BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitcrab on January 28, 2016, 06:08:57 am
-
The "1 BTS for transfer" idea comes from the discussion on BSIP#10(persent based transfer fee) in China community.
The budget for working on implementing BSIP#10 is at least 3M BTS, on the other hand, currently the average daily transfer volume is about 300, then each day the network get 300*30*20% = 1800 BTS for transfer, which means based on current transfer volume level it will cost 4.5 years for network to get back the 3M fund.
Then what sense does it make to do such a change? considering the solution is not perfect with some uncertainty.
You may say that after BSIP#10 being implemented we can set a big max limit for smartcoin transfer. but do you mean the shareholders are funding a project in order to being charged more?
You may say that after BSIP#10 being implemented the transfer volume will grow greatly. if that's true, then just lowering the transfer fee to lowest will also lead to great volume growing, without paying for development.
With the discussion going deeper, finally we reach some conclusion:
1.The core idea is, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient and attractive and cheap platform, meanwhile provide chance and tools for every player here to make money.
2.Keeping high transfer fee and meanwhile putting much fund on refining the fee structure is the wrong way, we should move to the right way - go back to the global lowest tranfer fee scheme.
3.The referral program does not fit Bitshares, we need to eliminate its bad effect.
There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.
Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.
The other more serious effect of referral program + high fee policy is that it hurt Bitshares' reputation. now in China blockchain/cryptocurrency community, Bitshares is tagged with "greed and uncertainty", it's difficult to ask one team to do some BTS relevant business. The policy also conflict with the opensource culture.
The most valuable asset we should cherish is the support and trust from the community, if we neglect the feeling of investors and new users but enjoy calculating the thousands BTS of transfer fees everyday. we are picking little but losing big, be friendly to the investors and new users and they will ruturn more.
When I wrote this there are 1,061,001,603 BTS in reserve pool, these money can support a little team several years. we should not worry too much on the "who maintain and develop" question.
Yes, maybe current Bitshares referral program work in some region under some special scenarios, but I haven't saw it work, meanwhile I saw it hurt a big group, so here the point is, we should split the fundamantal service and the upper layer application, the fundamantal service is global and basic and should be cheap enough - yes, transfer of everything and some other basic services are defined as fundamantal service here. on the other hand, deposit/withdraw, FBA, UIA, privatized smartcoin business and more customized service should be defined as upper layer applications, gateways and business partners should develop business and make profits with these upper layer applications,they will compete with each other and the best service provider will make most profit. Then under this fundamantal-upper layer infrastructure every player can play freely and design business model by themselves without disturbing each other.
So I am considring to create a committee proposal -surely following the defined process- to set the transfer fee to 1 BTS, a simple solution to end the long time debate and open a new start.
Here I raise this poll to collect opinion from community. please let me know how you think.
I know that jakub, xeroc and abit has worked a lot for BSIP#10 and now it's on halfway, if my "1 BTS for transfer" proposal can be approved later, their time will be wasted. I am sorry on this but I believe I am doing the right thing, as from the discussion in the community I don't think BSIP#10 will lead to a satisfactory consequence.
Change or not? Let voting decide.
-
thanks for keeping the weekly "fee" thread rate steady
-
+5% +5% +5%
apperciated your hard work for bitshares, bitcrab.
I always support to lower the fee just because our current situation is far from making profit. no user, no profit. referral system is useless under this situation. if you want the referral system work, lower the fee is the right choice now, maybe half a year later we can start to higher the fee if we have enough real users.
-
Support, we need more new users
-
Support, that is think bigger +5%
-
+5% +5%
we need new users
-
You stated your point well.
My concern with removing the incentive for the referral program, is that its just going to cause more of this "bitshares is always changing the rules" talk. wouldn't that hurt us more than finding a solution that keeps the referral program in tact? Abit has stated that he would accept the majority of his payment as vesting for 6 months or 1 year.
Thanks for the clear communication on this bitcrab.
-
did referral work fine?
why should the users choose bts?
-
I very support this idea,
lower fee is the best way at current step.
bts is just a baby now , do you want a baby can get income ?
-
rule should be as simple as possible，fee should be as low as possable.
-
I do not think lower fees will magically solve the problems that we're having. The referral program needs to stay intact in order to attract marketeers and users.
How do you earn new users when there's no incentive?
-
Just leave the fees as they are.
-
seeking the right way.
-
lower fee may be can't solve the problems. because high fee just one of the obstacle ，not all of the obstacle.
Lifetime Referrer not the key to attract new users. Lifetime Referrer just promote to help attract new users
The key to attract new users must be the DAC itself. low fee , simple rule,safe and fast.
-
The referral should base on mature application、user numbers、outside funding
We got none of this now，thanks to the high fee and uncertain rules.
So if we don't solve this problem，The referral is just a daydream without any endorse.
It's not even better then a ponzi scheme（at least they have strong marketing skills）
Should we “dream on”？or wake up？
-
The referral should base on mature application、user numbers、outside funding
We got none of this now，
what do you base your opinion on? do you even know how many users register through the referral program (hint: A LOT)
-
So. What is your opinion of using the fee pool funds collected to help support the bitasset peg?
What is your opinion of using worker funds to support the bitasset peg beyond this?
I am of the opinion that the fees are not as important as the product.
Sorry to derail your thread, I just don't know when I will get a chance to ask in a thread that is getting this much attention from our Chinese members.
-
Having percentage based fees with min and max caps is the best solution for the greatest number of interests. It would help to accommodate most of the many different business models that may be interested in making use of our platform. And it supports both the referral scheme and profits for the blockchain.
-
The referral should base on mature application、user numbers、outside funding
We got none of this now，
what do you base your opinion on? do you even know how many users register through the referral program (hint: A LOT)
“A lot”user means 300 transer volumn per day as a global transer system？and most of them are just sending to polonex and btc38？ Please don't make me laugh. ;)
-
The referral should base on mature application、user numbers、outside funding
We got none of this now，
what do you base your opinion on? do you even know how many users register through the referral program (hint: A LOT)
“A lot”user means 300 transer volumn per day as a global transer system？and most of them are just sending to polonex and btc38？ Please don't make me laugh. ;)
Who wants to reduce fees? user
-
The referral should base on mature application、user numbers、outside funding
We got none of this now，
what do you base your opinion on? do you even know how many users register through the referral program (hint: A LOT)
“A lot”user means 300 transer volumn per day as a global transer system？and most of them are just sending to polonex and btc38？ Please don't make me laugh. ;)
+5% +5% +5%
-
全球最保值虚拟货币BTS低调来袭！这里你买不到吃亏买不到上当！全年均价0.02分，上浮利率远远赶超央妈利率！是你投资理财佳品！气死你我们更专业！气死你我们更用心！
-
It is my firm belief that the referral system is one of the best incentives for future growth on BitShares platform.
It has not worked on dac.play so I guess the asumption is then that it will not work on OpenLedger and similar as well, but that is a completely wrong attitude, and I will personally pull out of anything related with BitShares if this is voted out, as I will have no belief or incentive in the continous pull for getting BTS and OpenLedger known worldwide.
Now I said it, and I will not repeat it, but the whole business is built around inviting marketeers to get involved and taking away an incentive essentially of great importance for marketeers to want to get involved in this project will kill the reasons for any future growth.
-
There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.
Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.
There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.
Why not introduce this on dac.play first, then we see if it works?
Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.
Not true, this is not a pyramid scheme, where you are constantly paying to the referrer, unlike these ponzi schemes you are here able to to achieve a 60% of all the fees from future referred users, an it is obviously only if you do something about it.
The referral will only benefit the ones who market the platform, its as simple as that, and will not really do anything for future resisual income if you decide to lean back and let everyone else do the hard work.
Its time for some action and less time for these constant votes for something very little to base your vote on in any case.
Lets consider this after some unique users ahve signed up on Openledger bts platform this year, then you have a user base worth making a poll on.
-
The referral should base on mature application、user numbers、outside funding
We got none of this now，
what do you base your opinion on? do you even know how many users register through the referral program (hint: A LOT)
But I found many of them rarely use BTS system. We need more detailed data.
-
There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.
Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.
There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.
Why not introduce this on dac.play first, then we see if it works?
Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.
Not true, this is not a pyramid scheme, where you are constantly paying to the referrer, unlike these ponzi schemes you are here able to to achieve a 60% of all the fees from future referred users, an it is obviously only if you do something about it.
The referral will only benefit the ones who market the platform, its as simple as that, and will not really do anything for future resisual income if you decide to lean back and let everyone else do the hard work.
Its time for some action and less time for these constant votes for something very little to base your vote on in any case.
Lets consider this after some unique users ahve signed up on Openledger bts platform this year, then you have a user base worth making a poll on.
I think there are many other business on bts system beside referral program system
-
There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.
Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.
There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.
Why not introduce this on dac.play first, then we see if it works?
Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.
Not true, this is not a pyramid scheme, where you are constantly paying to the referrer, unlike these ponzi schemes you are here able to to achieve a 60% of all the fees from future referred users, an it is obviously only if you do something about it.
The referral will only benefit the ones who market the platform, its as simple as that, and will not really do anything for future resisual income if you decide to lean back and let everyone else do the hard work.
Its time for some action and less time for these constant votes for something very little to base your vote on in any case.
Lets consider this after some unique users ahve signed up on Openledger bts platform this year, then you have a user base worth making a poll on.
I think there are many other business on bts system beside referral program system
and that is even the point here, there are many other business points, but to start suggesting to remove an opportunity for the ones who are in fact doing good to promote the whole platform is not the right approach
-
and that is even the point here, there are many other business points, but to start suggesting to remove an opportunity for the ones who are in fact doing good to promote the whole platform is not the right approach
could you please share some more detailed data relevant to the referrer performance of openledger? such as how much revenues the referrals contribute, what I only know is that openledger referred 489 users up to now, however this number is not weird as openledger is at the key access point of Bitshares.
-
and that is even the point here, there are many other business points, but to start suggesting to remove an opportunity for the ones who are in fact doing good to promote the whole platform is not the right approach
could you please share some more detailed data relevant to the referrer performance of openledger? such as how much revenues the referrals contribute, what I only know is that openledger referred 489 users up to now, however this number is not weird as openledger is at the key access point of Bitshares.
For what could you use this information right now. It is irrelevant as this referral system has only just started. It is as I said, when you have say 50k users, then you can start discussing the data and whether it is relevant or not. How can you base any poll on something as important as referral system where the residual income is only coming later, that' is the idea with this anyways. It's not to have money in your pocket same day you refer someone. Untill now we still dont have all the money generating businesses like bond market, prediction market etc, and as I said 5000 user is far too little to base any decision on whether the referral systems is good or not.
To turn it around, what bad does it do, apart from allowing all who pays the upgrade to have returned 80% of their expenses. Is that a bad thing?
You are asking as if this is something that is holding bts growth down!!! I guess you need to elaborate why you think this is holding bts down, and I dont you think you can really do this considering this platform only has been existing for a little more than 3 months and the referral system even less.
It is really strange to ask for this at this stage, and gives no sense whatsoever business wise.
And I added OpenLedger as a referral at the time I was sharing 50/50 with cryptonomex simply to see what outcome my marketing efforts did, and the proof you have in the amount of referrals (10% of the total is really not bad) and the total amount of users signed up via the faucet on OpenLedger. Just look at dac.play where no media attention has been made and look at Openledger where it i being mentioned all the time. That is all a part of what any LT member could get involved in and to start getting a piece of the action/income which is bound to come the moment the bigger money generators are added to platform.
Right now all marketeers adding referrers are building a foundation for the future, and if the idea is to have any money back big style right now, I guess they should consider some other of the business options on bts which sounds from other users is already here, although the referral system is meant to tie it all up together in the end, so stupid not to get the referrers as many as possible at this stage.
-
I think we should just find another solution other than changing fees. Why not peg the fees to USD or CNY? What are people afraid of? That when BTS rises to a few cents that the fees will grow exponentially? They will be reduced accordingly.
The thing we need to consider here is if the cost of changing the fees to 1 BTS is worth jeopardizing other projects' business model. It's like asking do you prefer keeping OpenLedger or reduce fees in hopes of something to happen?
We don't have any solid, concrete proof that the benefits outweight the potential bad outcomes, hence it doesn't make sense to change that now.
