
//For example, 30BTS is unacceptable for most of tipping UIAs, so there are very few tips in the historical data. If we set the fee to 1BTS, perhaps tipping would get much more active.
-
Thanks for your hard work @clayop .
One more thing need to be considered add into analysis: If we apply % fee to an asset, hopefully quantity of micro payments in that asset will increase, and perhaps quantity of big payments will decrease. If we make an estimation for example apply *5 to the former and 1/3 to the latter(depends on the parameters change), how will the result change?
//For example, 30BTS is unacceptable for most of tipping UIAs, so there are very few tips in the historical data. If we set the fee to 1BTS, perhaps tipping would get much more active.
I will do it when I have time. But I think big transfers won't decrease much, because they are real demands. On the other hand, we can expect more micro-transactions, but I cannot guess the number because if some services using micro-payment (e.g. messaging / telecommunications) are really successful, they can increase the number dramatically. Assuming 10,000 messages are sent a day, the total fee goes up from 600k to 1.1mil BTS.
-
Thanks for your hard work @clayop .
One more thing need to be considered add into analysis: If we apply % fee to an asset, hopefully quantity of micro payments in that asset will increase, and perhaps quantity of big payments will decrease. If we make an estimation for example apply *5 to the former and 1/3 to the latter(depends on the parameters change), how will the result change?
//For example, 30BTS is unacceptable for most of tipping UIAs, so there are very few tips in the historical data. If we set the fee to 1BTS, perhaps tipping would get much more active.
I will do it when I have time. But I think big transfers won't decrease much, because they are real demands. On the other hand, we can expect more micro-transactions, but I cannot guess the number because if some services using micro-payment (e.g. messaging / telecommunications) are really successful, they can increase the number dramatically. Assuming 10,000 messages are sent a day, the total fee goes up from 600k to 1.1mil BTS.
Yes, you got my idea definitely. That's why we tried to design a percentage based fee structure.
Charge a little more on real demands, charge less on small payments to attract more uses.
-
Thanks for your hard work @clayop .
One more thing need to be considered add into analysis: If we apply % fee to an asset, hopefully quantity of micro payments in that asset will increase, and perhaps quantity of big payments will decrease. If we make an estimation for example apply *5 to the former and 1/3 to the latter(depends on the parameters change), how will the result change?
//For example, 30BTS is unacceptable for most of tipping UIAs, so there are very few tips in the historical data. If we set the fee to 1BTS, perhaps tipping would get much more active.
I will do it when I have time. But I think big transfers won't decrease much, because they are real demands. On the other hand, we can expect more micro-transactions, but I cannot guess the number because if some services using micro-payment (e.g. messaging / telecommunications) are really successful, they can increase the number dramatically. Assuming 10,000 messages are sent a day, the total fee goes up from 600k to 1.1mil BTS.
Yes, you got my idea definitely. That's why we tried to design a percentage based fee structure.
Charge a little more on real demands, charge less on small payments to attract more uses.
+5%
With your development, we will be able to have decentralized message app with instant smartcoin tipping features ;)
-
What fee are we talking about here? Trading fee or transfer fee?
Transfer fees only.
-
I do not understand why you set cap to 100 BTS, which means each time one transfer more than 100k BTS will pay 100BTS, about $0.3
in my view the cap should be close or a little above 0.0001 BTC, that's why I prefer 20 BTS.
it will be funny if the BTS transfer be more expensive than inter-Bank CNY transfer.
If you are a user who needs to transfer bigger amounts on a regular basis, you need to become LTM.
That's the whole point of the referral program.
If you buy LTM, BitShares can offer you very competitive pricing, much better than inter-bank fees.
If you don't buy LTM, you will only have the small transfers cheap, not the big ones.
In other words, there is only one group of users who are not taken care of: those who want to transfer big amounts on a regular basis but still don't want to buy LTM.
And my point is this: we will be fine if we ignore this group of users - they need to go away, BitShares is not for them.
The original intention of percentage-based fees was to offer the following deal to the big-transfer guys:
- either you agree to sponsor the small-transfer guys
- or you buy LTM
If the percentage-based fees project turns out to be a backdoor way to kill the referral program, it will be hard for me to continue supporting it.
EDIT: It's not fair to compare non-LTM transfer fees to inter-bank transfer fees.
You don't get access to inter-bank transfers if you haven't paid huge fees beforehand for setting up and maintaining an account there.
-
I do not understand why you set cap to 100 BTS, which means each time one transfer more than 100k BTS will pay 100BTS, about $0.3
in my view the cap should be close or a little above 0.0001 BTC, that's why I prefer 20 BTS.
it will be funny if the BTS transfer be more expensive than inter-Bank CNY transfer.
If you are a user who needs to transfer bigger amounts on a regular basis, you need to become LTM.
That's the whole point of the referral program.
If you buy LTM, BitShares can offer you very competitive pricing, much better than inter-bank fees.
If you don't buy LTM, you will only have the small transfers cheap, not the big ones.
In other words, there is only one group of users who are not taken care of: those who want to transfer big amounts on a regular basis but still don't want to buy LTM.
And my point is this: we will be fine if we ignore this group of users - they need to go away, BitShares is not for them.
The original intention of percentage-based fees was to offer the following deal to the big-transfer guys:
- either you agree to sponsor the small-transfer guys
- or you buy LTM
If the percentage-based fees projects turns out to be a backdoor way to kill the referral program, it will be hard for me to continue supporting it.
+5%
I am also concerned for the refer program and how this will continue to support refers. So far its going in the right direction near as I can tell.
-
I do not understand why you set cap to 100 BTS, which means each time one transfer more than 100k BTS will pay 100BTS, about $0.3
in my view the cap should be close or a little above 0.0001 BTC, that's why I prefer 20 BTS.
it will be funny if the BTS transfer be more expensive than inter-Bank CNY transfer.
If you are a user who needs to transfer bigger amounts on a regular basis, you need to become LTM.
That's the whole point of the referral program.
If you buy LTM, BitShares can offer you very competitive pricing, much better than inter-bank fees.
If you don't buy LTM, you will only have the small transfers cheap, not the big ones.
In other words, there is only one group of users who are not taken care of: those who want to transfer big amounts on a regular basis but still don't want to buy LTM.
And my point is this: we will be fine if we ignore this group of users - they need to go away, BitShares is not for them.
The original intention of percentage-based fees was to offer the following deal to the big-transfer guys:
- either you agree to sponsor the small-transfer guys
- or you buy LTM
If the percentage-based fees project turns out to be a backdoor way to kill the referral program, it will be hard for me to continue supporting it.
EDIT: It's not fair to compare non-LTM transfer fees to inter-bank transfer fees.
You don't get access to inter-bank transfers if you haven't paid huge fees beforehand for setting up and maintaining an account there.
I am not only considering myself.
I have paid 40000 BTS to buy 2 LTM, with 2 old LTM, I have totally 4 LTMs.
what I care more is how to attract users. and how to make Bitshares grow.
currently less than 200 transfers everyday. do you think referral program really work?
-
OK, here'are some summaries of analysis.
1. Minimum fee does not significantly influence total fee. Given 1% and 300 max (as suggested by jakub), min fee change from 1 to 6 only increases 1.8% of total fee. So I easily conclude that minimum fee is not that important, and lower minimum fee is more preferable to encourage micro-transactions. However, the minimum fee should be efficient to prevent spam. Therefore, I fixed the minimum fee to 1 BTS.
2. Given 1 BTS minimum, I tested scenarios proposed by bitcrab and jakub (0.1%/20 and 1%/300). Bitcrab's was 137k BTS fee in total while Jakub's is 1,830k BTS. I think the former is too small compared to transfer fees collected with 30 BTS flat fee. (137k vs. 13,212k, roughly 1%). While, the latter is 14%.
3. I tried to find a way to have the same level of fee as actually collected. But all scenarios are less then the 13mil BTS. So I conclude that it is impossible to have equal amount of fee under percentage-based fee system.
4. I checked how many txs are supposed to pay more (over 30 BTS) under 1% fee. It is found that 45% (7317/16243) of all transfers are affected implying more burdens in general. However, the rate decreases to 30% with 0.1% fee, and 25% with 0.05%. Meanwhile, 55% of transfers are benefited with 1% fee system, 69% with 0.1%, and 75% with 0.05%. The ratio of minimum-fee-paying transfers are 37%, 50%, 53% respectively (under 1%/0.1%/0.05% fee system).
These are my findings so far, and the followings are my opinions and suggestions.
1. I tried to have 5% of total fee actually collected. That is around 600k BTS.
2. I compared two fee rates, 0.1% and 0.05%. With 0.1%, 150 BTS maximum has 593k BTS fee. With 0.05%, 300 BTS maximum has 615k BTS fee.
3. I think lower percentage+high maximum is preferred to higher percentage+low maximum, because it is easy to justify "the bigger, the more". Given 0.05%/300, transfers over 600k BTS ($1800) pay the maximum fee of 300 BTS ($1).
So my suggestion is 0.05%/1/300. If you want to analyze by yourself, https://cryptofresh.com/bts_tx_history.csv will be the starting point (Thanks Roadscape).
upon on your analysis, I think maybe 0.5%/1/20 or even 1%/1/20 is better.
we need to encourage tipping, but we should not hurt big transfers, 300 BTS is unacceptable in any condition.
-
Thanks clayop for digging further into the numbers. +5%
Below is my response from a previous post which seems to be inline with this conversation.
For the record, I didn't vote because I feel % based fee's should be applied for SMARTCOINS only.
Trades and/or Transfers should be flat rate fee based on a tier system....
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.
Now obviously we know that BTS (the underlying share) is the crucial life force, so squeezing that available supply line 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!
-
I do not understand why you set cap to 100 BTS, which means each time one transfer more than 100k BTS will pay 100BTS, about $0.3
in my view the cap should be close or a little above 0.0001 BTC, that's why I prefer 20 BTS.
it will be funny if the BTS transfer be more expensive than inter-Bank CNY transfer.
If you are a user who needs to transfer bigger amounts on a regular basis, you need to become LTM.
That's the whole point of the referral program.
If you buy LTM, BitShares can offer you very competitive pricing, much better than inter-bank fees.
If you don't buy LTM, you will only have the small transfers cheap, not the big ones.
In other words, there is only one group of users who are not taken care of: those who want to transfer big amounts on a regular basis but still don't want to buy LTM.
And my point is this: we will be fine if we ignore this group of users - they need to go away, BitShares is not for them.
The original intention of percentage-based fees was to offer the following deal to the big-transfer guys:
- either you agree to sponsor the small-transfer guys
- or you buy LTM
If the percentage-based fees project turns out to be a backdoor way to kill the referral program, it will be hard for me to continue supporting it.
EDIT: It's not fair to compare non-LTM transfer fees to inter-bank transfer fees.
You don't get access to inter-bank transfers if you haven't paid huge fees beforehand for setting up and maintaining an account there.
why bitshares lack of users, just because these kind of words.
a feature, a system, people choose not to use it, the problem must be up to the system itself, not the users.
-
why bitshares lack of users, just because these kind of words.
a feature, a system, people choose not to use it, the problem must be up to the system itself, not the users.
I strongly disagree.
We cannot satisfy everyone.
We are talking about one kind of user: one who is rich enough to move large amounts of money on a regular basis but is not willing to pay $100 for LTM.
Do you really think we can sponsor such a user and still have a sustainable business that supports its own development?
This is an illusion. We are a business, not a charity.
Please give me an example of an existing system where you can move a large amount of money on pay-as-you-go basis without paying substantial transfer fees.
And please include:
- cost of covering the price volatility risk (so for bitcoin transfers add the cost of hedging volatility and converting from and to fiat)
- cost of maintaining a bank account (so for legacy systems add the monthly cost of keeping a business account with a bank)
-
I am not only considering myself.
I have paid 40000 BTS to buy 2 LTM, with 2 old LTM, I have totally 4 LTMs.
Yes, I know. We are not talking about power users like you. You've bought your LTMs and you're fine as far as transfer fees are concerned.
what I care more is how to attract users. and how to make Bitshares grow.
This is what I care as well.
All I'm asking is to ignore one kind of users - those who are wealthy but not willing to pay for moving their money around.
Those users want to abuse us and I don't want to allow this.
currently less than 200 transfers everyday. do you think referral program really work?
The referral program program has not had any chance to work for a very simple reason: without fiat gateways and liquidity there is no product to sell.
-
why bitshares lack of users, just because these kind of words.
a feature, a system, people choose not to use it, the problem must be up to the system itself, not the users.
I strongly disagree.
We cannot satisfy everyone.
We are talking about one kind of user: one who is rich enough to move large amounts of money on a regular basis but is not willing to pay $100 for LTM.
Do you really think we can sponsor such a user and still have a sustainable business that supports its own development?
This is an illusion. We are a business, not a charity.
Please give me an example of an existing system where you can move a large amount of money on pay-as-you-go basis without paying substantial transfer fees.
And please include:
- cost of covering the price volatility risk (so for bitcoin transfers add the cost of hedging volatility and converting from and to fiat)
- cost of maintaining a bank account (so for legacy systems add the monthly cost of keeping a business account with a bank)
the reality is almost no new user use the referral system. what you're talking about is most like we already have 2 crowd, 1 is the referral system users, 1 is the crowd want to take advantage of the system. do we?
shortly meet the requirement of speculators is not charity, currently we need every thing we can do to attract the speculators, even the system have no profit, these people will bring much more users to the system and system will have profit in future because of this. a long vision is a business just needed. honestly I think we should reduce the transfer fee to 1 BTS for at least 3 months or half an year.
-
OOPS... I made a great mistake and should re-run my analysis. Sorry for this guy. I will do this ASAP.
-
the reality is almost no new user use the referral system. what you're talking about is most like we already have 2 crowd, 1 is the referral system users, 1 is the crowd want to take advantage of the system. do we?
shortly meet the requirement of speculators is not charity, currently we need every thing we can do to attract the speculators, even the system have no profit, these people will bring much more users to the system and system will have profit in future because of this. a long vision is a business just needed. honestly I think we should reduce the transfer fee to 1 BTS for at least 3 months or half an year.
So you suggest that if we just lower the transfer fees to 1 BTS, people would start using the system.
I disagree with this.
I think there are more fundamental reasons involved:
- lack of fiat gateways
- lack of liquidity for trading.
But this is turning into another lower-transfer-fees debate.
This thread is supposed to be about percentage-based fess policy and not about lowering the transfer fess in general.
-
Quick report:
New analysis confirms me minimum fee does not change a lot, consisting with previous conclusion. So 1 BTS makes sense.
And I found 0.2% is an efficient fee level.
To reach the same level of the actually collected fee, we can choose 100 BTS maximum.
50 BTS maximum generates about 60%, and 20 BTS maximum 30%.
Based on this, I could choose 0.2%/1/50, much closer to bitcrab's suggestion.
-
Please give me an example of an existing system where you can move a large amount of money on pay-as-you-go basis without paying substantial transfer fees.
And please include:
- cost of covering the price volatility risk (so for bitcoin transfers add the cost of hedging volatility and converting from and to fiat)
- cost of maintaining a bank account (so for legacy systems add the monthly cost of keeping a business account with a bank)
The problem is that you don't transfer money in bitshares, you transfer tokens which represent money. To buy a bitcoin with fiat on bitshares you need:
- deposit fiat to gateway -> pay fee
- send fiat IOU to bitshares wallet -> pay fee
- exchange fiat IOU for BTC IOU -> pay fee
- withdraw BTC IOU into gateway -> pay fee
- send BTC to bitcoin wallet -> pay fee
These fees add up. Ideally, it would be good if all transactions on blockchain were dirt cheap, but how do we motivate people to run witness nodes then? Is there any other way than paying them BTS?
-
Please give me an example of an existing system where you can move a large amount of money on pay-as-you-go basis without paying substantial transfer fees.
And please include:
- cost of covering the price volatility risk (so for bitcoin transfers add the cost of hedging volatility and converting from and to fiat)
- cost of maintaining a bank account (so for legacy systems add the monthly cost of keeping a business account with a bank)
The problem is that you don't transfer money in bitshares, you transfer tokens which represent money. To buy a bitcoin with fiat on bitshares you need:
- deposit fiat to gateway -> pay fee
- send fiat IOU to bitshares wallet -> pay fee
- exchange fiat IOU for BTC IOU -> pay fee
- withdraw BTC IOU into gateway -> pay fee
- send BTC to bitcoin wallet -> pay fee
These fees add up. Ideally, it would be good if all transactions on blockchain were dirt cheap, but how do we motivate people to run witness nodes then? Is there any other way than paying them BTS?
This doesn't make sense if I just want to get Bitcoins on my Bitcoin wallet I go directly to the last step after I deposit money on the exchange...
-
Please give me an example of an existing system where you can move a large amount of money on pay-as-you-go basis without paying substantial transfer fees.
And please include:
- cost of covering the price volatility risk (so for bitcoin transfers add the cost of hedging volatility and converting from and to fiat)
- cost of maintaining a bank account (so for legacy systems add the monthly cost of keeping a business account with a bank)
The problem is that you don't transfer money in bitshares, you transfer tokens which represent money. To buy a bitcoin with fiat on bitshares you need:
- deposit fiat to gateway -> pay fee
- send fiat IOU to bitshares wallet -> pay fee
- exchange fiat IOU for BTC IOU -> pay fee
- withdraw BTC IOU into gateway -> pay fee
- send BTC to bitcoin wallet -> pay fee
These fees add up. Ideally, it would be good if all transactions on blockchain were dirt cheap, but how do we motivate people to run witness nodes then? Is there any other way than paying them BTS?
That's exactly the point. The whole process is so damn complex at this moment that our internal transfer fees do not matter much - I'm talking here about big amounts, e.g. transferring 100k BTS.
If I transfer 100k BTS I don't really care if I pay 30 BTS or 100 BTS or 1 BTS, because:
- I pay huge fees at all the other steps anyway
- I'm mainly concerned about the complexity of the process, not about having to spend the extra 100 BTS
What would you prefer in case of transferring 100k BTS?
- pay 1 BTS for the transfer fee and have all the complexity and high fees on the gateways
- pay 100 BTS for the transfer fee and have cheap & easy gateways
Improving the gateway process is the key here, not lowering the transfer fees.
And the most important financial incentive for a gateway to come into existence is the referral program (e.g. OpenLedger is about to start this kind of fiat gateway business)
So we need these things:
- efficient gateways and liquidity.
- very low transfer fees for small tips
And we do not need low transfer fees for big amounts.