We're not even sure if that will bring advantages. We are just taking a shoot in the dark in hopes a miracle will happen and suddenly BitShares will grow. That's not going to happen plus, at the same time we're throwing to waste everything that was built around this fee model (openledger and other potential businesses/partners that might already be building something).
It just isn't logical to throw away something we're building now just in hopes it will magically solve BitShares' problems. That's just gambling with this project's future and pissing on everyone's efforts so far.
Not to mention, even if it succeeds which it won't just because of that (unless you provide proof there are a lot of players willing to come in if that happens), BitShares will - once again - have its image damaged. People will only have the confirmation that BitShares is in a ever changing loop that doesn't let any businesses sink in because it constantly forces business models to change. What do you think other people will think of it? It will only tarnish BitShares' image once again and make it even look worse. Just when finally we're settling down, someone comes around and changes everything all again
Guess what, it's not in 3 or 4 months that a project will be successful or the #1. Give time to time. Let things settle down and let's not be impatient. This will only confirm everyone's idea that BitShares acts in the following way: Let's try this solution. If in 1 month it doesn't work then let's come up with something random again in hopes of going to the top. Things dont work like that. We need a plan and to stick with it.
BitShares didn't even have time to settle. People are only knowing about OpenLedger now imo. They're only giving it a chance now. We need time. It's not because we didn't take over the world in 3 months that we're wrong or bad. Maybe we need more time for the world to prove ourselves to the world.
I would agree with you if no one was working and we had no solutions. But people are working and doing their own stuff so let them be. They didn't even come halfway with their projects and we already want to change things because they didn't succeed? We didn't even give them to chance to do it in the first place!
We want to make BitShares run when we're just learning how to crawl yet! Take it easy, give it time. It needs time. 3 months is nothing. Have you seen the list of exchanges here?
http://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/volume/24-hour/
We have $25k volume atm. That's just awesome and we're still at the beggining! Of course this is during these pumps but you know what? There are exchanges way older than us with way less volume! That already means we're succeeding better than others. We just need to continue! $25k should make us proud. Would never think we would reach that any time soon. We have more volume than C-CEX just now @ccedk ;)
If we take our time, do what we have to do and take advantage of the favourable conditions that seem to be forming (pumps, bull market, etc), we will be able to grow. Just be confident and work. These $25k might just disappear in the next hour but still, it's a lot for a new exchange like us! We should all be proud imo. That's an achievement.
-
@bitcrab
Your idea is destructive.
This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.
You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.
Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".
I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
-
@bitcrab
Your idea is destructive.
This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.
You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.
Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".
I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.
-
@bitcrab
Your idea is destructive.
This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.
You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.
Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".
I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.
4 months is not enough, people don't change exchanges that easily. They're creatures of habits. Is not easy to come and in 4 months replace major exchanges like that.
We've been though these pumps lately but BitShares volume seems to be growing. From the moment we're growing it's proven we're succeeding as we are atm. No need for change.
Plus people are still working and developing their own stuff. Give time for CCEDK's gateway directly into OpenLedger to develop and gain a bit of traction for example.
Like @jakub said, you're acting under nothing but an assumption with no concrete proof or data. You can't prove your point atm. Not to mention if we're growing which we might do if BTC pumps this summer due to halving, alts growing etc, we don't need to change anything. With these simplu pumps our volume spikes. Sure, it's still small but did you honestly expect it to be that much on a project so despised by anyone and that on top of competing with other coins (other peoples pov) is also competing with exchanges? This simple pumps got us a $50k spike. imagine what happens if there's the huge btc pump during the halving and alts consequently grow too.
We need time, both to prove our or your point. We are developing. Volume reacted fine during this pumps which might be a signal we are slightly growing.
Don't fix what's not broken.
-
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.
The target customers for referral businesses are online merchants and online consumers.
What can I offer those two groups at this stage? Nothing.
All I can do when I meet them is promise that one day it will all work.
And the reasonable answer from them is this: "Come back to me once it does work".
The referral program is not capable of boot-strapping liquidity, because it's meant for consumers only. Consumers will not take this risk.
Liquidity has to be boot-strapped by the shareholders and entrepreneurs, not the consumers.
So to answer your question, clayop: the referrers will be able to show their performance once we have:
- decent liquidity on the major SmartCoins markets
- gateways that allow you to turn fiat into SmartCoins (and back) without incurring significant fees
If we have these two in place, and the referral program does not produce any significant results for a couple of months, I'll fully support scrapping it.
-
it seems like if we wait, finally the people will realize how amazing our system is and they will come to follow us.
-
@bitcrab
Your idea is destructive.
This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.
You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.
Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".
I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.
4 months is not enough, people don't change exchanges that easily. They're creatures of habits. Is not easy to come and in 4 months replace major exchanges like that.
We've been though these pumps lately but BitShares volume seems to be growing. From the moment we're growing it's proven we're succeeding as we are atm. No need for change.
Plus people are still working and developing their own stuff. Give time for CCEDK's gateway directly into OpenLedger to develop and gain a bit of traction for example.
Like @jakub said, you're acting under nothing but an assumption with no concrete proof or data. You can't prove your point atm. Not to mention if we're growing which we might do if BTC pumps this summer due to halving, alts growing etc, we don't need to change anything. With these simplu pumps our volume spikes. Sure, it's still small but did you honestly expect it to be that much on a project so despised by anyone and that on top of competing with other coins (other peoples pov) is also competing with exchanges? This simple pumps got us a $50k spike. imagine what happens if there's the huge btc pump during the halving and alts consequently grow too.
We need time, both to prove our or your point. We are developing. Volume reacted fine during this pumps which might be a signal we are slightly growing.
Don't fix what's not broken.
lower transfer is temporary , if there are 10 tps average , we can consider increase transfer fee .
-
@bitcrab
Your idea is destructive.
This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.
You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.
Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".
I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.
BTS 2.0 has only existed for three months and the referral for about two, so what i it with this 4 months?
-
We need a GRAND COMPROMISE on the fees and referral program. And we need it soon so we can collectively turn our attention to solving our most serious problem, poor liquidity of BitAssets, before its too late.
Referral Program
We need there to be incentive for businesses to refer new users. So it would be a big mistake to kill the referral program, especially at this early point in time. However, it is clear that the design of the referral program is complicated and problematic. The complicated design is confusing for users and business builders, and also makes it very difficult to have a productive debate about setting fees. I propose we simplify matters. Let's remove the tiers and go with a residual model only. Ronny said it himself:
"...something as important as referral system where the residual income is only coming later, that' is the idea with this anyways. It's not to have money in your pocket same day you refer someone."
Lifetime Membership
So let's remove the concept of lifetime/annual membership. Sorry @jakub, but it's simply counterproductive to complicate matters all around by forcing people to pay membership fees just so a referrer has the chance to make upfront referral fees in some cases. If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed. So let the referral incentive come entirely from the residual income generated by 80% of the network fees (above the per-transaction network cost, of course).
Fees
Now let's talk about the actual fees. I strongly believe that we can compromise to find a sweet spot that keeps fees low enough for user adoption, allows for micro-transactions, and allows referrers to earn a residual that incentivizes them to attract new users.
When debating fees, we must first recognize that there is a per-transaction COST to the network, therefore we CANNOT have fees below this level. Also, let's please stop making proposals with fees denominated in BTS because that is too ARBITRARY since the value of BTS is volatile. The recent proposal from bitcrab is for 1BTS fee. The problem with that is that today it barely covers the network cost. If the price drops back to yesterday's levels, then the network is losing money. On the other hand, if the price goes up substantially, then the fee becomes much higher than anticipated. This is not sensible. So let's debate and ultimately target fees in terms of a stable currency.
Flat Fee vs. Percentage-based Fee
When it comes to flat fee vs. %-based fee, again, we must again recognize that the flat fee is also ARBITRARY, i.e. lower value transactions are paying a higher relative fee than larger transactions. This is partly why the %-based fee makes sense. A %-based fee combined with the upper and lower caps allows us to meet our goals since it enables micro-transactions, ensures network costs are covered, and there is still room for referrers to earn a residual % of fees above the network cost.
Compromise
Let's have a proper debate about the fees in this context. And keep in mind that we need to compromise here. The success of Bitshares depends on it. So let's figure out what numbers we can all live with. For starters, the minimum fee cannot be below $.005 (half a penny), we know that for sure. As for the percentage, .1% seems very reasonable. Although perhaps we can go as low as .05%. Regarding the maximum, I am personally in favor of at least $.20, but I would like to see this debated. Keep in mind that with the .1%, $.20 would be the fee for transactions of $200 and up, whereas smaller transactions would have smaller fees, as low as $.005.
@bitcrab, do you honestly think these fees would limit user adoption in any meaningful way?
@ccedk/Ronny, what do you think of a compromise along these lines?
If we can come to a good compromise here, then we can turn our attention to liquidity of BitAssets, which is the real limitation on user adoption.
-
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"
This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.
Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.
It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.
-
+5% +5% +5% +5%
Lets not have to have this discussion either its your sister or your wife situation kind of relationship!!! We need to embrace and build on what we have and decide later i'd after 1 year and only if declining in value or declining user base, and either one of these need time and products on platform to really kick off. Right now it seems it easier to speak about change than acually developing and adding great stuff for everyone to use, and thats really the wrong way to deal with this. Forget these nit pick polls about stuff that only creates loss of time is fousing on the real important matters.
-
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"
This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.
Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.
It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.
I completely agree....
-
Right now it seems it easier to speak about change than actually developing and adding great stuff for everyone to use, and that's really the wrong way to deal with this.
+5%
And would add this: it's a big misconception that the referral program has the ability to boot-strap liquidity.
It's the other way round: liquidity comes first and once it is there, there will be a chance for the referral program to kick in.
So first we need to deal with the liquidity problem, and only then we can judge the referral program.
Nobody has given any proof that the current transfer fee of 30 BTS hurts liquidity.
Which hypothesis looks more reasonable to you?
- we have no liquidity because people transferring $300 are so poor that they cannot afford $0.1 for the transfer fee
- we have no liquidity because nobody has an economic incentive to risk their money to support liquidity
-
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"
This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.
Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.
It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.
I completely agree....
Agreed ...
I would rather start pegging the current fees to the USD (for which we now have scripts: https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/tree/master/usd-denominated-fees)
Plus, those people that provide liquidity to centralized exchanges are having hard times running their bots against our markets .. simply because of the API.
Not sure if making the API easier to use will bring more liquidity .. but we can try
-
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"
This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.
Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.
It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.
I guess you don't pay attention. I have always been a proponent of the referral program. In my last post I said we NEED the referral program. And I did NOT say it isn't working. In fact, I'm pretty sure it IS working. I just said that the tiered structure is complicated and counterproductive on MULTIPLE levels, which it is. And there's no reason for that. As Ronny said, it's about the residuals anyway. We would lose nothing, and only gain, if we switched to a residual only referral model. Let's wise up here.
And to the other side (@clayop, @bitcrab, etc.), I'll say this: Common sense dictates that if you incentivize a behavior, you will likely get more of it. Of course nothing is guaranteed. But it should be obvious that you simply CANNOT judge the effectiveness of the referral program after such a short amount of time, especially considering that we don't even have liquid BitAssets yet. You are NOT being reasonable by trying to remove the referral program.
Guys, we need to compromise here. I have VERY high hopes for Bitshares and have invested a LARGE sum of money. But I'm losing patience with the inability to compromise, and my shit load of BTS will move on to greener pastures if we can't figure this out and get on to the business of creating liquidity for BitAssets. Seriously, this is ridiculous.
-
wake up... looking at this voting result
-
@tbone I guess you don't pay attention. Where did I mention the flaw you pointed was towards the referral system or that you didn't support it?
I'm talking about all this sudden "need" to change what we have now. The quote from you is not even from the referral program but from the Lifetime membership part, which I disagree with you. It sets a commitment to the network and it's good to have that. Everyone is free to pay it or not.
@wallace if you want I can make 50 fake accounts and vote whatever option I want. Does your statement continue to stand true? Shareholder voting matters, not pools. These just help give an idea. It's not because of this pool that we need to "wake up". Unless you want me to make 50 fake accounts, of course.
-
I don't agree with this poll, the fee should be less than 0.1
As long as the system is safe, the lower the better
-
wake up... looking at this voting result
the only voting that counts is your stake.
-
@bitcrab
Your idea is destructive.
This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.
You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.
Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".
I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
+5%
We need to keep developing and improving the UX. The refer program is only as good as the conversion from the experience that is delivered.
The race to zero will do nothing but devalue our network and cause our market cap to plummet even further by pushing operations further into red.
People invest in companies that profit their shareholders. Not companies that lose in order for other companies to profit.
If this direction were to take place it would be the perfect staging ground to create a fork of Bitshares that competes because all prospects of future value for the network would be gone.
Speaking of staging.. how about this poll? This is a great showing of pre-planning. I wish the same organized effort could be put into building Bitshares, instead of taking it to zero.
-
@tbone I guess you don't pay attention. Where did I mention the flaw you pointed was towards the referral system or that you didn't support it?
I'm talking about all this sudden "need" to change what we have now. The quote from you is not even from the referral program but from the Lifetime membership part, which I disagree with you. It sets a commitment to the network and it's good to have that. Everyone is free to pay it or not.
Huh? What sets a commitment to the network? The option for a user to pay the LTM? That makes no sense. Please explain the actual benefit of the lifetime membership. Does the referrer get screwed when the user opts NOT to purchase LTM? In other words, are the residuals insufficient? If so, then let's force everyone to purchase LTM. If the residuals are NOT insufficient, then having a tiered system with the LTM adds complexity on multiple levels for no good reason. Again, as Ronny said, it's all about the residuals anyway.
By the way, I am not suddenly realizing that the LTM is problematic. This has been crystallizing for me for quite some time. What I'm only now starting to figure out is that having a built in governance model IS POINTLESS thanks to the inability of people to compromise.
-
you guys are very impatient. :P :P :P
-
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"
This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.
Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.
It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.
I guess you don't pay attention. I have always been a proponent of the referral program. In my last post I said we NEED the referral program. And I did NOT say it isn't working. In fact, I'm pretty sure it IS working. I just said that the tiered structure is complicated and counterproductive on MULTIPLE levels, which it is. And there's no reason for that. As Ronny said, it's about the residuals anyway. We would lose nothing, and only gain, if we switched to a residual only referral model. Let's wise up here.
And to the other side (@clayop, @bitcrab, etc.), I'll say this: Common sense dictates that if you incentivize a behavior, you will likely get more of it. Of course nothing is guaranteed. But it should be obvious that you simply CANNOT judge the effectiveness of the referral program after such a short amount of time, especially considering that we don't even have liquid BitAssets yet. You are NOT being reasonable by trying to remove the referral program.
Guys, we need to compromise here. I have VERY high hopes for Bitshares and have invested a LARGE sum of money. But I'm losing patience with the inability to compromise, and my shit load of BTS will move on to greener pastures if we can't figure this out and get on to the business of creating liquidity for BitAssets. Seriously, this is ridiculous.
Compromise is certainly possible.....a well considered approach to refinement of the referral structure that takes into consideration the impact on existing efforts/businesses I would support.....but I'm not seeing the magic formula here yet.
Ronny, what would you consider to be a sensible compromise, assuming that was possible for OL?
-
I think the percentage-based fee solution is a sensible compromise.
We can keep low transfer fees where they are needed the most (i.e. for small transfers) and at the same time preserve the referral program in areas where it makes most sense (i.e. for bigger amounts).
We'll be announcing the actual worker proposal very soon, most probably today.
-
a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.
-
a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.
+5% +5% +5% +5%
-
I think the percentage-based fee solution is a sensible compromise.
We can keep low transfer fees where they are needed the most (i.e. for small transfers) and at the same time preserve the referral program in areas where it makes most sense (i.e. for bigger amounts).
We'll be announcing the actual worker proposal very soon, most probably today.
Perhaps you are right jakub. I really appreciate everyone's efforts to get this right. The passion is truely inspirational. It gives me a great deal of confidence that we'll find the right balance. I just Want to avoid damage to an existing business model that is utilising existing parameters and is responsible for really great productivity before results have a chance to bed in.
Thank you.
-
I think the percentage-based fee solution is a sensible compromise.
We can keep low transfer fees where they are needed the most (i.e. for small transfers) and at the same time preserve the referral program in areas where it makes most sense (i.e. for bigger amounts).
We'll be announcing the actual worker proposal very soon, most probably today.
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
-
a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.
Isn't the $20 representative of a lifetime of product A where product A is a transaction fee? sorry if I've misunderstood.
-
try to replace "$" with "BTS".
-
a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.
While not quite the same.. we have this little chain of stores across North America that does just this.. they call themselves Costco. They only did $116 Billion in revenues last year. You prepay for membership in order to get discounts on your purchases. You don't even get a refer of all the future shopping those you refer.. but you do get something: http://www.costco.ca/refer-a-friend.html ... http://www.costco.com/join-costco.html
someone called this successful.
Paypal also used a refer program in order to grow its user base to what it is today. They moved $228 billion last year. How do you think they were doing in month 4 when they first launched the very first version of their service?
We have percentage based option coming in to handle this sort of thing. However he (bitcrab) won't support it because he knows that % means higher fees. Everyone seems to forget the hangout where BM did the math on flat fee vs. % and concluded that flat was far less. It was also concluded that all the % is going to do is fulfill a perception of less, not actually be less overall. Unless you set maximums. For a network implementing % fees so we can be more like other exchange rates though, we sure seem to have trouble doing anything that makes money.. ie. we can make more, but we are setting caps where nobody else is.
I like to at this time share with you some insights from someone who worked at Uber for 4 years. There are some important aspects to his story in relation to this whole debate that people should really take into consideration. Particularly how Uber had to deal with supply/demand issue and had to NOT listen to their customers in order to solve it. This could be really helpful in all the discussion surrounding our Smartcoin supply/demand issues too:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-things-i-learned-during-4-years-uber-michael-pao
Hope this helps.
-
a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.
Most companies have marketing costs that must be included in the price of the product. So building the cost of our referral program into the transaction fee is perfectly normal. However, I can see why the tiers might be viewed negatively since it gives a bit of a ponzi-ish impression, even though that is false. The other problem, as I've been arguing, is the tiers cause unnecessary complexity that confuses users and clouds the debate on percentage-based fees. But a basic, single-tiered referral program make sense and your arguments against it are not reasonable.
-
a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.
good point
we need to ask ourselves a question: what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
and another question: should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
In my opinion, transfer fees and trade fees should as low as posible,
because we need more active users, and good liquility.
the value of users/liquility is much more valuable than the poor transfer fees
and I guess referral program can work even more better with low transfer/trade fee,
we can got more fees for special service, such as issue an asset, active asset's market, upgrade account ....
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
-
Do you want to see businesses join this blockchain? That's where the growth can come from at this point. You are proposing to eliminate the incentive for them to do so.
If penny investors cannot afford the fee, then how much money are they really going to bring into BitShares? I'd rather have the CCEDKs of the world investing their own time and money to grow and innovate in this ecosystem.
If you don't like it, fork it. Free BitShares for everyone. And you figure out how to pay for the maintenance, growth, and support of your own system.
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
It's you that need to give us a good reason if you want to dilution. if you wan to spent our money.
tell us your plan about how to use this function,
and how much value could this bring us
-
a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.
good point
we need to ask ourselves a question: what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
and another question: should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
In my opinion, transfer fees and trade fees should as low as posible, because of we need more active users, and good liquility.
and I guess referral program can work even more better with low transfer/trade fee,
we can got more fees for special service, such as issue an asset, active asset's market, upgrade account ....
It's amazing how you avoid the main issue here: where is your proof that lowering the transfer fee from 30 to 1 BTS will bring more liquidity?
One piece of evidence, please. Apart from you saying that you believe so.
-
I think the percentage-based fee solution is a sensible compromise.
We can keep low transfer fees where they are needed the most (i.e. for small transfers) and at the same time preserve the referral program in areas where it makes most sense (i.e. for bigger amounts).
We'll be announcing the actual worker proposal very soon, most probably today.
Yes, it is a sensible compromise. Although how much of a compromise will depend on the final % and upper/lower bounds. Unfortunately we haven't had a real debate on these parameters largely because @bitcrab amazingly doesn't understand the merits of implementing percentage-based fees. It's also very disappointing that he continues to ignore the fact that we have a minimum network cost, and doesn't seem to appreciate why we should be discussing fees in terms of a stable currency.
-
of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion
-
Do you want to see businesses join this blockchain? That's where the growth can come from at this point. You are proposing to eliminate the incentive for them to do so.
If penny investors cannot afford the fee, then how much money are they really going to bring into BitShares? I'd rather have the CCEDKs of the world investing their own time and money to grow and innovate in this ecosystem.
If you don't like it, fork it. Free BitShares for everyone. And you figure out how to pay for the maintenance and support of your own system.
totally agree donkey
BTS is officially dead if the fees are lowered to 1... There will be no incentive for development much less block production.
-
Bitcrab,
- Do you agree BitShares is a business?
- Do you agree a business needs marketing?
BitShares can either
1. Pay marketing delegates from dilution who we've seen are hard to manage in a decentralized business and often don't add value
2. Use a referral programme which pays marketers but only for the results they achieve.
3. Have low fees and hope volume increases, bringing in liquidity and word of mouth marketing works.
You are choosing option 3.
Atm it is actually close imo between option 2 & 3 because BitShares doesn't have a tightly pegged, liquid Smartcoin product yet, so what exactly are the referrers selling?
So I agree with you that charging a high fee when you don't have product to sell, hoping referrers are magically going to bring in business is wrong. That's why I'm in favour of the percentage fee system, it makes BTS much cheaper and possibly attracts & enables a lot more small transaction type customers and business models but should significantly increase volume thereby minimising any negative short term impact on the referral programme.
However once the Smartcoin works well it will need to be marketed otherwise competitors will just copy them and spend money marketing them & your supporters will be crying to you everyday about no marketing. However you won't be able to use the referral programme because no-one will trust BTS to honour the agreement and the businesses that are building their model around it now will be gone.
(Your strategy will also increase the burden on dilution to pay for other expenses, witnesses and development as there will be little income when business does increase with such a low fee as a result the BTS you are proposing will be very centralized, with limited development and potential. Unless you are also incredibly focused on Smartcoins and there is enormous demand for them, you may attract more users but the value of BTS will decline because you will be paying for everything out of dilution.)
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
-
(http://funnyand.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Crab-Meme.jpg)
-
of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion
The crucial thing here is: how much more?
Yes, I doubt that it will change liquidity by more than 5%.
If you think otherwise, you need to prove it somehow, so that we have some rational basis to assume it's worth destroying the referral business incentive.
-
I don‘t get it.
Someone wants us to pay for 300K just to lower the fee while we can just vote down and cost nothing?
-
@tbone I guess you don't pay attention. Where did I mention the flaw you pointed was towards the referral system or that you didn't support it?
I'm talking about all this sudden "need" to change what we have now. The quote from you is not even from the referral program but from the Lifetime membership part, which I disagree with you. It sets a commitment to the network and it's good to have that. Everyone is free to pay it or not.
@wallace if you want I can make 50 fake accounts and vote whatever option I want. Does your statement continue to stand true? Shareholder voting matters, not pools. These just help give an idea. It's not because of this pool that we need to "wake up". Unless you want me to make 50 fake accounts, of course.
if you think these are fake accounts, I have no idea because I can not prove it. but I know most of chinese community member support to lower the fee to 1
and as you said, let's vote on our blockchain
-
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
Not true.
Your proposal will have these costs:
- lost revenue for the network
- irreparable damage to the business environment around BitShares
- irreparable damage to BitShares reputation (lack of stable rules)
- people who have bought LTM will be rightly upset
-
I don‘t get it.
Someone wants us to pay for 300K just to lower the fee while we can just vote down and cost nothing?
Yes, you're right. You don't get it.
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
Why do you continue to push for fees that are below our costs? This is very irresponsible. Also, even a flat fee at our cost would effectively kill the referral program. If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door. That is terrible behavior. You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.
-
of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion
The crucial thing here is: how much more?
Yes, I doubt that it will change liquidity by more than 5%.
If you think otherwise, you need to prove it somehow, so that we have some rational basis to assume it's worth destroying the referral business incentive.
nobody can tell you the exactely numuber
and I have no interesting for destroy the referral business totally.
like stan had said, you need to think bigger, don't focus on the poor transfer/trade fees
referral business can work perfect with low trade/transfer fees, just think other more special service, take money from those service.