These people can afford to pay more and they will if the process is safe and smooth.
-
Quick report:
New analysis confirms me minimum fee does not change a lot, consisting with previous conclusion. So 1 BTS makes sense.
And I found 0.2% is an efficient fee level.
To reach the same level of the actually collected fee, we can choose 100 BTS maximum.
50 BTS maximum generates about 60%, and 20 BTS maximum 30%.
Based on this, I could choose 0.2%/1/50, much closer to bitcrab's suggestion.
I don't' understand why you say these new results "do not change a lot".
Previously you said that "my" settings (i.e. 1%/6/300) produced barely 14% of the current income.
Now you say that [0.2%/1/50] gives 60% of the current income.
That's a huge difference.
PS. I'm very glad you've done this analysis. Thanks for that.
-
To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..
-
What would you prefer in case of transferring 100k BTS?
- pay 1 BTS for the transfer fee and have all the complexity and high fees on the gateways
- pay 100 BTS for the transfer fee and have cheap & easy gateways
I would really like to be able to send $50 to my friend in other country (say, as a birthday gift) with one button click, and pay no more than $1 fee. If cheap and easy gateways would help to do this, then I am all for it.
-
Maximum 1 dollar is also good for marketing.
-
Maximum 1 dollar is also good for marketing.
:) I agree.
That's why I initially proposed 300 BTS as the upper limit, which is the equivalent of 1 USD or 1 EUR.
(And around 8 CNY which is also a nice number)
-
To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..
I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)
The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.
-
To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..
I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)
The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.
I confirm that percentage based fee mode can be applied to smart-coins via committee proposals. Tested.
However it's not perfect, we have to manually set core_exchange_rate in the proposal. During the proposal voting and review period, actual core_exchange_rate of proposed smart coin may have changed. When the proposal executes, core_exchange_rate in the proposal will take effect, and it's probably inaccurate.
I wonder if it's possible to set core_exchange_rate as an optional change for update_asset operation.
-
To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..
I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)
The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.
I confirm that percentage based fee mode can be applied to smart-coins via committee proposals. Tested.
However it's not perfect, we have to manually set core_exchange_rate in the proposal. During the proposal voting and review period, actual core_exchange_rate of proposed smart coin may have changed. When the proposal executes, core_exchange_rate in the proposal will take effect, and it's probably inaccurate.
I wonder if it's possible to set core_exchange_rate as an optional change for update_asset operation.
then the issuer can define the scheme for privatized smartcoin?
-
Do you think referral program really work?
@bitcrab , recently I've been wondering about this:
You have always been very skeptical about the usefulness of the referral program but at the same time you run a significant gateway business (http://transwiser.com/) for CNY.
What is your business model if you don't intend to rely on the referral income?
Where does your revenue come from?
-
To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..
I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)
The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.
I confirm that percentage based fee mode can be applied to smart-coins via committee proposals. Tested.
However it's not perfect, we have to manually set core_exchange_rate in the proposal. During the proposal voting and review period, actual core_exchange_rate of proposed smart coin may have changed. When the proposal executes, core_exchange_rate in the proposal will take effect, and it's probably inaccurate.
I wonder if it's possible to set core_exchange_rate as an optional change for update_asset operation.
then the issuer can define the scheme for privatized smartcoin?
This is the specification in the BSIP (issuer can define fee_mode and core_exchange_rate but not other parameters):
global parameters which can be adjusted by the committee
* the percentage
* a per-transfer upper limit
* a per-transfer lower limit
For each asset, the issuer can choose between flat fee mode and percentage based fee mode
-
With the information we got today on mumble it seem that the minimum fee for transcations would be around 1 cent.
So it would make sense to use around 2-3 bts as the cheapest fee (around 1 cent but slightly below to have a nice selling agrument).
(Here comes the limit of my hability to express myslef clearly in english ...)
To avoid to hurt referral program, wich is a very sensible subject, we could have something like 150-300 bts as the upward cap fee.
The low cap is easy to decide, it's the minimum fee that doesn't allow anyone to hurt the ecosystem. The top cap is more tricky !!!
To define the top cap, maybe we could create a poll and get an estimation of how much transactions (in volume) we would have with fees of 3 bts / 30 bts / 100 and the maximum fee (let's say 300)
With something like 20 members participating in the evaluation we would have something close to what we would have. With simple math we could determine what would be the highest fee asked to keep (more or less) the same effect on the referral program and probably decide to take something a little higher to be sure.
This would be to avoid guessing in the dark and change it in 5 weeks with all the fudders enjoying the oportunity to say that "we are always changing everything and bla bla bla fud fud fud"
Is that making sense ?
-
With the information we got today on mumble it seem that the minimum fee for transcations would be around 1 cent.
So it would make sense to use around 2-3 bts as the cheapest fee (around 1 cent but slightly below to have a nice selling agrument).
(Here comes the limit of my hability to express myslef clearly in english ...)
To avoid to hurt referral program, wich is a very sensible subject, we could have something like 150-300 bts as the upward cap fee.
The low cap is easy to decide, it's the minimum fee that doesn't allow anyone to hurt the ecosystem. The top cap is more tricky !!!
To define the top cap, maybe we could create a poll and get an estimation of how much transactions (in volume) we would have with fees of 3 bts / 30 bts / 100 and the maximum fee (let's say 300)
With something like 20 members participating in the evaluation we would have something close to what we would have. With simple math we could determine what would be the highest fee asked to keep (more or less) the same effect on the referral program and probably decide to take something a little higher to be sure.
This would be to avoid guessing in the dark and change it in 5 weeks with all the fudders enjoying the oportunity to say that "we are always changing everything and bla bla bla fud fud fud"
Is that making sense ?
I fully disagree with the 3 BTS minimum fee idea. This makes no sense in terms of efficiency.
Given 0.2%, 300 BTS maximum, changing from 1 BTS to 3 BTS increases total fee collected only 1.1%. Meanwhile, many micro-transactions have to pay 300% more fees. This will clearly discourage micro-transactions.
-
With the information we got today on mumble it seem that the minimum fee for transcations would be around 1 cent.
So it would make sense to use around 2-3 bts as the cheapest fee (around 1 cent but slightly below to have a nice selling agrument).
(Here comes the limit of my hability to express myslef clearly in english ...)
To avoid to hurt referral program, wich is a very sensible subject, we could have something like 150-300 bts as the upward cap fee.
The low cap is easy to decide, it's the minimum fee that doesn't allow anyone to hurt the ecosystem. The top cap is more tricky !!!
To define the top cap, maybe we could create a poll and get an estimation of how much transactions (in volume) we would have with fees of 3 bts / 30 bts / 100 and the maximum fee (let's say 300)
With something like 20 members participating in the evaluation we would have something close to what we would have. With simple math we could determine what would be the highest fee asked to keep (more or less) the same effect on the referral program and probably decide to take something a little higher to be sure.
This would be to avoid guessing in the dark and change it in 5 weeks with all the fudders enjoying the oportunity to say that "we are always changing everything and bla bla bla fud fud fud"
Is that making sense ?
Makes sense, and Bytemaster suggested in the Mumble that the upper cap should be something like the fixed fee now (30BTS).
I would be happy with a cap slightly higher than that, but not so high as to become noncompetitive. Say 60 to 100 BTS.
-
I think it has to be higher than the actual fee or every person planning on something related to the referral program will be disapointed. We need to be VERY carefull with that decision. The low fees of the big mass of tiny transactions has to be compensated by some of the big one to average fees around what we have now.
Someone sending 1000€ doesn't care about the fee beeing 30 or 90 cents.
The 0.1% fee, cap 3bts / 300bts seems decent.
I guess it's too complicated to have 0.1% up to 100€ and 0.05% up to 10 000€ and cap there at 500 bts ?
-
I think it has to be higher than the actual fee or every person planning on something related to the referral program will be disapointed. We need to be VERY carefull with that decision. The low fees of the big mass of tiny transactions has to be compensated by some of the big one to average fees around what we have now.
Someone sending 1000€ doesn't care about the fee beeing 30 or 90 cents.
The 0.1% fee, cap 3bts / 300bts seems decent.
I guess it's too complicated to have 0.1% up to 100€ and 0.05% up to 10 000€ and cap there at 500 bts ?
Given 0.1% fee / 300 BTS, changing min fee from 1 BTS to 3 BTS only increases 1.7%. I think that it's not worth to get 1.7% more fee while discouraging many potential micro-transaction activities. It's totally undesirable.
-
I think it has to be higher than the actual fee or every person planning on something related to the referral program will be disapointed. We need to be VERY carefull with that decision. The low fees of the big mass of tiny transactions has to be compensated by some of the big one to average fees around what we have now.
Someone sending 1000€ doesn't care about the fee beeing 30 or 90 cents.
The 0.1% fee, cap 3bts / 300bts seems decent.
I guess it's too complicated to have 0.1% up to 100€ and 0.05% up to 10 000€ and cap there at 500 bts ?
Given 0.1% fee / 300 BTS, changing min fee from 1 BTS to 3 BTS only increases 1.7%. I think that it's not worth to get 1.7% more fee while discouraging many potential micro-transaction activities. It's totally undesirable.
I agree. Maybe I missunderstood the discussion in the hangout, is that possible 1 bts fee / Tx ? I was proposing 3 because I thought the minimum fee was around the cent. If 1 bts is possible, let's go for it !!