-
If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door. That is terrible behavior. You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.
This. bitcrab is using exchange funds to get people with his 'agenda' voted into the committee and is now staging to do a hostile takeover. Not to mention that the committee was mislead by him once already, I really hope that users wake up and remove bad actors like him for the stability of the network. This is not good.
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
Why do you continue to push for fees that are below our costs? This is very irresponsible. Also, even a flat fee at our cost would effectively kill the referral program. If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door. That is terrible behavior. You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.
why? just because a few people think this is not something you like?
-
I don‘t get it.
Someone wants us to pay for 300K just to lower the fee while we can just vote down and cost nothing?
Yes, you're right. You don't get it.
Oh,now I get it! The baby who are good at crying can get more milk.
-
of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion
Lower fees will bring more liquidity, but only to a point. After that point, you gain nothing in liquidity and only reduce income by having lower fees. You have NOT shown that you have the slightest clue where that point is. So the only guarantee is that we will reduce income. That is a fact. Do you get it? Probably not.
-
of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion
Lower fees will bring more liquidity, but only to a point. After that point, you gain nothing in liquidity and only reduce income by having lower fees. You have NOT shown that you have the slightest clue where that point is. So the only guarantee is that we will reduce income. That is a fact. Do you get it? Probably not.
you need to think it bigger, pink
temporary no income doesn't mean no income. a lot of corporations attract plenty of users through free services at early stage.
-
of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion
The crucial thing here is: how much more?
Yes, I doubt that it will change liquidity by more than 5%.
If you think otherwise, you need to prove it somehow, so that we have some rational basis to assume it's worth destroying the referral business incentive.
nobody can tell you the exactely numuber
and I have no interesting for destroy the referral business totally.
like stan had said, you need to think bigger, don't focus on the poor transfer/trade fees
referral business can work perfect with low trade/transfer fees, just think other more special service, take money from those service.
alt, I do believe your intention are good.
But can you honestly say you are sure that lowering transfer fees to 1 BTS will make a significant change?
Would you honestly be willing to lose people like Ronny (the owner of OpenLedger), just to execute this experiment and find out that nothing has changed?
The current transfer fees, most probably, are not the primary reason for low user adoption and low liquidity.
We need to remove the primary reason first. Then we can revise the fees.
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
Why do you continue to push for fees that are below our costs? This is very irresponsible. Also, even a flat fee at our cost would effectively kill the referral program. If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door. That is terrible behavior. You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.
why? just because a few people think this is not something you like?
You ask why? Should I explain it to you like you're 5? bitcrab is arguing to have a flat fee that is LESS than the cost to the network, and LESS than the spam deterrent. He wants us to lose money on transfers, and he doesn't mind opening up an attack vector. Do you think that is responsible behavior?
-
we should create produce that user like .
the low price of bts show user do not like this product with high fee , user like lower fee ,
they are so many stupid man ,
do you know why market cap of doge coin is 4 times of bts .
clear-headed please .
-
ftw ... pay users 10 BTS for every transfer = even m0ar users!
:P
-
Chinese community members of BM serious dissatisfaction >:( >:( >:(
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
Why do you continue to push for fees that are below our costs? This is very irresponsible. Also, even a flat fee at our cost would effectively kill the referral program. If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door. That is terrible behavior. You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.
why? just because a few people think this is not something you like?
You ask why? Should I explain it to you like you're 5? bitcrab is arguing to have a flat fee that is LESS than the cost to the network, and LESS than the spam deterrent. He wants us to lose money on transfers, and he doesn't mind opening up an attack vector. Do you think that is responsible behavior?
yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.
-
a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.
So you're telling me that the transfer of 1 BTS is actually higher just because of the referral system? This doesn't even make any sense.
First, by the time BitShares gets to one dollar (if it does), of course sending BitShares won't cost you a 20$ fee. It will have been lowered by the committee way before in order to keep up. Fees should be pegged to USD. You're assuming it does stay the same. We're talking with completely different numbers, you can't just compare stuff this way, it's not logical
Second, most users don't and won't send 1 BTS for quite a while. We're not going for micropayments for a while and even if we did, there would be a solution that wouldn't jeopardize the entire system like this. Most users transfer or trade thousands or hundreds of BitShares at once.
This argument doesn't make sense at all. If your point was to prove that isn't a referral system, well, I don't know if it's the best concept, but it's working. If your point is to prove BTS transfer fees are high for the sake of the referral system, this doesn't make any sense because obviously the fee of sending 1 BTS if it ever reaches parity with the dollar won't ever be 20 BTS obviously.
Once again you don't provide proof that this would significantly increase our volume! That's what missing. Do it, provide it and convince me with facts and you will get my support.
This is just changing stuff for a whim, just "because" and jeopardizing the network and BitShare's image as a brand simply "because". Just to try it out. Because someone "thinks" it's the right think to do without basing decisions on actual facts and data. The irony is that BitShares 2.0 and the referral system isn't even old yet to provide that same data you need so it's virtually impossible to prove atm that the referral system is broken.
This only leaves you with other option. If you can't prove the referral system is bad because it isn't old enough, you need to come up with something that shows us how our volume is going to increase.
Given this I ask you the following questions:
- Why we don't need the referral system» since you're making it useless
- How will the volume increase?
- How many new users will join to trade?
- How will you manage unsatisfied lifetime members?
- How will you handle the lack of businesses joining BitShares? Remember, businesses are the ones who bring customers.
- How will you handle the bad image BitShares will have due to lack of focus and constant change of decisions?
- If the exchange doesn't become profitable due to lack of fees, how will you handle development?
More importantly
- How does this "supposed" increase in volume compensate for all the damage that it will cause?
I think you can't really answer that because so far you've only provided us with assumptions.
-
yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.
but why and how? this hasn't been explained. Business decisions made on assumptions while we already have people working for us because of the referral system and current fee structure.
Is it really worth it send OpenLedger and POS away just because of an assumption? What about other people? @JonnyBitcoin is working on his exchange, there are other projects that we might not be aware of.
We're just going to send them away, because of assumptions? No facts or proof? We're doing this when we've shown signs of growing? After just 2 months? What's happening is actually positive and you want to mess it all up just because of an assumption.
Wow, just wow.
-
If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door. That is terrible behavior. You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.
This. bitcrab is using exchange funds to get people with his 'agenda' voted into the committee and is now staging to do a hostile takeover. Not to mention that the committee was mislead by him once already, I really hope that users wake up and remove bad actors like him for the stability of the network. This is not good.
regarding the force settlement issue, I have explained clearly in this post:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20397.msg263064.html#msg263064 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20397.msg263064.html#msg263064)
regarding the exchnage voting issue, I also give many explanation in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20920.msg270837.html#msg270837 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20920.msg270837.html#msg270837)
everyone here can judge by themselves, no need another to tell them one people is good or bad.
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
Why do you continue to push for fees that are below our costs? This is very irresponsible. Also, even a flat fee at our cost would effectively kill the referral program. If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door. That is terrible behavior. You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.
why? just because a few people think this is not something you like?
You ask why? Should I explain it to you like you're 5? bitcrab is arguing to have a flat fee that is LESS than the cost to the network, and LESS than the spam deterrent. He wants us to lose money on transfers, and he doesn't mind opening up an attack vector. Do you think that is responsible behavior?
yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.
How can we have a rational conversation if you say you're ok with lowering the fees to BELOW spam deterrent? Do you even know what that means?
-
Chinese community members of BM serious dissatisfaction >:( >:( >:(
lol, so what, they already sold
The fundamental issue that is dividing us is this:
Do we want adoption?
or do we want profitability?
Nothing was shown that proves 1 bts fee will create the desired adoption and that it will compensate for all the damage caused.
-
yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.
but why and how? this hasn't been explained. Business decisions made on assumptions while we already have people working for us because of the referral system and current fee structure.
Is it really worth it send OpenLedger and POS away just because of an assumption? What about other people? @JonnyBitcoin is working on his exchange, there are other projects that we might not be aware of.
We're just going to send them away, because of assumptions? No facts or proof? We're doing this when we've shown signs of growing? After just 2 months? What's happening is actually positive and you want to mess it all up just because of an assumption.
Wow, just wow.
I didn't get why lowering fees means send OL and jonny away?
-
yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.
but why and how? this hasn't been explained. Business decisions made on assumptions while we already have people working for us because of the referral system and current fee structure.
Is it really worth it send OpenLedger and POS away just because of an assumption? What about other people? @JonnyBitcoin is working on his exchange, there are other projects that we might not be aware of.
We're just going to send them away, because of assumptions? No facts or proof? We're doing this when we've shown signs of growing? After just 2 months? What's happening is actually positive and you want to mess it all up just because of an assumption.
Wow, just wow.
I didn't get why lowering fees means send OL and jonny away?
Because it blows up the referral program
-
About the transfer fee , there are so many discuss , forum is not a good place to achieve the final agreement, since we have voting system base on shares value,
so I suggest that create a new proposal that reduce the fee , and let all of us vote it by shares .
-
of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion
The crucial thing here is: how much more?
Yes, I doubt that it will change liquidity by more than 5%.
If you think otherwise, you need to prove it somehow, so that we have some rational basis to assume it's worth destroying the referral business incentive.
nobody can tell you the exactely numuber
and I have no interesting for destroy the referral business totally.
like stan had said, you need to think bigger, don't focus on the poor transfer/trade fees
referral business can work perfect with low trade/transfer fees, just think other more special service, take money from those service.
alt, I do believe your intention are good.
But can you honestly say you are sure that lowering transfer fees to 1 BTS will make a significant change?
Would you honestly be willing to lose people like Ronny (the owner of OpenLedger), just to execute this experiment and find out that nothing has changed?
The current transfer fees, most probably, are not the primary reason for low user adoption and low liquidity.
We need to remove the primary reason first. Then we can revise the fees.
it's not about the fees directely, let me explain it more clearly
As I have heard from many people, they said BTS community only know money,
they will dilution as they like, they set a much higher fees sent to refer account
they do everything for money, require payment for every hour's work.
this is what others see BTS community
is this what you want to see?
everyone do everything would ask for a payment from dilution
if bytemaster, xeroc, cass, svk, abit can ask for payment for their work, why others need to work freely
I don't belive a community like this can success.
my advice is don't earn money from transfer/trade fees, just need to avoid spam attack
we develop special service to earn money, the special service people can choose whether need to use it.
we can eary more money from special service.
and try our best to stop dilution, pay from the network service's income.
-
yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.
but why and how? this hasn't been explained. Business decisions made on assumptions while we already have people working for us because of the referral system and current fee structure.
Is it really worth it send OpenLedger and POS away just because of an assumption? What about other people? @JonnyBitcoin is working on his exchange, there are other projects that we might not be aware of.
We're just going to send them away, because of assumptions? No facts or proof? We're doing this when we've shown signs of growing? After just 2 months? What's happening is actually positive and you want to mess it all up just because of an assumption.
Wow, just wow.
I didn't get why lowering fees means send OL and jonny away?
I dont know about Jonny but OL is definitely working based on the current fee model and without it, has no incentive to work. Like other businesses that might want to join.
Plus 1 bts fee makes the network easily vulnerable to spam
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
I'm sorry bitcrab, but who are you exactly?
-
You ask why? Should I explain it to you like you're 5? bitcrab is arguing to have a fat fee that is LESS than the cost to the network, and LESS than the spam deterrent. He wants us to lose money on transfers, and he doesn't mind opening up an attack vector. Do you think that is responsible behavior?
yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.
How can we have a rational conversation if you say you're ok with lowering the fees to BELOW spam deterrent? Do you even know what that means?
if you are talking about avoid the spam sttack, the attacker should make order and cancel order, that's free 1 day ago, and now the cost is 0.1 BTS
-
Can we just take this to voting and get done with it please? I think we need @kenCode , @ccedk, @JonnyBitcoin and @monsterer / @Shentist to tell us if they agree/disagree with this and the impact it would have to their businesses so everyone gets enlightened. Wasn't Metaexchange thinking about the possibility to migrate to BitShares? How would this affect you?
Then finally vote and get this done with. We have already lost too many time to this kind of discussions instead of addressing other important matters.
If we only dedicated so much time to find new ways to provide liquidity instead of insisting on this matter, I'm sure we would already have figured something out. Instead, we're constantly beating the same stuff over and over again..
-
yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.
but why and how? this hasn't been explained. Business decisions made on assumptions while we already have people working for us because of the referral system and current fee structure.
Is it really worth it send OpenLedger and POS away just because of an assumption? What about other people? @JonnyBitcoin is working on his exchange, there are other projects that we might not be aware of.
We're just going to send them away, because of assumptions? No facts or proof? We're doing this when we've shown signs of growing? After just 2 months? What's happening is actually positive and you want to mess it all up just because of an assumption.
Wow, just wow.
I didn't get why lowering fees means send OL and jonny away?
I dont know about Jonny but OL is definitely working based on the current fee model and without it, has no incentive to work. Like other businesses that might want to join.
Plus 1 bts fee makes the network easily vulnerable to spam
as I know OL is an exchange based on bts chain, a industry level trade experiences and plenty of users and liquidity. the propaganda we made to the exchange is based on this. if only a refreral system can bring users that's not our orignial goal, just if, and I don't see the actual real users number support this. what we need is to attract users, current high fees prevent a lot of crypto people join into bts, don't tell me I'm wrong, I'm in chinese QQ group and a lot of users complain this. they have no incentive to promote our prodcut, I'm very disappointed about this, maybe you guys don't mind this, you think these people are only speculators, but I think these people just what currently we need.
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
Why do you continue to push for fees that are below our costs? This is very irresponsible. Also, even a flat fee at our cost would effectively kill the referral program. If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door. That is terrible behavior. You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.
+5%
-
I hope you do not announce it in recent days, if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.
@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?
because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.
I'm sorry bitcrab, but who are you exactly?
does below answer your question?
(http://i4.tietuku.com/a16f8c31fe0b790b.jpg)
-
of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion
The crucial thing here is: how much more?
Yes, I doubt that it will change liquidity by more than 5%.
If you think otherwise, you need to prove it somehow, so that we have some rational basis to assume it's worth destroying the referral business incentive.
nobody can tell you the exactely numuber
and I have no interesting for destroy the referral business totally.
like stan had said, you need to think bigger, don't focus on the poor transfer/trade fees
referral business can work perfect with low trade/transfer fees, just think other more special service, take money from those service.
alt, I do believe your intention are good.
But can you honestly say you are sure that lowering transfer fees to 1 BTS will make a significant change?
Would you honestly be willing to lose people like Ronny (the owner of OpenLedger), just to execute this experiment and find out that nothing has changed?
The current transfer fees, most probably, are not the primary reason for low user adoption and low liquidity.
We need to remove the primary reason first. Then we can revise the fees.
it's not about the fees directely, let me explain it more clearly
As I have heard from many people, they said BTS community only know money,
they will dilution as they like, they set a much higher fees sent to refer account
they do everything for money, require payment for every hour's work.
this is what others see BTS community
is this what you want to see?
everyone do everything would ask for a payment from dilution
if bytemaster, xeroc, cass, svk, abit can ask for payment for their work, why others need to work freely
I don't belive a community like this can success.
my advice is don't earn money from transfer/trade fees, just need to avoid spam attack
we develop special service to earn money, the special service people can choose whether need to use it.
we can eary more money from special service.
and try our best to stop dilution, pay from the network service's income.
Think about this. We have costs. And if income is too low, those costs cause dilution. So you are in favor of dramatically reducing fees, and at the same time you are so against dilution. Do you see the contradiction?
In any event, I think your point about having low fees for transfers and higher fees for "special services" is reasonable. I don't think most people here would disagree with that. But if we set the fees crazy low, we're just throwing away money and achieving nothing except making the referral program less effective. Also, we can't have a real conversation if you're talking about a 1BTS flat fee. If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop that immediately.
I suggest discussing a reasonable fee schedule that reduces fees but not too dramatically, covers network costs, ensures spam deterrence, and enables micro-transactions. I think something like .1% fee with $.005 minimum and around $.10-.20 maximum would work.
By the way, I would also advance the idea of having a different fee for CNY vs. USD transactions. So with the example above, perhaps the same .1% fee and $.005 minimum, but a maximum of around $.03-.05. Making this work might not be trivial, but I'm sure it's very possible. And it might help us arrive at a solution that works for everyone. That way we can move on and work together to solve the BitAssets liquidity problem. What do you think?
-
I suggest discussing a reasonable fee schedule that reduces fees but not too dramatically, covers network costs, ensures spam deterrence, and enables micro-transactions. I think something like .1% fee with $.005 minimum and around $.10-.20 maximum would work.
+5%
I think something like 0.1% with a minimum of $0.01 and maximum of $0.1/$0.2 would be better.
-
Can we just take this to voting and get done with it please? I think we need @kenCode , @ccedk, @JonnyBitcoin and @monsterer / @Shentist to tell us if they agree/disagree with this and the impact it would have to their businesses so everyone gets enlightened. Wasn't Metaexchange thinking about the possibility to migrate to BitShares? How would this affect you?
Then finally vote and get this done with. We have already lost too many time to this kind of discussions instead of addressing other important matters.
If we only dedicated so much time to find new ways to provide liquidity instead of insisting on this matter, I'm sure we would already have figured something out. Instead, we're constantly beating the same stuff over and over again..
@Akado Totally agree with you here, we waste too much time on little things like this, I think fees are fine how they are now.
We really need to prioritise what are the most important things (liquidity)
I'm always bringing it up but nothing ever gets done. Can't the committee just sell the trade fees in to the market. that would be a start.
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you should compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
I have no idea, but somebody else on this forum claimed it to be $0.005-$0.01. I think, this should not be difficult to verify.
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
suppose we have 1tps volume, we'll support at least 864000(30*24*60*20) transactions per month
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/864000 = 0.000578703 USD = 0.15 BTS
-
@bitcrab please remove your personal infomation, you have right of privacy.
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
suppose we have 1tps volume, we'll support at least 864000(30*24*60*20) transactions per month
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/864000 = 0.000578703 USD = 0.15 BTS
2592000(30*24*60*60)
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/2592000= 0.000019 USD = 0.05 BTS
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
suppose we have 1tps volume, we'll support at least 864000(30*24*60*20) transactions per month
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/864000 = 0.000578703 USD = 0.15 BTS
2592000(30*24*60*60)
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/2592000= 0.000019 USD = 0.05 BTS
I think alt means 1 block 1 transaction, not 1 min 1 transaction
-
You stated your point well.
My concern with removing the incentive for the referral program, is that its just going to cause more of this "bitshares is always changing the rules" talk. wouldn't that hurt us more than finding a solution that keeps the referral program in tact? Abit has stated that he would accept the majority of his payment as vesting for 6 months or 1 year.
Thanks for the clear communication on this bitcrab.
thanks puppies.
if the change is greatly agreed by the community, then that's not a problem.
I plan to just reduce the transfer fee to 1 BTS, without touching others.
I have stated that I am ok to pay 3M BTS to a worker proposal, the precondition is that I believe the proposal will lead to a consequence which is satisfactory enough.
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
suppose we have 1tps volume, we'll support at least 864000(30*24*60*20) transactions per month
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/864000 = 0.000578703 USD = 0.15 BTS
Those numbers are wrong. This is blatant manipulation of facts.
This means cutting witness pay by a factor of more than 7 and reducing their ability to support the network and leaving no reason for them to continue maintaining it. We would also have to stop publishing bitasset feeds. There goes all our Smartcoins.
This will effectively make Witnesses subject to collusion by whom ever will pay them the difference to do the work to maintain the network.
This is utterly a plan for the entire disassembly of DPOS and the destruction of Bitshares DEX.
Wow.. this is what you and bitcrab want and you both are on the Committee meant to protect Bitshares?
Let the Bitshares holders decide with their votes for Committee members accordingly if they think this is in the best interests of Bitshares.
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
BM said in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $.005-.01. You can't advance a serious proposal without knowing this number. Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about fees in terms of BTS considering its volatility.
I would urge you to consider the percentage-based fee (with USD or CNY max/min) as this can meet the varied goals (reduces fees but not too dramatically, covers network costs, spam deterrence, and enables micro-transactions). Yes, there is a dilution cost, but it's not substantial and I do believe @abit agreed to have the payments vest. Finally, what do you think of a possible compromise where the max fee can potentially be set lower for CNY than USD?
I really hope we can get this behind us very soon. As @JonnyBitcoin has been urging, we really need to get on with the business of improving liquidity for BitAssets and it would be great if we could all put our heads together for the common good.
-
before BTS2, the fee is 0.1 BTS, it runs good, so security or cost is not a good reason to object 1BTS fee
-
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
BM said in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $.005-.01. You can't advance a serious proposal without knowing this number. Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about fees in terms of BTS considering its volatility.
I would urge you to consider the percentage-based fee (with USD or CNY max/min) as this can meet the varied goals (reduces fees but not too dramatically, covers network costs, spam deterrence, and enables micro-transactions). Yes, there is a dilution cost, but it's not substantial and I do believe @abit agreed to have the payments vest. Finally, what do you think of a possible compromise where the max fee can potentially be set lower for CNY than USD?
I really hope we can get this behind us very soon. As @JonnyBitcoin has been urging, we really need to get on with the business of improving liquidity for BitAssets and it would be great if we could all put our heads together for the common good.
This
In addition, the full picture in figures in detail would be more objective than those currently being put forward bitcrab....assuming we can't reach tbone's compromise.
-
as I know OL is an exchange based on bts chain, a industry level trade experiences and plenty of users and liquidity. the propaganda we made to the exchange is based on this. if only a refreral system can bring users that's not our orignial goal, just if, and I don't see the actual real users number support this. what we need is to attract users, current high fees prevent a lot of crypto people join into bts, don't tell me I'm wrong, I'm in chinese QQ group and a lot of users complain this. they have no incentive to promote our prodcut, I'm very disappointed about this, maybe you guys don't mind this, you think these people are only speculators, but I think these people just what currently we need.
Then could you ask on the QQ group what's the highest fee they would be willing to pay please? 1 seems to low to some. would you ask if they would consider a bit more? I dont know, 10, 8, 7, 5?
Maybe we can reach a middle term where everyone's happy or just opt by the percentage based fees, which seems to best method so far, seems to make everyone relatively happy.
-
before BTS2, the fee is 0.1 BTS, it runs good, so security or cost is not a good reason to object 1BTS fee
Are you serious? And you're a witness? Wow.
-
The problem is also that 80% of fees are paid to referrer. This is a way too much. Referral program should help to set up new users, not to enslave them. All bitshares holders are motivated enough to refer new users, since it helps the network to grow and raises the value of BTS. Paying $100 to get out of referral slavery is ridiculous. Referrer should get just enough BTS to compensate his/her expenses, all the rest should be paid to the network.
-
i don't get why so many people are so pumped up and i don't get why we need to make right now a decision on this case?
question should be: will lowering the transaction fees bring more users?
- some people think - yes
- some people think - no
but no party can prove their position with facts.
if we lower the transaction fees to 1 BTS what will happen to the referral program? is it dead?
- for this decision, can any referral talk about his numbers?
- how many accounts are created and used?
- how many fees got collected?
if "fav" as the biggest referral (i don't count openledger) could talk about his experience it would be easier to understand what it means to him and bitshares to lower the fees.
personally i think if we have a better product our fees can be higher and i think it is maybe to early to change some parameters yet. We should wait and look how we get traction after
STEALTH. The problem with changing right now will be that "maybe" more people will joining and transering, but we can not tell if it was STEALTH or that we lowered the fees, why
people joined our platform.
-
if "fav" as the biggest referral (i don't count openledger) could talk about his experience it would be easier to understand what it means to him and bitshares to lower the fees.
I did this already
here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20653.0.html and here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20929.msg270924.html#msg270924
-
if "fav" as the biggest referral (i don't count openledger) could talk about his experience it would be easier to understand what it means to him and bitshares to lower the fees.
I did this already
here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20653.0.html and here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20929.msg270924.html#msg270924
thanks for the info!
i took the time to check most of the created accounts http://cryptofresh.com/u/fav
and 95% of them are not even once used. it looks to me on openledger-reg i will find similar results. so most people are looking and not using. if this are the normal
numbers we really can lower our transaction fees, because the referral program is not working like intented.
i personal think we should look to provide solutions for existing communities to make it easy and create solutions to count or give access via our blockchain.
our webwallet could be used for everything.