-
I think it has to be higher than the actual fee or every person planning on something related to the referral program will be disapointed. We need to be VERY carefull with that decision. The low fees of the big mass of tiny transactions has to be compensated by some of the big one to average fees around what we have now.
Someone sending 1000€ doesn't care about the fee being 30 or 90 cents.
+5%
This is exactly my approach.
The user does not care too much when bigger amounts are involved - so this is the time when we can earn our revenue.
The user cares a lot when smaller amounts are involved - so this is the time when we need to forgo our revenue.
I guess it's too complicated to have 0.1% up to 100€ and 0.05% up to 10 000€ and cap there at 500 bts ?
Yes, it's way too complicated, not only technically but mainly in terms of marketing.
-
We first have to define the range of micro-transaction IMO.
Under $15? $6? $3?
Depending on the numbers, we can set the percentage. I personally like $15 which in turn has percentage fee of 0.02% (1/5000).
Given 0.02%, we can take max 300 BTS that gives equal fee amount to 0.2%/1/50 (but maximum 30 always gives less).
So I would suggest three options that generate about 300k BTS fee (the original value is about 480k)
1. 0.02% / min. 1 BTS / max. 300 BTS
2. 0.1% / min. 1 BTS / max. 60 BTS
3. 0.2% / min. 1 BTS / max. 50 BTS
If we can sacrifice about more fees, we can choose among
1. 0.01% / 1 / 300
2. 0.02% / 1/ 100
3. 0.2% / 1 / 30
These options generate about 200k BTS fee.
-
Quick report:
New analysis confirms me minimum fee does not change a lot, consisting with previous conclusion. So 1 BTS makes sense.
And I found 0.2% is an efficient fee level.
To reach the same level of the actually collected fee, we can choose 100 BTS maximum.
50 BTS maximum generates about 60%, and 20 BTS maximum 30%.
Based on this, I could choose 0.2%/1/50, much closer to bitcrab's suggestion.
I don't' understand why you say these new results "do not change a lot".
Previously you said that "my" settings (i.e. 1%/6/300) produced barely 14% of the current income.
Now you say that [0.2%/1/50] gives 60% of the current income.
That's a huge difference.
PS. I'm very glad you've done this analysis. Thanks for that.
@clayop , what about this ^ ?
-
Quick report:
New analysis confirms me minimum fee does not change a lot, consisting with previous conclusion. So 1 BTS makes sense.
And I found 0.2% is an efficient fee level.
To reach the same level of the actually collected fee, we can choose 100 BTS maximum.
50 BTS maximum generates about 60%, and 20 BTS maximum 30%.
Based on this, I could choose 0.2%/1/50, much closer to bitcrab's suggestion.
I don't' understand why you say these new results "do not change a lot".
Previously you said that "my" settings (i.e. 1%/6/300) produced barely 14% of the current income.
Now you say that [0.2%/1/50] gives 60% of the current income.
That's a huge difference.
PS. I'm very glad you've done this analysis. Thanks for that.
@clayop , what about this ^ ?
Oh forget about it. The data used here is not cleaned, so there are huge errors.
-
We first have to define the range of micro-transaction IMO.
Under $15? $6? $3?
Depending on the numbers, we can set the percentage. I personally like $15 which in turn has percentage fee of 0.02% (1/5000).
I think $15 is too much to treat it as a "micro-transaction". This way 90% of my daily expenses would be classified as micro-transactions.
I think the threshold for our definition should be around $5, i.e. anything below $5 should be considered "micro-transaction".
So I would suggest three options that generate about 300k BTS fee (the original value is about 480k)
1. 0.02% / min. 1 BTS / max. 300 BTS
2. 0.1% / min. 1 BTS / max. 60 BTS
3. 0.2% / min. 1 BTS / max. 50 BTS
If we can sacrifice about more fees, we can choose among
1. 0.01% / 1 / 300
2. 0.02% / 1/ 100
3. 0.2% / 1 / 30
These options generate about 200k BTS fee.
As for the minimum amount I think 1 BTS is too low.
I would think that $0.05 is the lowest payment that still makes sense for most people and paying $0.01 (i.e. 20%) for sending $0.05 is still acceptable.
So for me 3 BTS (~$0.01) is the minimum transfer fee we should charge.
-
We first have to define the range of micro-transaction IMO.
Under $15? $6? $3?
Depending on the numbers, we can set the percentage. I personally like $15 which in turn has percentage fee of 0.02% (1/5000).
I think $15 is too much to treat it as a "micro-transaction". This way 90% of my daily expenses would be classified as micro-transactions.
I think the threshold for our definition should be around $5, i.e. anything below $5 should be considered "micro-transaction".
So I would suggest three options that generate about 300k BTS fee (the original value is about 480k)
1. 0.02% / min. 1 BTS / max. 300 BTS
2. 0.1% / min. 1 BTS / max. 60 BTS
3. 0.2% / min. 1 BTS / max. 50 BTS
If we can sacrifice about more fees, we can choose among
1. 0.01% / 1 / 300
2. 0.02% / 1/ 100
3. 0.2% / 1 / 30
These options generate about 200k BTS fee.
As for the minimum amount I think 1 BTS is too low.
I would think that $0.05 is the lowest payment that still makes sense for most people and paying $0.01 (i.e. 20%) for sending $0.05 is still acceptable.
So for me 3 BTS (~$0.01) is the minimum transfer fee we should charge.
Statistics says there no big income difference between 1 and 3. One-cent scheme is only for westerners, which is not valid in less affluent areas.
-
Statistics says there no big income difference between 1 and 3. One-cent scheme is only for westerners, which is not valid in less affluent areas.
Currently there is no difference between 1 and 3 BTS because nobody is doing such small transfers while the transfer fee is at 30 BTS.
This will change as micro-transactions kick in and it can have a significant impact on our revenue.
It's really good that you've done this analysis but we must not rely on it blindly because this data describes the current state, not the future state when we have the percentage-based fees in place and users change their behavior accordingly.
Better to start a bit high (and possibly lower the fees in the future) than start low and upset people with a fee rise.
-
I thought the goal with the minimum fee was to set it as low as possible in order to facilitate micro-transactions, while still covering costs and protecting against spam. Also, why are we debating fees in terms of BTS when we know the value of BTS is going to change? Finally, Bytemaster specifically said today during the mumble that the minimum fee should be $.005-.01. So let's debate $.005 vs. $.01.
Personally I think $.01 would be fine for USD micro-transactions but might be high for CNY micro-transactions. For that reason, I would be inclined to go with $.005 across the board, unless it's feasible and not overly complicated to have a different limit depending on the asset. In that case I would go with $.005 for CNY and $.01 for USD and others. Actually, come to think of it, maybe we could go even higher with the minimum on USD transactions, perhaps as high as $.02. So that's what I would propose. A minimum fee of the equivalent of $.005 for CNY transactions, and $.02 for USD and other transactions. Thoughts?
-
We first have to define the range of micro-transaction IMO.
Under $15? $6? $3?
Depending on the numbers, we can set the percentage. I personally like $15 which in turn has percentage fee of 0.02% (1/5000).
Given 0.02%, we can take max 300 BTS that gives equal fee amount to 0.2%/1/50 (but maximum 30 always gives less).
So I would suggest three options that generate about 300k BTS fee (the original value is about 480k)
1. 0.02% / min. 1 BTS / max. 300 BTS
2. 0.1% / min. 1 BTS / max. 60 BTS
3. 0.2% / min. 1 BTS / max. 50 BTS
If we can sacrifice about more fees, we can choose among
1. 0.01% / 1 / 300
2. 0.02% / 1/ 100
3. 0.2% / 1 / 30
These options generate about 200k BTS fee.
my suggestion: 0.2%/1/20
high friction hurt economy, now it's not time to try to make higher profit, it's time to make higher attraction!
-
Do you think referral program really work?
@bitcrab , recently I've been wondering about this:
You have always been very skeptical about the usefulness of the referral program but at the same time you run a significant gateway business (http://transwiser.com/) for CNY.
What is your business model if you don't intend to rely on the referral income?
Where does your revenue come from?
referral program haven't proved it works here.
gateway have several ways to make profit - to charge for deposit/withdraw, to cooperate with merchant, to issue privatized smartcoin/UIA and charge market fee. I feel each one is better than referral program.
-
We first have to define the range of micro-transaction IMO.
Under $15? $6? $3?
Depending on the numbers, we can set the percentage. I personally like $15 which in turn has percentage fee of 0.02% (1/5000).
Given 0.02%, we can take max 300 BTS that gives equal fee amount to 0.2%/1/50 (but maximum 30 always gives less).
So I would suggest three options that generate about 300k BTS fee (the original value is about 480k)
1. 0.02% / min. 1 BTS / max. 300 BTS
2. 0.1% / min. 1 BTS / max. 60 BTS
3. 0.2% / min. 1 BTS / max. 50 BTS
If we can sacrifice about more fees, we can choose among
1. 0.01% / 1 / 300
2. 0.02% / 1/ 100
3. 0.2% / 1 / 30
These options generate about 200k BTS fee.
my suggestion: 0.2%/1/20
high friction hurt economy, now it's not time to try to make higher profit, it's time to make higher attraction!
so 0.2% for BTS holders and 2% for force settlement on TCNY.
or do you just mean 'high friction' is not a problem when the money end up in your own pocket?