- gives access to a website
- create and count every project you can think
maybe it is not useful to go out and aquire random people. maybe it is better to look into communities who in need for some product like ours.
-
if "fav" as the biggest referral (i don't count openledger) could talk about his experience it would be easier to understand what it means to him and bitshares to lower the fees.
I did this already
here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20653.0.html and here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20929.msg270924.html#msg270924
thanks for the info!
i took the time to check most of the created accounts http://cryptofresh.com/u/fav
and 95% of them are not even once used. it looks to me on openledger-reg i will find similar results. so most people are looking and not using. if this are the normal
numbers we really can lower our transaction fees, because the referral program is not working like intented.
i personal think we should look to provide solutions for existing communities to make it easy and create solutions to count or give access via our blockchain.
our webwallet could be used for everything.
- gives access to a website
- create and count every project you can think
maybe it is not useful to go out and aquire random people. maybe it is better to look into communities who in need for some product like ours.
no, as I mentioned in my AMA thread. it's all about numbers. you can't come to a conclusion with just 100 refs, and literally no features on the dex for people to use.
-
I don't see why you have to bring the referral program into it. The various fees and the referral program are different things. We should not change the referral program, as it has proved to be a great motivator for people who actually do something, and it would undermine all trust in the system for a very long time.
When it comes to various fees that's an entirely different matter. We need an intelligent fee structure that creates the right balanced incentive for users and referrers alike. What is the right balance? Currently the main objection to fees seems to be that it is too high for low transfers. The obvious solution is percentage-based fee system.
In the end there isn't really a big conflict between the referral system and the fees, because nobody will be able to get any referral fees if nobody is willing to use the system. So there's no need to construct the situation in opposition like that.
-
I just read like 20 times in this thread that the referral program is not effectif ...
The referral program is not about giving us 100.000 new users in 3 month ! Come on !
It's about incentive people to find ways to promote BitShares. So they can have cool revenues in the furture if they do it well.
As far I can observe, it's working pretty well after only 90 days !
As an example, with two friends we have been working on www.bitsharesfcx.com/ (http://www.bitsharesfcx.com/) for about a year. We translated like crazy everything available in french, BTS 101, the client, bts.org, the infographics, articles, ... we learn HTML, CSS, some PHP and MySQL to code a web page with a forum and much more coming in the next months.
There is hundreds of hours of work there ! This work more the expenses didn't cost even 1 single bts to BitShares. Thanks to the referral program !
Now if you check how many person we have referred ... not a lot !
Why ? Because we are just starting ! We'll finish our 2 first videos soon and we will start to speak about us and bts in every single french speaking place in the web where people speaks about economy, cryptography, crpto curreencies, ...
This is just one tiny example of what effect can have the referral program.
My point is, it works PERFECTLY !
About the fees, I think this thread wouldn't even exist if the persons in favor of the Bitcrab would have read the prefect solution of the "% fee with low and high cap". This can't be even a debate, because it would make everybody happy, chinese community, american, europeen, referrers, businesses, ... everyone HAPPY !!!
Is there even one good argument out there why this is not the solution to this pointless debate ?
(I hope noboby will bring on the table the 3M bts cost because it's really nothing compare to the amazingness of the proposal and the peace that will bring in this community)
-
and 95% of them are not even once used. it looks to me on openledger-reg i will find similar results. so most people are looking and not using. if this are the normal
numbers we really can lower our transaction fees, because the referral program is not working like intented.
Yep. They sign up, possibly get some free token from OL, make 1 transfer and that's it, they're done.
Why is that?
-
1. Keep referral program
2. ~~Percentage-based transfer fee
3. ¿¿¿Problem???
4. Profit
-
I just read like 20 times in this thread that the referral program is not effectif ...
The referral program is not about giving us 100.000 new users in 3 month ! Come on !
It's about incentive people to find ways to promote BitShares. So they can have cool revenues in the furture if they do it well.
As far I can observe, it's working pretty well after only 90 days !
Are you incentivized after 90 days?
How many accounts have you signed up?
How many of those accounts have made more than one transfer?
Can you support your marketing efforts with the funds you've earned from referrals, if any?
Is it worth your time?
I simply don't see it "working" as envisioned.
I'm very thankful for my free LTM, because I would not pay the fee for a LTM and I just don't see that many others willing to either.
But that's just been my experience, yours may vary.
-
I just read like 20 times in this thread that the referral program is not effectif ...
The referral program is not about giving us 100.000 new users in 3 month ! Come on !
It's about incentive people to find ways to promote BitShares. So they can have cool revenues in the furture if they do it well.
As far I can observe, it's working pretty well after only 90 days !
Are you incentivized after 90 days?
Since I read about BitShares the very first time because of the beauty of the project and much more since last year when BM explain how the ref. prog. of BTS 2.0 would work. So, much more than 90 days.
How many accounts have you signed up?
Around a dozen. As I said, we will start now to refer. Untill now it was just preparation, finishing the website, the forum, our tokens system and our introduction videos.
How many of those accounts have made more than one transfer?
Not a lot, why would they, they are not trader but investors. There is not a the moment a lot of things you can do with you bts except for trading. KenCode, Ronny, and others are changing this, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Can you support your marketing efforts with the funds you've earned from referrals, if any?
Obviously not ! Using the BitShares referral program is an investment in time, money or both. I guess you know how an investment works ? First you put time and money on the table for nothing but the expectation of future and bigger returns.
Is it worth your time?
It depends. If you like the philosophy of BitShares, the peole in the community pushing hard this porject, reading and writing about it and evolving your very own little project on it with your friends ... off course is "worth" my time. Even if I never win more than 500 bts with it, I will have learn a lot and mostly, I will have TRY !
I simply don't see it "working" as envisioned.
The huuuuuge network effecf will come one day but we also have a responsability in its coming. Bitcrab is doing a good job trying to fix something in BitShares he perceive to be wrong. His way of doing that is maybe a little aggressive and inflexible. I mean the result of his thread is 10 pages with animosity about fees below the strickly minimum to be sustainable ... hmm
I'm very thankful for my free LTM, because I would not pay the fee for a LTM and I just don't see that many others willing to either.
Waouw, you have it for free ! That's cool ! No reason to not be happy ;p
But that's just been my experience, yours may vary.
Yes it varies :P
-
I just read like 20 times in this thread that the referral program is not effectif ...
The referral program is not about giving us 100.000 new users in 3 month ! Come on !
It's about incentive people to find ways to promote BitShares. So they can have cool revenues in the furture if they do it well.
As far I can observe, it's working pretty well after only 90 days !
Are you incentivized after 90 days?
Since I read about BitShares the very first time because of the beauty of the project and much more since last year when BM explain how the ref. prog. of BTS 2.0 would work. So, much more than 90 days.
How many accounts have you signed up?
Around a dozen. As I said, we will start now to refer. Untill now it was just preparation, finishing the website, the forum, our tokens system and our introduction videos.
How many of those accounts have made more than one transfer?
Not a lot, why would they, they are not trader but investors. There is not a the moment a lot of things you can do with you bts except for trading. KenCode, Ronny, and others are changing this, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Can you support your marketing efforts with the funds you've earned from referrals, if any?
Obviously not ! Using the BitShares referral program is an investment in time, money or both. I guess you know how an investment works ? First you put time and money on the table for nothing but the expectation of future and bigger returns.
Is it worth your time?
It depends. If you like the philosophy of BitShares, the peole in the community pushing hard this porject, reading and writing about it and evolving your very own little project on it with your friends ... off course is "worth" my time. Even if I never win more than 500 bts with it, I will have learn a lot and mostly, I will have TRY !
I simply don't see it "working" as envisioned.
The huuuuuge network effecf will come one day but we also have a responsability in its coming. Bitcrab is doing a good job trying to fix something in BitShares he perceive to be wrong. His way of doing that is maybe a little aggressive and inflexible. I mean the result of his thread is 10 pages with animosity about fees below the strickly minimum to be sustainable ... hmm
I'm very thankful for my free LTM, because I would not pay the fee for a LTM and I just don't see that many others willing to either.
Waouw, you have it for free ! That's cool ! No reason to not be happy ;p
But that's just been my experience, yours may vary.
Yes it varies :P
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
i am right that the tradingfees are not going to the referrals?
i think the real problem is that, not every fee is shared with the referral.
i agree that we should not change every day something. makes no sense if we want to get more people on board.
but it is obvious that our community lack the bigger picture
"in which business are?"
i think this is the fundamental problem here.
to pay for BIPS10 is the way better approach. We are more fexible this way. I think it is or was a mistake to not consider that 1 set of transferfee would be enough.
-
i am right that the tradingfees are not going to the referrals?
i think the real problem is that, not every fee is shared with the referral.
Trading fee? You mean %-fee? If so, it's set by the issuer and go to the issuer for sure, why referrals?
I believe the 10 BTS order placing fee is shared with referral program.
-
1. The referral program is one key to success for Bitshares and Bitcash. It's an extremely efficient way of allocating marketing resources. If anyone thinks a product sells itself without any marketing that person doesn't understand business. The technology is important, but any other system can emulate or even fork features so that makes marketing and distribution more critical. Dropbox, Paypal, Square and many other companies have used referral systems extremely effectively.
2. The referral program attracts and provides an incentive for a variety of businesses to use and build applications on Bitshares. It provides some sustenance to these businesses. Most other businesses that build on Bitcoin or other ecosysems are not sustainable.
3. The price someone is willing to pay reflects the value something provides. Bitshares has to be useful. Fees help us identify areas where we are solving the biggest problem. We can solve a problem for merchants if we make it easy to use, charge lower processing fees, eliminate chargebacks, and bring in new potential customers. We can solve problems for those that don't want to or can't use traditional banking systems. Those users and merchants should be willing to pay fees. Peer-to-peer payments are already free with Alipay, Wechat, Unionpay in China and it's free in the US with Paypal, Square, Facebook, Apple(soon) ..all these companies already have a huge network effect and billions to spend on marketing. We can go after peer-to-peer payments later. It's not wise to use resources to go against these giants directly.
4. The fees are not the biggest issue, but in China I understand that overall prices are lower so regional pricing makes sense.
5. The Bitshares system doesn't need to earn a profit in the beginning. It just has to pay for marketing, witnesses, and software development. All we have to do is set the bare minimum network fee for sustainability. We can have a small budget for ongoing core development, but rely on FBA's for advanced features.
6. What if we:
a. Determine the lowest sustainable fee structure that will pay for witnesses and a reasonable amount of software development and maintenance in the long run. This will be the network fee. It can be in dollar/yuan terms.
b. Create a flexible fee structure so that certain Smartcoins (bitUSD,bitEUR), UIA's, Privatized bitAssets, FBA's can charge an additional fee to pay for marketing costs and utilize the existing referral program as is. We can allow other Privatized bitAssets (TCNY) or Smartcoins (bitCNY) to charge no additional fee and find a way to market itself with no money and no referral program... or possibly find outside VC money for marketing somehow.
What do you guys think?
-
There is hundreds of hours of work there ! This work more the expenses didn't cost even 1 single bts to BitShares. Thanks to the referral program !
You byte 80% of fees from bitshares and claim that it does not cost it a single BTS? What a nonsense!
-
There is hundreds of hours of work there ! This work more the expenses didn't cost even 1 single bts to BitShares. Thanks to the referral program !
You byte 80% of fees from bitshares and claim that it does not cost it a single BTS? What a nonsense!
Anyone with LTM has prepaid for those transaction fees. How many people do you think have recouped the cost of LTM in fees yet?? Very few if any, so the system has a surplus from LTM so far.
-
How do business owners think?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21223.msg275321.html#msg275321
-
Check the revenue of bitsharesfcx, the few accounts we have referred at the moment gave us a couple hundreds bts.
So, one year, 3 persons working on making BitShares accessible to any french speaker. All of that work for less than 200 bts ... 0.5$
You are right ! Shame on us !!! ;p
These ridiculous few bts we gain were not taking from BitShares, they came from the users. The very same users we place in the system.
-
There is hundreds of hours of work there ! This work more the expenses didn't cost even 1 single bts to BitShares. Thanks to the referral program !
You byte 80% of fees from bitshares and claim that it does not cost it a single BTS? What a nonsense!