-
We first have to define the range of micro-transaction IMO.
Under $15? $6? $3?
Depending on the numbers, we can set the percentage. I personally like $15 which in turn has percentage fee of 0.02% (1/5000).
Given 0.02%, we can take max 300 BTS that gives equal fee amount to 0.2%/1/50 (but maximum 30 always gives less).
So I would suggest three options that generate about 300k BTS fee (the original value is about 480k)
1. 0.02% / min. 1 BTS / max. 300 BTS
2. 0.1% / min. 1 BTS / max. 60 BTS
3. 0.2% / min. 1 BTS / max. 50 BTS
If we can sacrifice about more fees, we can choose among
1. 0.01% / 1 / 300
2. 0.02% / 1/ 100
3. 0.2% / 1 / 30
These options generate about 200k BTS fee.
my suggestion: 0.2%/1/20
high friction hurt economy, now it's not time to try to make higher profit, it's time to make higher attraction!
so 0.2% for BTS holders and 2% for force settlement on TCNY.
or do you just mean 'high friction' is not a problem when the money end up in your own pocket?
first, 0.2% is a global parameter, 2% for TCNY force settlement is for one single privatized smartcoin, you need not to touch it if you do not like it.
second, 2% force settlement compensation is to protect shorters, and then eliminate the unnecessary premium.
third, you can withdraw fiat CNY with TCNY with 0.3% fee.
-
We first have to define the range of micro-transaction IMO.
Under $15? $6? $3?
Depending on the numbers, we can set the percentage. I personally like $15 which in turn has percentage fee of 0.02% (1/5000).
Given 0.02%, we can take max 300 BTS that gives equal fee amount to 0.2%/1/50 (but maximum 30 always gives less).
So I would suggest three options that generate about 300k BTS fee (the original value is about 480k)
1. 0.02% / min. 1 BTS / max. 300 BTS
2. 0.1% / min. 1 BTS / max. 60 BTS
3. 0.2% / min. 1 BTS / max. 50 BTS
If we can sacrifice about more fees, we can choose among
1. 0.01% / 1 / 300
2. 0.02% / 1/ 100
3. 0.2% / 1 / 30
These options generate about 200k BTS fee.
my suggestion: 0.2%/1/20
high friction hurt economy, now it's not time to try to make higher profit, it's time to make higher attraction!
so 0.2% for BTS holders and 2% for force settlement on TCNY.
or do you just mean 'high friction' is not a problem when the money end up in your own pocket?
first, 0.2% is a global parameter, 2% for TCNY force settlement is for one single privatized smartcoin, you need not to touch it if you do not like it.
second, 2% force settlement compensation is to protect shorters, and then eliminate the unnecessary premium.
third, you can withdraw fiat CNY with TCNY with 0.3% fee.
First and only - you judgment is clouded because you do not care about what BTS holders get or if they profit from transaction fees. Your judgment is based on the fact that if the core BTS fees are lower (preferably 0) all fees come to you as a revenue.
So if I were you, I would not comment* on the fee debate threads...but so you did...bluntly!
* I would not even vote on such proposals as a committee member...but I got 50 years ahead with myself with such dreams. lol
Same applies to the fairy-tail named poster, btw.
-
Statistics says there no big income difference between 1 and 3. One-cent scheme is only for westerners, which is not valid in less affluent areas.
Currently there is no difference between 1 and 3 BTS because nobody is doing such small transfers while the transfer fee is at 30 BTS.
This will change as micro-transactions kick in and it can have a significant impact on our revenue.
It's really good that you've done this analysis but we must not rely on it blindly because this data describes the current state, not the future state when we have the percentage-based fees in place and users change their behavior accordingly.
Better to start a bit high (and possibly lower the fees in the future) than start low and upset people with a fee rise.
Micro-transactions include almost 0 value transactions not for money transfer purpose but for information transfer purpose, such as messaging. Most of them may send 0.0001 BTS with the minimum fee. In terms of this, 1 vs 3 BTS makes very big difference to their costs; 300% increase. Can you imagine how many demands will decrease due to the 300% more cost? The minimum fee is not a source of income but a tool for preventing spam. Currently, the smallest fee is 1 BTS (for account update and call order update, excepting publish feed), and it seems to work in terms of spam prevention.
-
Do you think referral program really work?
@bitcrab , recently I've been wondering about this:
You have always been very skeptical about the usefulness of the referral program but at the same time you run a significant gateway business (http://transwiser.com/) for CNY.
What is your business model if you don't intend to rely on the referral income?
Where does your revenue come from?
referral program haven't proved it works here.
gateway have several ways to make profit - to charge for deposit/withdraw, to cooperate with merchant, to issue privatized smartcoin/UIA and charge market fee. I feel each one is better than referral program.
We can analyze how much profits are generated from referrers' customers.
-
We first have to define the range of micro-transaction IMO.
Under $15? $6? $3?
Depending on the numbers, we can set the percentage. I personally like $15 which in turn has percentage fee of 0.02% (1/5000).
Given 0.02%, we can take max 300 BTS that gives equal fee amount to 0.2%/1/50 (but maximum 30 always gives less).
So I would suggest three options that generate about 300k BTS fee (the original value is about 480k)
1. 0.02% / min. 1 BTS / max. 300 BTS
2. 0.1% / min. 1 BTS / max. 60 BTS
3. 0.2% / min. 1 BTS / max. 50 BTS
If we can sacrifice about more fees, we can choose among
1. 0.01% / 1 / 300
2. 0.02% / 1/ 100
3. 0.2% / 1 / 30
These options generate about 200k BTS fee.
my suggestion: 0.2%/1/20
high friction hurt economy, now it's not time to try to make higher profit, it's time to make higher attraction!
I think 0.2% is too high for micro-transactions. 0.05% would be better IMO (because given 0.05%, under $6 will be considered as "micro"transaction).
Regarding maximum, it can be debatable. I honestly agree with both sides, and am doubtful to both sides as well. Sometimes people pay relatively high fees in transferring BTC as well. For instance, Yunbi charges 0.001 BTC ($0.4 or 130 BTS) but people seem not care. How much people are willing to pay given 0.05% fee? That's beyond my capacity.
-
@clayop, @jakub: can you please explain to me why we're trying to set the minimum fee in terms of BTS? It doesn't make sense to me since 1 BTS may work for micro-transactions now, but what happens when the BTS price doubles, triples, etc?
So what I'm saying is, even if fees must be collected in BTS, it seems the minimum fee should be set in USD terms since a) it's stable and b) the minimum spam deterrent was stated (by BM) in terms of USD. So it seems to me we should set the minimum fee in terms of USD, and then the BTS equivalent can be calculated hourly or daily based on the USD price feed. Does that not make sense?
As for the maximum fee, again, I don't see how we can have a meaningful conversation about possible maximum fees set in terms of BTS since it will be a moving target as the price of BTS fluctuates over time, sometimes wildly. What am I missing here?
-
I don't see how we can justify a max fee other than the standard flat fee (currently 30 BTS).
The two transfer types will coexist, so anyone paying more than the current fee will be cheated when doing so. Unless I missed something about standard transfers being disabled for assets adopting percentage based fees?
-
I think 0.2% is too high for micro-transactions. 0.05% would be better IMO (because given 0.05%, under $6 will be considered as "micro"transaction).
Regarding maximum, it can be debatable. I honestly agree with both sides, and am doubtful to both sides as well. Sometimes people pay relatively high fees in transferring BTC as well. For instance, Yunbi charges 0.001 BTC ($0.4 or 130 BTS) but people seem not care. How much people are willing to pay given 0.05% fee? That's beyond my capacity.
Bitshares is a platform.
Bitshares is a platform.
Bitshares is a platform.
repeated 3 times to emphasize the important thing.
yunbi charge 0.001 BTC for withdraw, it is not comparable to common transfer in Bitshares, it is more like a gateway withdraw service here.
I hope Bitshares can give users most freedom as a platform, can be most user/invester friendly as a platform.
BTS2.0 provide various ways for entrepreneurs to make profits - market fee of privatized smartcoins and UIA, FBA, one can build his own business with these tools without disturbing other areas. this is wonderful scene.
but the referral program destroy all these, now new users need either pay high fee or pay the LTM fee, in my view paying some network fee is OK, users can understand and accept, but why need to pay so much to the so called referrers? for months the daily transfer volume kept under 200, nothing can prove that the referral program will succeed.
this is Internet times, this is blockchain times, information passes quickly, seldom people rely on "referrers" to get useful information. and no new users will be happy when he know he not only need to pay to the network, but also need to pay the "referrers".
to me it is ok if the rate fall in 0.05% to 0.2% area, in my mind the max cap make more sense.
some said users which always transfer big does not care 30 BTS fee or 100 BTS fee, yes, some may do not care, but some really care, bitshaes need to attract as more people as possible.
What would you prefer in case of transferring 100k BTS?
- pay 1 BTS for the transfer fee and have all the complexity and high fees on the gateways
- pay 100 BTS for the transfer fee and have cheap & easy gateways
1BTS fee do not necessarily link to complexity and high fee gateway and 100 BTS fee does not necessarily link to cheap&easy gateway, and here the point is that gateway always provide independent service, so gateway should charge independently and the gateway fee should not be added to the transfer fee.
I have a dream, I dream that one day each user can enjoy the cheap basic fee, and if they like they can buy add-on service provided by entrepreneurs. and can entrepreneurs can build their businesses freely via various tools on an attractive platform.
-
@clayop, @jakub: can you please explain to me why we're trying to set the minimum fee in terms of BTS? It doesn't make sense to me since 1 BTS may work for micro-transactions now, but what happens when the BTS price doubles, triples, etc?
So what I'm saying is, even if fees must be collected in BTS, it seems the minimum fee should be set in USD terms since a) it's stable and b) the minimum spam deterrent was stated (by BM) in terms of USD. So it seems to me we should set the minimum fee in terms of USD, and then the BTS equivalent can be calculated hourly or daily based on the USD price feed. Does that not make sense?
As for the maximum fee, again, I don't see how we can have a meaningful conversation about possible maximum fees set in terms of BTS since it will be a moving target as the price of BTS fluctuates over time, sometimes wildly. What am I missing here?
The issuer (or the committee, in case of smart-coins) have to take care of the problem by periodically adjusting CER.
It's not perfect but this is how it currently works anyway so percentage-based fees do not make this problem any worse (or any better).
The think CER does not need to follow the market price very closely, I think it's good enough when its within a 15% range.
-
I don't see how we can justify a max fee other than the standard flat fee (currently 30 BTS).
The two transfer types will coexist, so anyone paying more than the current fee will be cheated when doing so. Unless I missed something about standard transfers being disabled for assets adopting percentage based fees?
@svk
If we set the max to the current 30 BTS, we will effectively lower the transfer fees by a significant amount and thus lose a lot of revenue.
Instead, we should set the min, max & percentage in such a way that in the long run on average the transfer fee income is roughly the same as today's income with flat fees.
So the current 30 BTS should be treated as some type of statistical medium value - this way nobody will feel cheated.
During a longer period (e.g. a month) on some transfers (the bigger ones) you'll pay more and on other (the smaller ones) you'll pay less so on average you should feel that it's a fair deal for you.
-
but the referral program destroy all these, now new users need either pay high fee or pay the LTM fee, in my view paying some network fee is OK, users can understand and accept, but why need to pay so much to the so called referrers? for months the daily transfer volume kept under 200, nothing can prove that the referral program will succeed.
I'll repeat what I've said many times before: how do you expect the referral program to work if there is no product to sell?
Until the fiat gateways work smoothly and there is liquidity on the smart-coin markets, there is no way I could go to an online merchant and sell them BitShares as a payment system.
1BTS fee do not necessarily link to complexity and high fee gateway and 100 BTS fee does not necessarily link to cheap&easy gateway, and here the point is that gateway always provide independent service, so gateway should charge independently and the gateway fee should not be added to the transfer fee.
1 BTS fee does link to complexity and high fee gateway because the gateway needs to have a financial incentive to exist.
If you lower the transfer fees to much, you kill the referral program and with it you kill the incentive to run a gateway business.
At least, this is how I understand it - I assume OpenLedger would not go into the trouble of setting up a gateway in Europe (and operate it without any commissions) if there was no revenue from the referral program on the horizon. But maybe @ccedk needs to confirm this.
@bitcrab , I've asked you this question earlier on but got no answer : what is the business model of your CNY gateway, if you do not plan to rely on the referral income?
-
I don't see how we can justify a max fee other than the standard flat fee (currently 30 BTS).
The two transfer types will coexist, so anyone paying more than the current fee will be cheated when doing so. Unless I missed something about standard transfers being disabled for assets adopting percentage based fees?
@svk
If we set the max to the current 30 BTS, we will effectively lower the transfer fees by a significant amount and thus lose a lot of revenue.
Instead, we should set the min, max & percentage in such a way that in the long run on average the transfer fee income is roughly the same as today's income with flat fees.
So the current 30 BTS should be treated as some type of statistical medium value - this way nobody will feel cheated.
During a longer period (e.g. a month) on some transfers (the bigger ones) you'll pay more and on other (the smaller ones) you'll pay less so on average you should feel that it's a fair deal for you.
Sure, but if the option remains to pay 30 BTS instead of 300, why would anyone choose the latter?
-
I don't see how we can justify a max fee other than the standard flat fee (currently 30 BTS).
The two transfer types will coexist, so anyone paying more than the current fee will be cheated when doing so. Unless I missed something about standard transfers being disabled for assets adopting percentage based fees?
@svk
If we set the max to the current 30 BTS, we will effectively lower the transfer fees by a significant amount and thus lose a lot of revenue.
Instead, we should set the min, max & percentage in such a way that in the long run on average the transfer fee income is roughly the same as today's income with flat fees.
So the current 30 BTS should be treated as some type of statistical medium value - this way nobody will feel cheated.
During a longer period (e.g. a month) on some transfers (the bigger ones) you'll pay more and on other (the smaller ones) you'll pay less so on average you should feel that it's a fair deal for you.
Sure, but if the option remains to pay 30 BTS instead of 300, why would anyone choose the latter?
The transfer fee mode (flat or percentage) will be decided by the issuer for all transfers on their asset, not by the user making a particular transfer.
So it's up to the issuer to decide what makes more sense for their asset.
-
fixed fees.
We already got the tools to define the right fees.
increase fees on demand by the committee (no matter if spam or naturally demand)
decrease fees when demand is low.
This way we will always end up with a balance between spam protection and the the lowest fees.
so let it be 0.001 BTS or whatever the majority votes vor.
BitShares is providing a ledger for all kind of transactions not only an exchange.
No need to charge differently for transactions as they are basically all the same, just a transaction limited in its size.
edit: can`t change my vote to "other"
-
Micro-transactions include almost 0 value transactions not for money transfer purpose but for information transfer purpose, such as messaging. Most of them may send 0.0001 BTS with the minimum fee. In terms of this, 1 vs 3 BTS makes very big difference to their costs; 300% increase. Can you imagine how many demands will decrease due to the 300% more cost? The minimum fee is not a source of income but a tool for preventing spam. Currently, the smallest fee is 1 BTS (for account update and call order update, excepting publish feed), and it seems to work in terms of spam prevention.
+5% +5% +5%
explain to me why we're trying to set the minimum fee in terms of BTS? It doesn't make sense to me since 1 BTS may work for micro-transactions now, but what happens when the BTS price doubles, triples, etc?
So what I'm saying is, even if fees must be collected in BTS, it seems the minimum fee should be set in USD terms since a) it's stable and b) the minimum spam deterrent was stated (by BM) in terms of USD. So it seems to me we should set the minimum fee in terms of USD, and then the BTS equivalent can be calculated hourly or daily based on the USD price feed. Does that not make sense?
+5% +5%
1. Maybe we use statistical data for the calculation, run it every 30 seconds.
2. Use a basket of Smartcoins instead of trying to choose the right "one". Similar to BRICS, but use Smartcoins instead, like bitUSD, bitCNY, bitEUR, bitCHF, bitGOLD and bitSILVER. Call the basket something like BTSBASKET and use that for the network fees.
3. Our mobile wallets will have real-time encrypted chat too, similar to whatsapp. If you are chatting with somebody, just top off your wallet with some BTSBASKET (or just BTS as a backup), say $2 worth and you're good to go for about a month of chatting. In chat, you might say hello, well if a hello is 5 bytes, that could equate to .00000005 BTS. bye is .00000003 BTS and so on.
As @clayop said "The minimum fee is not a source of income but a tool for preventing spam."
-
@kenCode and @clayop are exactly right, the minimum fee should be used only to prevent spam. In addition to macro-transactions and messaging, that may enable many other use cases.
As for the % fee, which generates the income, it seems most here think it should be in the .05-.2% range. Let's keep in mind that any % in this range that works for average to large size transactions, also works fantastically for micro-transactions. So let's just concentrate on setting a % fee that generates enough revenue without discouraging general use.
Regarding the cap, someone mentioned that Yunbi charges the equivalent of $.40 at current BTC price (i.e. more if BTC rises) and no one seems to care. Keep in mind that $.40 translates to a HUGE % for smaller transactions, whereas with this proposal the % fee is flat and only larger transactions would pay the maximum fee. So I think it's safe to set the maximum above $.40, especially if it's a STABLE value (i.e. won't go up when BTS goes up).
Speaking of using stable values for the fee limits, I will continue to contend that this is necessary. Although @kenCode, to accomplish this I really don't think it's necessary to rely on anything more than the price feeds. So for example, let's say we go with a minimum fee of $.005. Based on the price feeds, that minimum fee can be calculated in terms of BTS, CNY or anything else. Those calculations can be performed as often as price feeds are published, although I think daily would be more than sufficient. So now you have the minimum fee in terms of any asset you need, ready to be applied to any transaction. Same goes for the maximum fee ($.50-ish?).
We really should be going this route with the %-based fees worker proposal. @abit, are you able to do this?
-
We really should be going this route with the %-based fees worker proposal. @abit, are you able to do this?
1. Nothing is impossible.
2. All my implementation is based on BSIP (feature definition). If you want me to change the behavior of my implementation, you need to change the BSIP first.
3. Your proposal will increase complexity, thus will increase time and cost for implementing/testing, and probably increase possibilities of introducing bugs into the system.
4. Manually adjusting the parameters on a monthly basis is acceptable for me.
-
The fees should remain as low as possible until the DEX has some resemblance of liquidity. Once there is sufficient liquidity, we can revisit the fee structure.
-
We really should be going this route with the %-based fees worker proposal. @abit, are you able to do this?