Anyone with LTM has prepaid for those transaction fees. How many people do you think have recouped the cost of LTM in fees yet?? Very few if any, so the system has a surplus from LTM so far.
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.
-
Check the revenue of bitsharesfcx, the few accounts we have referred at the moment gave us a couple hundreds bts.
So, one year, 3 persons working on making BitShares accessible to any french speaker. All of that work for less than 200 bts ... 0.5$
You are right ! Shame on us !!! ;p
These ridiculous few bts we gain were not taking from BitShares, they came from the users. The very same users we place in the system.
You just demonstrate here that referral system didn't work for you. You didn't bring active users into system, but you paid ridiculous LTM fee, 80% of which went to another referrer.
-
This % can be lower by the community if some day it become too much but right now, it's one of best way we have to attract business on BitShares.
Why would you want to remove it ?
-
Check the revenue of bitsharesfcx, the few accounts we have referred at the moment gave us a couple hundreds bts.
So, one year, 3 persons working on making BitShares accessible to any french speaker. All of that work for less than 200 bts ... 0.5$
You are right ! Shame on us !!! ;p
These ridiculous few bts we gain were not taking from BitShares, they came from the users. The very same users we place in the system.
You just demonstrate here that referral system didn't work for you. You didn't bring active users into system, but you paid ridiculous LTM fee, 80% of which went to another referrer.
I'm not expecting to win money right now. I just wanted to help to spread information about BitShares with two friends.
When BM explain the RP in past june, it cheers up our little team and we push our project further because we saw that we could have fun with it but also maybe one day have some nice incomes from it.
So I would say, the RP works very well.
-
You just demonstrate here that referral system didn't work for you. You didn't bring active users into system, but you paid ridiculous LTM fee, 80% of which went to another referrer.
No. It just demonstrates that without liquidity and efficient gateways BitShares is hard to sell to customers despite all the effort that EstefanTT has made.
And he admits he wouldn't have made this effort, if there was no referral system incentive.
If you are against the referral system, it's up to you, yvv, to demonstrate that BitShares would have had more users, if we didn't have the referral system and had very low transfer fees instead.
So far none of you has been able to produce any evidence for this.
You want to change something, then it's you who needs to demonstrate that the change has a valid reason and that BitShares would be better off after the change.
-
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.
20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?
-
You just demonstrate here that referral system didn't work for you. You didn't bring active users into system, but you paid ridiculous LTM fee, 80% of which went to another referrer.
No. It just demonstrates that without liquidity and efficient gateways BitShares is hard to sell to customers despite all the effort that EstefanTT has made.
And he admits he wouldn't have made this effort, if there was no referral system incentive.
If you are against the referral system, it's up to you, yvv, to demonstrate that BitShares would have had more users, if we hadn't had the referral system.
So far none of you has been able to produce any evidence for this.
I am not against the referral system. It is great to help a new user to set up account. I am against paying 80% of fees to referrer. Fees should go to network. I should not need to pay $100 to become a referrer. I don't need no reward for referring new users, but I need a refund for account creation fee which I will pay for them. The way referral system is set up now just does not work for me. Of course, others may have different opinion on this matter.
-
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.
20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?
You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
-
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.
20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?
You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
"Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only." -- You suggest a referrer should simply break even - wouldn't that give zero incentive to actively refer users? Moreover, you should consider that the cost to acquire a user involves costs for trying unsuccessfully to acquire users who do not sign-up.
-
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.
20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?
You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
"Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only." -- You suggest a referrer should simply break even - wouldn't that give zero incentive to actively refer users? Moreover, you should consider that the cost to acquire a user involves costs for trying unsuccessfully to acquire users who do not sign-up.
If you invest in BTS, you have incentive to bring more users right away. More active users, better for BTS. If this is not enough incentive to you, then BTS is worthless. Referrers should be discouraged to create accounts which are never used. Those are spamers.
-
If you think you have a lot of users who want lower fees, then who are they? There are 11 pages of messages in this thread. I'm guessing (though I have not counted) that at least 20 or 30 different people have posted their thoughts. And it seems like only 2 or 3 posters actually want these low fees. Everyone else prefers to fund the system and help it grow.
Jakub keeps asking for evidence that low fees would attract people. Also, I question whether this poll is anywhere near accurate (I don't think so). If you have more real people who want lower fees, ask them not just to vote, but to post here also and explain why. They can write it in Chinese if they want. Then we'll believe they exist and we'll listen to their reasons.
As @jakub keeps asking you, please present some evidence that lower fees would help, not just the opinion of 2 or 3 loud posters. If there are more members than 2 or 3 who want lower fees, then ask them to post also.
-
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.
20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?
You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
"Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only." -- You suggest a referrer should simply break even - wouldn't that give zero incentive to actively refer users? Moreover, you should consider that the cost to acquire a user involves costs for trying unsuccessfully to acquire users who do not sign-up.
If you invest in BTS, you have incentive to bring more users right away. More active users, better for BTS. If this is not enough incentive to you, then BTS is worthless. Referrers should be discouraged to create accounts which are never used. Those are spamers.
A referrer earns 0 from accounts that are created and never used, so they are naturally discouraged to not create accounts that are not used.
-
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.
20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?
You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
"Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only." -- You suggest a referrer should simply break even - wouldn't that give zero incentive to actively refer users? Moreover, you should consider that the cost to acquire a user involves costs for trying unsuccessfully to acquire users who do not sign-up.
If you invest in BTS, you have incentive to bring more users right away. More active users, better for BTS. If this is not enough incentive to you, then BTS is worthless. Referrers should be discouraged to create accounts which are never used. Those are spamers.
A referrer earns 0 from accounts that are created and never used, so they are naturally discouraged to not create accounts that are not used.
They have 80% of fees from accounts which are used. So, they are encouraged to create accounts randomly, and if 5% of them are actually used, referrer has good chance to break even in short time.
-
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.
20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?
You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
"Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only." -- You suggest a referrer should simply break even - wouldn't that give zero incentive to actively refer users? Moreover, you should consider that the cost to acquire a user involves costs for trying unsuccessfully to acquire users who do not sign-up.
If you invest in BTS, you have incentive to bring more users right away. More active users, better for BTS. If this is not enough incentive to you, then BTS is worthless. Referrers should be discouraged to create accounts which are never used. Those are spamers.
A referrer earns 0 from accounts that are created and never used, so they are naturally discouraged to not create accounts that are not used.
true, except if you are the OpenLedger. then you say... "see we have all these new account sign ups - pay for obituaries (OBITS) now and you will see how we capitalize on them in no time (just wait 1 year or so)"
-
If you think you have a lot of users who want lower fees, then who are they? There are 11 pages of messages in this thread. I'm guessing (though I have not counted) that at least 20 or 30 different people have posted their thoughts. And it seems like only 2 or 3 posters actually want these low fees. Everyone else prefers to fund the system and help it grow.
Jakub keeps asking for evidence that low fees would attract people. Also, I question whether this poll is anywhere near accurate (I don't think so). If you have more real people who want lower fees, ask them not just to vote, but to post here also and explain why. They can write it in Chinese if they want. Then we'll believe they exist and we'll listen to their reasons.
As @jakub keeps asking you, please present some evidence that lower fees would help, not just the opinion of 2 or 3 loud posters. If there are more members than 2 or 3 who want lower fees, then ask them to post also.
I support low fees，我说中文你看得懂吗？这里有一吨的人支持low fees
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21192.0.html
-
want earn moeny before you have enough users???
even you have enough users
still should think about how to earn money from users In order to avoid the loss of the users
is BTS unique, there is no substitute?
wake up
-
I am with China on this one... I support low fees. Bitshares is too young to push users away because of low fees.
Openledger, by far the biggest referrer, has barely made chump change off the referral program. We should not base our decisions off of a failure of a feature.
If OpenLedger packs up shop because we lower fees then so be it. I own some OBITS and still could care less if they survive or not. I prefer that Bitshares thrives rather than OpenLedger survives.
I posit others will be willing to take OpenLedger's position as the cornerstone business of the Bitshares ecosystem and won't complain about transfer fees affecting the referral program. There are other profitable avenues for businesses to make money with Bitshares than simply the referral program.
Furthermore, it is kind of obnoxious to me Ronny makes 200-300k from the issuance of OBITS tokens then has the balls to blackmail us into leaving transaction fees as they are:
I will personally pull out of anything related with BitShares if this is voted out, as I will have no belief or incentive in the continuous pull for getting BTS and OpenLedger known worldwide.
He has no incentive... because he already pocketed $237,000 for a few months of work. Must be nice...
According to OBITS issuer and market maker, CCEDK, a Danish crytocurrency exchange, the OBITS crowd sale has so far managed to generate total public sales amounting to around 645 Bitcoin (BTC) – equivalent to around $237,000 (c.€217,000/£166,000) as of today. This has been spent purely on development costs and enhanced user experience.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2016/01/16/cryptocurrency-obits-ending-crowd-sale-with-buyback-dividend-option-adding-fiat-gateway/#27a08e2b4207
-
1. The referral program is one key to success for Bitshares and Bitcash. It's an extremely efficient way of allocating marketing resources. If anyone thinks a product sells itself without any marketing that person doesn't understand business. The technology is important, but any other system can emulate or even fork features so that makes marketing and distribution more critical. Dropbox, Paypal, Square and many other companies have used referral systems extremely effectively.
2. The referral program attracts and provides an incentive for a variety of businesses to use and build applications on Bitshares. It provides some sustenance to these businesses. Most other businesses that build on Bitcoin or other ecosysems are not sustainable.
3. The price someone is willing to pay reflects the value something provides. Bitshares has to be useful. Fees help us identify areas where we are solving the biggest problem. We can solve a problem for merchants if we make it easy to use, charge lower processing fees, eliminate chargebacks, and bring in new potential customers. We can solve problems for those that don't want to or can't use traditional banking systems. Those users and merchants should be willing to pay fees. Peer-to-peer payments are already free with Alipay, Wechat, Unionpay in China and it's free in the US with Paypal, Square, Facebook, Apple(soon) ..all these companies already have a huge network effect and billions to spend on marketing. We can go after peer-to-peer payments later. It's not wise to use resources to go against these giants directly.
4. The fees are not the biggest issue, but in China I understand that overall prices are lower so regional pricing makes sense.
5. The Bitshares system doesn't need to earn a profit in the beginning. It just has to pay for marketing, witnesses, and software development. All we have to do is set the bare minimum network fee for sustainability. We can have a small budget for ongoing core development, but rely on FBA's for advanced features.
6. What if we:
a. Determine the lowest sustainable fee structure that will pay for witnesses and a reasonable amount of software development and maintenance in the long run. This will be the network fee. It can be in dollar/yuan terms.
b. Create a flexible fee structure so that certain Smartcoins (bitUSD,bitEUR), UIA's, Privatized bitAssets, FBA's can charge an additional fee to pay for marketing costs and utilize the existing referral program as is. We can allow other Privatized bitAssets (TCNY) or Smartcoins (bitCNY) to charge no additional fee and find a way to market itself with no money and no referral program... or possibly find outside VC money for marketing somehow.
What do you guys think?
This seems like a potential way to resolve this. I think it would be beneficial for Asset owners/creators to be able adjust the fee structure for their assets in order to better cater to their customers or marketing approach.
-
We can compromise, get percentage based fees, have micro transactions, and still support the referral program. I think the bad pr of constantly changing and screwing over anyone that attempts to build on our blockchain is worth the 3M bts abit is asking.
All the people that are saying that reducing the fees to this level won't cause massive pain and damage to some are delusional.
All those that think that ignoring the concerns of the low fee crowd will not cause massive pain and damage to some are delusional.
Let's start thinking about compromise. We are a globe spanning chain. This squabbling is really unbecoming.
-
i am right that the tradingfees are not going to the referrals?
ja, you're right.
-
We can compromise, get percentage based fees, have micro transactions, and still support the referral program. I think the bad pr of constantly changing and screwing over anyone that attempts to build on our blockchain is worth the 3M bts abit is asking.
All the people that are saying that reducing the fees to this level won't cause massive pain and damage to some are delusional.
All those that think that ignoring the concerns of the low fee crowd will not cause massive pain and damage to some are delusional.
Let's start thinking about compromise. We are a globe spanning chain. This squabbling is really unbecoming.