1. Nothing is impossible.
2. All my implementation is based on BSIP (feature definition). If you want me to change the behavior of my implementation, you need to change the BSIP first.
3. Your proposal will increase complexity, thus will increase time and cost for implementing/testing, and probably increase possibilities of introducing bugs into the system.
4. Manually adjusting the parameters on a monthly basis is acceptable for me.
1. +5%
2. @tbone can you knock that out for us with abit's guidance?
3. You stated $10K before, so will this raise your price to 12K or even 14K??
4. Not me. I'd rather let the code handle these intricacies. Don't sign yourself up for that job if you don't have to. I could see that becoming a real pain in yer arse after awhile. Just let the code manage it.
-
I think something like 0.1% with a minimum of $0.01 and maximum of $0.1/$0.2 would be better.
My ideas are still the same, so I support the general direction these discussions are going with percentage fees.
The overall impact on total fees earned may not be great because of increased transactions, so the referral programme might not be significantly effected. Regardless, until BTS has well pegged Smartcoins/other, there isn't a strong BTS product to sell and for referrers to market anyway.
The fees should remain as low as possible until the DEX has some resemblance of liquidity. Once there is sufficient liquidity, we can revisit the fee structure.
+5% Once you get that initial liquidity, especially for Smartcoins, then you will have something valuable that you need to tell the whole world about and that's where slightly higher fees and the referral programme really comes in.
-
how else are we supposed to show off our superior TPS if we don't incentivize people to make lots of T's?
-
3. You stated $10K before, so will this raise your price to 12K or even 14K??
Depends on the complexity. I'm unable to make an estimation so far.
4. Not me. I'd rather let the code handle these intricacies. Don't sign yourself up for that job if you don't have to. I could see that becoming a real pain in yer arse after awhile. Just let the code manage it.
Adjusting of parameters will be done by the committee. With well defined rules/guidelines, it's not a hard job. Defining the rules/guidelines is a hard job though, it's what we're currently trying to do.
By the way, in regards to the parameters, I think 0.05%/1/250 is fine for me with current rate of BTS, which means 0.02 CNY of fee if value of transfer is lower than 2000 BTS or 40 CNY, and 5 CNY of fee if value of transfer is greater than 10000 CNY.
-
By the way, in regards to the parameters, I think 0.05%/1/250 is fine for me with current rate of BTS, which means 0.02 CNY of fee if value of transfer is lower than 2000 BTS or 40 CNY, and 5 CNY of fee if value of transfer is greater than 10000 CNY.
K.I.S.S.
-
Speaking of using stable values for the fee limits, I will continue to contend that this is necessary. Although @kenCode, to accomplish this I really don't think it's necessary to rely on anything more than the price feeds. So for example, let's say we go with a minimum fee of $.005. Based on the price feeds, that minimum fee can be calculated in terms of BTS, CNY or anything else. Those calculations can be performed as often as price feeds are published, although I think daily would be more than sufficient. So now you have the minimum fee in terms of any asset you need, ready to be applied to any transaction. Same goes for the maximum fee ($.50-ish?).
We really should be going this route with the %-based fees worker proposal. @abit, are you able to do this?
Keeping the min and max fee pegged exactly to fiat is an overkill. I am against this.
Surely there is some volatility on BTS but not so much that it cannot be easily addressed by periodic adjustments of the min & max fee by the committee.
Let's not over-complicate things if this is not necessary.
It doesn't really matter if the minimum fee is $0.003 or $0.004 or even $0.010.
These two things are important:
- for micro-transactions, to replace the current transfer fee by an order of magnitude: from the current 30 BTS (~$0.1) to something around 1-3 BTS (~0.01).
- to maintain the revenue stream for the network and referrers at roughly the same level as we have it now.
-
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
-
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
agreed. @abit what is the next step? get you voted in? trade your UIA?
-
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
agreed. @abit what is the next step? get you voted in? trade your UIA?
These are the next steps:
(1) Create a worker proposal for BSIP#10 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/3) - I'll do that this coming week (something like Monday or Tuesday).
And after it is accepted:
(2) Complete the coding and perform initial testing - this area belongs to abit.
(3) Review the code - this will be done by CNX.
(4) Test the implementation on the testnet.
(5) Write the documentation - I'll try to do it with abit's help.
(6) Deploy the implementation with a planned hard-fork (unless hard-fork is not necessary, I'm not sure).
And when the above is complete, we will need to:
(a) pass a committee proposal to establish the min, max & percentage values.
(b) pass another committee proposal which will switch committee-owned smart-coins to percentage-based fee scheme.
So it's quite a long way.
-
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
I think it is unrealistic to expect the percentage-based fees to end up at the levels suggested by the poll results (min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS rate: 0.1%).
This would mean a radical change of rules for the referral businesses and I hope the major shareholders won't allow it.
I believe we must not mix the introduction of percentage-based fees with a drastic change of business rules.
If you want to campaign for that, do that independently, after percentage-based fees are in place.
If we mix those two matters at this stage, we risk sabotaging the whole BSIP#10 initiative.
-
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
I think it is unrealistic to expect the percentage-based fees to end up at the levels suggested by the poll results (min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS rate: 0.1%).
This would mean a radical change of rules for the referral businesses and I hope the major shareholders won't allow it.
I believe we must not mix the introduction of percentage-based fees with a drastic change of business rules.
If you want to campaign for that, do that independently, after percentage-based fees are in place.
If we mix those two matters at this stage, we risk sabotaging the whole BSIP#10 initiative.
The DEX has had little to no liquidity for 2 years now. Anything that helps with liquidity should be implemented. This mantra of all we need is more adoption to fix the liquidity is a farse. If many measures aren't made to fix the liquidity issue then we will be saying that for the rest of our lives, and left holding a bag of worthless BTS.
Poor referral businesses... Bitshares will move on without them. I don't see them bringing in a ton of users anyways. The BTS price sure doesn't reflect that they are bringing in many users.
They will also still make a killing on normal transfer fees which are also ludicrously high.
-
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
I think it is unrealistic to expect the percentage-based fees to end up at the levels suggested by the poll results (min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS rate: 0.1%).
This would mean a radical change of rules for the referral businesses and I hope the major shareholders won't allow it.
I believe we must not mix the introduction of percentage-based fees with a drastic change of business rules.
If you want to campaign for that, do that independently, after percentage-based fees are in place.
If we mix those two matters at this stage, we risk sabotaging the whole BSIP#10 initiative.
The DEX has had little to no liquidity for 2 years now. Anything that helps with liquidity should be implemented. This mantra of all we need is more adoption to fix the liquidity is a farse. If many measures aren't made to fix the liquidity issue then we will be saying that for the rest of our lives, and left holding a bag of worthless BTS.
Poor referral businesses... Bitshares will move on without them. I don't see them bringing in a ton of users anyways. The BTS price sure doesn't reflect that they are bringing in many users.
They will also still make a killing on normal transfer fees which are also ludicrously high.
OK. Fine.
Enjoy your illusion that there exist users who want to transfer 10k BTS or 100k BTS but don't do this because paying 30 BTS or 300 BTS is more than they can stand.
I've said enough on this subject.
-
Why would anyone pay to send a transfer when they can send it for free (or much cheaper) with any other cryptocurrency?
Yet, you guys feel free to do what you like. I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project. You guys live in a bubble over here on bitsharestalk and have no idea how bad of a rep Bitshares has in the crypto community for many different reasons. Network effect makes successful crypto currencies, and Bitshares lacks a meaningful one. The referral program is a joke as even with the current fee structure there is little economic incentive to really make it work.
-
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
agreed. @abit what is the next step? get you voted in? trade your UIA?
These are the next steps:
(1) Create a worker proposal for BSIP#10 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/3) - I'll do that this coming week (something like Monday or Tuesday).
And after it is accepted:
(2) Complete the coding and perform initial testing - this area belongs to abit.
(3) Review the code - this will be done by CNX.
(4) Test the implementation on the testnet.
(5) Write the documentation - I'll try to do it with abit's help.
(6) Deploy the implementation with a planned hard-fork (unless hard-fork is not necessary, I'm not sure).
And when the above is complete, we will need to:
(a) pass a committee proposal to establish the min, max & percentage values.
(b) pass another committee proposal which will switch committee-owned smart-coins to percentage-based fee scheme.
So it's quite a long way.
Dated milestones are needed too, please.
-
Dated milestones are needed too, please.
Dates will be part of the description that comes with the worker proposal.
I need to agree them with abit.
-
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
agreed. @abit what is the next step? get you voted in? trade your UIA?
These are the next steps:
(1) Create a worker proposal for BSIP#10 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/3) - I'll do that this coming week (something like Monday or Tuesday).
And after it is accepted:
(2) Complete the coding and perform initial testing - this area belongs to abit.
(3) Review the code - this will be done by CNX.
(4) Test the implementation on the testnet.
(5) Write the documentation - I'll try to do it with abit's help.
(6) Deploy the implementation with a planned hard-fork (unless hard-fork is not necessary, I'm not sure).
And when the above is complete, we will need to:
(a) pass a committee proposal to establish the min, max & percentage values.
(b) pass another committee proposal which will switch committee-owned smart-coins to percentage-based fee scheme.
So it's quite a long way.
Sounds like a very reasonable approach ..
One advice regarding implementation though: could it be built such that people can
a) easily choose/change the fee model for their asset
b) have an easy way of adding other fee modells as well from which issuers can choose?
c) please send a pull request to the bsip repo so that we can have it listed outside of 'issues'
d) drop me a line if you want the testnet upgraded i am looking forward zo figuring out how hard fork are actually done on a running network
-
These are the next steps:
(1) Create a worker proposal for BSIP#10 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/3) - I'll do that this coming week (something like Monday or Tuesday).
And after it is accepted:
(2) Complete the coding and perform initial testing - this area belongs to abit.
(3) Review the code - this will be done by CNX.
(4) Test the implementation on the testnet.
(5) Write the documentation - I'll try to do it with abit's help.
(6) Deploy the implementation with a planned hard-fork (unless hard-fork is not necessary, I'm not sure).
And when the above is complete, we will need to:
(a) pass a committee proposal to establish the min, max & percentage values.
(b) pass another committee proposal which will switch committee-owned smart-coins to percentage-based fee scheme.
So it's quite a long way.
Sounds like a very reasonable approach ..
One advice regarding implementation though: could it be built such that people can
a) easily choose/change the fee model for their asset
GUI development is not included in the steps above. Maybe svk would help? @svk do we need to add budget for GUI development into the worker proposal? If yes, how much?
b) have an easy way of adding other fee modells as well from which issuers can choose?
I assume that you mean GUI as well? More modes would need more development work at least on the witness_node level. If GUI calculates fees independently (but not by querying witness_node), we may need more development work on GUI side.
The feature "easy to extend in the future" hasn't been added into current implementation yet, I'll add it.
c) please send a pull request to the bsip repo so that we can have it listed outside of 'issues'
d) drop me a line if you want the testnet upgraded i am looking forward zo figuring out how hard fork are actually done on a running network
-
I don't foresee this needing a lot of GUI work, a day at most (a day being 8 hours). As long as there's a flag on the asset that says what type of fee to use, and only transfers are affected, it should be trivial to add a switch to whichever transfer operation type that asset uses.
Fees need a little bit of work but not a whole lot, assuming the percent fee structure is easily available either in the asset object or in global parameters. We estimate fees using the global parameters and the operation type, so that would need to be extended to handle percent fees but that's not hard. And final operation fees are fetched from the witness node so that should not require any work on the GUI.
-
I don't foresee this needing a lot of GUI work, a day at most (a day being 8 hours). As long as there's a flag on the asset that says what type of fee to use, and only transfers are affected, it should be trivial to add a switch to whichever transfer operation type that asset uses.
Fees need a little bit of work but not a whole lot, assuming the percent fee structure is easily available either in the asset object or in global parameters. We estimate fees using the global parameters and the operation type, so that would need to be extended to handle percent fees but that's not hard. And final operation fees are fetched from the witness node so that should not require any work on the GUI.
Since it's a little off topic here, I posted a reply in my thread.
-
I don't foresee this needing a lot of GUI work, a day at most (a day being 8 hours). As long as there's a flag on the asset that says what type of fee to use, and only transfers are affected, it should be trivial to add a switch to whichever transfer operation type that asset uses.
Fees need a little bit of work but not a whole lot, assuming the percent fee structure is easily available either in the asset object or in global parameters. We estimate fees using the global parameters and the operation type, so that would need to be extended to handle percent fees but that's not hard. And final operation fees are fetched from the witness node so that should not require any work on the GUI.
Great news! +5%
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.
Let's get moving on this. +5%
agreed. @abit what is the next step? get you voted in? trade your UIA?
These are the next steps:
(1) Create a worker proposal for BSIP#10 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/3) - I'll do that this coming week (something like Monday or Tuesday).
And after it is accepted:
(2) Complete the coding and perform initial testing - this area belongs to abit.
(3) Review the code - this will be done by CNX.
(4) Test the implementation on the testnet.
(5) Write the documentation - I'll try to do it with abit's help.
(6) Deploy the implementation with a planned hard-fork (unless hard-fork is not necessary, I'm not sure).
And when the above is complete, we will need to:
(a) pass a committee proposal to establish the min, max & percentage values.
(b) pass another committee proposal which will switch committee-owned smart-coins to percentage-based fee scheme.
So it's quite a long way.
Sounds like a very reasonable approach ..
One advice regarding implementation though: could it be built such that people can
a) easily choose/change the fee model for their asset
b) have an easy way of adding other fee modells as well from which issuers can choose?
c) please send a pull request to the bsip repo so that we can have it listed outside of 'issues'
d) drop me a line if you want the testnet upgraded i am looking forward zo figuring out how hard fork are actually done on a running network
-
Was away for a couple of days and just catching up...
In the interest of time, I agree it should be fine to go with a scheme where the committee must explicitly adjust the upper and lower limits as the value of BTS changes. Although I think we do need to realize that it WILL matter to some business builders whether the min fee is .003 or .01 (more than 3X higher). In light of that, let's provide a level of certainty. To do so, we should simply debate and ultimately target upper and lower limits in terms of a stable currency (USD probably makes the most sense here), and then if BTS changes in value such that the limits (in terms of the stable currency) deviate from the targets by some percentage, say 10-20%, then the committee acts to update the BTS limits to reflect the stable target limits. This may seem trivial to some, but it's not.
-
In light of that, let's provide a level of certainty. To do so, we should simply debate and ultimately target upper and lower limits in terms of a stable currency (USD probably makes the most sense here), and then if BTS changes in value such that the limits (in terms of the stable currency) deviate from the targets by some percentage, say 10-20%, then the committee acts to update the BTS limits to reflect the stable target limits.
+5%
I agree with that.
The discussion should be in USD (or CNY) and the committee's targets should be set in USD (or CNY).
The implementation should be in BTS (as all our fees are denominated in BTS) and the committee should make occasional adjustments to catch up with the exchange rate.
-
The discussion should be in USD (or CNY) and the committee's targets should be set in USD (or CNY).
The implementation should be in BTS (as all our fees are denominated in BTS) and the committee should make occasional adjustments to catch up with the exchange rate.
This is on my list of things to do .. I plan to write an easy to use script to
a) put a new proposal to update the fees
b) verify a proposal is within a tolerance (denominated in USD)
-
OK, according to the voting, the parameters in USD can be 0.1%/$0.003/$0.06
-
I just now finish writing a a few scripts to let the committee work in USD
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/tree/master/usd-denominated-fees
-
OK, according to the voting, the parameters in USD can be 0.1%/$0.003/$0.06
Let's assume we go with this plan and configure percentage fees according to the results of the poll: [min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS, rate: 0.1%].
What would the flat transfer fee be in this case for BTS and other assets remaining on the flat scheme?
-
OK, according to the voting, the parameters in USD can be 0.1%/$0.003/$0.06
Let's assume we go with this plan and configure percentage fees according to the results of the poll: [min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS, rate: 0.1%].
What would the flat transfer fee be in this case for BTS and other assets remaining on the flat scheme?
whatever the committee decides for ..
-
OK, according to the voting, the parameters in USD can be 0.1%/$0.003/$0.06
Bytemaster said during the last Mumble session that the network cost we need to cover is $.005 - .01 per transaction. If you want to go as low as possible, then the minimum fee should be $.005. As for the maximum fee, $.06 sounds like a pretty reasonable FLAT fee. But for a cap on a %-based fee, that seems WAY too low and likely won't increase usage but would lower the incentive for the referral program. Personally, I think we can easily go up to the $.10-.25 range considering this is just a cap and the % is LOW.
-
OK, according to the voting, the parameters in USD can be 0.1%/$0.003/$0.06
Let's assume we go with this plan and configure percentage fees according to the results of the poll: [min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS, rate: 0.1%].
What would the flat transfer fee be in this case for BTS and other assets remaining on the flat scheme?
I thought we were going to start discussing the max/min values in terms of a stable currency, preferably USD since the actual network cost has been defined in terms of USD.
Also, why is it that we cannot apply the %-based fee to BTS? If anything, shouldn't that be the easiest asset to apply %-based fee since we don't have to worry about the CER changing and causing the calculated/target minimum fee (in USD terms) to go below the actual minimum fee in BTS terms?
-
OK, according to the voting, the parameters in USD can be 0.1%/$0.003/$0.06
Let's assume we go with this plan and configure percentage fees according to the results of the poll: [min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS, rate: 0.1%].
What would the flat transfer fee be in this case for BTS and other assets remaining on the flat scheme?
whatever the committee decides for ..
My point is this:
max fee = 20 BTS -> flat fee would have to be significantly below 20 BTS (as otherwise no issuer would use flat fees) -> end of LTM as nobody will have a reason to buy it.
-
OK, according to the voting, the parameters in USD can be 0.1%/$0.003/$0.06
Let's assume we go with this plan and configure percentage fees according to the results of the poll: [min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS, rate: 0.1%].
What would the flat transfer fee be in this case for BTS and other assets remaining on the flat scheme?
I thought we were going to start discussing the max/min values in terms of a stable currency, preferably USD since the actual network cost has been defined in terms of USD.
Also, why is it that we cannot apply the %-based fee to BTS? If anything, shouldn't that be the easiest asset to apply %-based fee since we don't have to worry about the CER changing and causing the calculated/target minimum fee (in USD terms) to go below the actual minimum fee in BTS terms?
BTS's owner is null-account, which means there is some kind of consensus that nobody can change parameters of BTS.