+5%
-
thanks to all who read my suggestion carefully and give helpful feedback.
up to now 106 users voted, about 50% support 1 BTS or 0.1 BTS transfer fee, at least this shows that it's not wasting time to discuss this topic, there are many users/shareholders who are very unsatisfactory on current fee stucture, anyway, no need to rush, it is still needed to do some deeper review/analysis on some key topics, from my side, I'll try to dig on below topics:
1.what a transfer fee is reasonable according to cost and competetion?
2. I am not intent to remove referral program, now I just consider to reduce the transfer fee, however currently the referral program has a tight link with the transfer fee. so we cannot ignore referral program, we need to ask below question:
if the referral program could only work with a transfer fee which is much higher than reasonable level and then actually enslave the users/shareholders, does it conform to a valid business ethical?
3. is it possible that Bitshares become a platform that businessmen can develop their business of different types upon it with great convenience, and meanwhile without enslaving users/shareholders or disturbing each other?
-
一个农民不想村里通路，因为通路了他就没法在路上捡牛粪去卖了
---引用;)
-
i am right that the tradingfees are not going to the referrals?
ja, you're right.
erm .. yes they do .. partially ..
The fees from creating/canceling/updating orders go to the referral program and thus 20% of it go to BTS.
The percentage market fees for each trade go to the issuer currently and the MAKER proposal wants to distribute THOSE to liquidity providers (if the issuer agrees)
-
i am right that the tradingfees are not going to the referrals?
ja, you're right.
erm .. yes they do .. partially ..
The fees from creating/canceling/updating orders go to the referral program and thus 20% of it go to BTS.
when was this implemented?
-
That's the case for ALL operations on the network ...
however, don't mix 'operational fees' with 'trading fees' which are a different thing
-
If OpenLedger packs up shop because we lower fees then so be it. I own some OBITS and still could care less if they survive or not. I prefer that Bitshares thrives rather than OpenLedger survives.
Nice.
I posit others will be willing to take OpenLedger's position as the cornerstone business of the Bitshares ecosystem and won't complain about transfer fees affecting the referral program. There are other profitable avenues for businesses to make money with Bitshares than simply the referral program.
I look forward to you following those "other profitable avenues for businesses".
Furthermore, it is kind of obnoxious to me Ronny makes 200-300k from the issuance of OBITS tokens then has the balls to blackmail us into leaving transaction fees as they are.
Indeed, it's obnoxious that Ronny has made some serious business decisions assuming the rules are stable and now he defends those rules.
-------
@CoinHoarder
Who are you to produce statements like these? As you admitted yourself, you don't even have any stake.
I do hope you eventually become disappointed with BitShares and go away.
-
I'm off from the forum for a while and what do I find when I come back? Bitcrab is still in the committee and he is still trying to destroy Bitshares.
Can't you just vote him out? He has demonstrated for many, many times that he doesn't understand how a DAC works and he is not interested in listening to arguments from other people. This is just some kind of power game for him, where he tries to get as much power as he can – and he doesn't care if Bitshares will be successful or not. Seriously, if you want Bitshares to succeed, Bitcrab and his minions have to be voted out.
-
I'm off from the forum for a while and what do I find when I come back? Bitcrab is still in the committee and he is still trying to destroy Bitshares.
Can't you just vote him out? He has demonstrated for many, many times that he doesn't understand how a DAC works and he is not interested in listening to arguments from other people. This is just some kind of power game for him, where he tries to get as much power as he can – and he doesn't care if Bitshares will be successful or not. Seriously, if you want Bitshares to succeed, Bitcrab and his minions have to be voted out.
+5% +5% +5%
-
I'm off from the forum for a while and what do I find when I come back? Bitcrab is still in the committee and he is still trying to destroy Bitshares.
Can't you just vote him out? He has demonstrated for many, many times that he doesn't understand how a DAC works and he is not interested in listening to arguments from other people. This is just some kind of power game for him, where he tries to get as much power as he can – and he doesn't care if Bitshares will be successful or not. Seriously, if you want Bitshares to succeed, Bitcrab and his minions have to be voted out.
+5% +5% +5%
-
boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.
-
1. The referral program is one key to success for Bitshares and Bitcash. It's an extremely efficient way of allocating marketing resources. If anyone thinks a product sells itself without any marketing that person doesn't understand business. The technology is important, but any other system can emulate or even fork features so that makes marketing and distribution more critical. Dropbox, Paypal, Square and many other companies have used referral systems extremely effectively.
2. The referral program attracts and provides an incentive for a variety of businesses to use and build applications on Bitshares. It provides some sustenance to these businesses. Most other businesses that build on Bitcoin or other ecosysems are not sustainable.
3. The price someone is willing to pay reflects the value something provides. Bitshares has to be useful. Fees help us identify areas where we are solving the biggest problem. We can solve a problem for merchants if we make it easy to use, charge lower processing fees, eliminate chargebacks, and bring in new potential customers. We can solve problems for those that don't want to or can't use traditional banking systems. Those users and merchants should be willing to pay fees. Peer-to-peer payments are already free with Alipay, Wechat, Unionpay in China and it's free in the US with Paypal, Square, Facebook, Apple(soon) ..all these companies already have a huge network effect and billions to spend on marketing. We can go after peer-to-peer payments later. It's not wise to use resources to go against these giants directly.
4. The fees are not the biggest issue, but in China I understand that overall prices are lower so regional pricing makes sense.
5. The Bitshares system doesn't need to earn a profit in the beginning. It just has to pay for marketing, witnesses, and software development. All we have to do is set the bare minimum network fee for sustainability. We can have a small budget for ongoing core development, but rely on FBA's for advanced features.
6. What if we:
a. Determine the lowest sustainable fee structure that will pay for witnesses and a reasonable amount of software development and maintenance in the long run. This will be the network fee. It can be in dollar/yuan terms.
b. Create a flexible fee structure so that certain Smartcoins (bitUSD,bitEUR), UIA's, Privatized bitAssets, FBA's can charge an additional fee to pay for marketing costs and utilize the existing referral program as is. We can allow other Privatized bitAssets (TCNY) or Smartcoins (bitCNY) to charge no additional fee and find a way to market itself with no money and no referral program... or possibly find outside VC money for marketing somehow.
What do you guys think?
This seems like a potential way to resolve this. I think it would be beneficial for Asset owners/creators to be able adjust the fee structure for their assets in order to better cater to their customers or marketing approach.
Already thought about this.
I am ready for more developments.
-
boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.
There are plenty of them on these 12 pages. Could you please take the time and address them?
-
If OpenLedger packs up shop because we lower fees then so be it. I own some OBITS and still could care less if they survive or not. I prefer that Bitshares thrives rather than OpenLedger survives.
Nice.
I posit others will be willing to take OpenLedger's position as the cornerstone business of the Bitshares ecosystem and won't complain about transfer fees affecting the referral program. There are other profitable avenues for businesses to make money with Bitshares than simply the referral program.
I look forward to you following those "other profitable avenues for businesses".
Furthermore, it is kind of obnoxious to me Ronny makes 200-300k from the issuance of OBITS tokens then has the balls to blackmail us into leaving transaction fees as they are.
Indeed, it's obnoxious.
-------
@CoinHoarder
Who are you to produce statements like these? As you admitted yourself, you don't even have any stake.
I do hope you eventually become disappointed with BitShares and go away.
I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post? Or, since I don't have much stake my opinions don't matter? Are you always this elitist? Small stakeholders opinions don't matter?
Sorry you don't agree with my opinions. If you want to live in an echo chamber, then go somewhere else as this community is anything but. Sorry, I think it is disgustingly greedy and obnoxious that he just sold 200k-300k USD worth of stake in his company (and still retained a nice amount of equity) then turns around and blackmail us into alienating our Chinese userbase. I only make 50k a year working 40 hours a week, so it disgusts me that 200k-300k is not enough for this man for a measly few months worth of work.
It is disgusting because I am sure there are many that would love to be in his position. I can name a few less successful Bitshares based companies that I am sure would love to be in his position. I would be happy to start a business and be in the position OpenLedger is now after juse banuking 200-300k from a crowdsale. They are the cornerstone business of the Bitshares economy. I have neither the time, nor money, nor jurisdiction. I work 40 hours a week and go to school, I don't have the money to focus full time on a start up, and the USA is not a friensly jurisdiction for cryptocurrency businesses.
I am not against high fees. I am against high fees before Bitshates has a chance to reach critical mass. Running people off because of fees is the last thing Bitshares needs right now. The DEX, Bitshares flagship feature, depends on adoption to be useful (have liquidity). It is a common marketing strategy for exchanges to have low fees to attract users, then increase the fees once a certain amount of volume is reached. You guys seem disillusioned as to how to increase volume, as if percentage based fees will be the savior. No, if the fees are still high you are just spending money for the sake of spending money.
I have been around here longer than you, and I am sure you will tire of the project before I do, so get used to me being around. I brought many people and attention to the Bitshares project early on. I am one of the earliest supporters, and have spent more time than anyone promoting and defending Bitshares in the biggest cryptocurrency community Bitcointalk. I can hardly make a post about other cryptocurrencies without someone commenting about my affiliation with Bitshares. All you do for Bitshares is blab on Bitsharestalk all day, get real kid.
-
boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.
There are plenty of them on these 12 pages. Could you please take the time and address them?
need not to waste time on that.
-
6. What if we:
a. Determine the lowest sustainable fee structure that will pay for witnesses and a reasonable amount of software development and maintenance in the long run. This will be the network fee. It can be in dollar/yuan terms.
b. Create a flexible fee structure so that certain Smartcoins (bitUSD,bitEUR), UIA's, Privatized bitAssets, FBA's can charge an additional fee to pay for marketing costs and utilize the existing referral program as is. We can allow other Privatized bitAssets (TCNY) or Smartcoins (bitCNY) to charge no additional fee and find a way to market itself with no money and no referral program... or possibly find outside VC money for marketing somehow.
What do you guys think?
This seems like a potential way to resolve this. I think it would be beneficial for Asset owners/creators to be able adjust the fee structure for their assets in order to better cater to their customers or marketing approach.
Already thought about this.
I am ready for more developments.
this is considerable, as there are really business culture difference among different regions, in China referral program is just a trouble maker, but maybe it works in US and western europe. so as I asked before, is it possible that Bitshares become a platform that businessmen can develop their business of different types upon it with great convenience, and meanwhile without enslaving users/shareholders or disturbing each other?
to design different charging model may make sense, suppose we have 2 model for charging transfer fee:A: charge only the flat network fee. B. percent based fee, referrer can get the division accordingly.
the problem is how to define fee model for each asset. how about this:
1. apply A model to BTS.
2. issuer of every other asset can select which model to apply, for public smartcoins, committee will decide, to me it's OK that all the public smartcoins, including BitCNY to be applied model B.
but I worry this will also cause debate in some scenarios, for example, if I issue privatized smartcoin TUSD and apply model A. as BitUSD is applied model B, so maybe some people will complain unfairness that TUSD get competitive advange than BitUSD.
any thoughts?
-
to design different charging model may make sense, suppose we have 2 model for charging transfer fee:A: charge only the flat network fee. B. percent based fee, referrer can get the division accordingly.
It seems very complex but I really like it! It's the most versatile option and keeps everyone happy. Every business can choose the method it's more beneficial to them and accounts created through them, pay the fees the business has chosen.
Seems the best of both worlds!
Regarding people complaining about being unfair, that's how stuff works. Assets will compete against each other, the best will get more adoption. I don't see any problem with that. If users don't like one asset they can change to another one they prefer.
I don't know about the feasibility of this, but good idea bitcrab +5% I finally agree with you on something that's fee related.
I think the only problem that could arise is people complaining about the complexity of this, isn't BitShares all about the free markets and option of choice? This is the most versatile option so far. People who prefer A can use A, people who prefer B can use B. It doesn't rally matter if users find it unfair or not, they will simply move to the one they think it's best for them, the only one affected by this is the business.
One thing though, once a business has chosen the plan they prefer, they won't be able to change it. That makes it a zero sum game. You either succeed or you don't, you can't go back.
-
I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post? Or, since I don't have much stake my opinions don't matter? Are you always this elitist? Small stakeholders opinions don't matter?
Sorry you don't agree with my opinions. If you want to live in an echo chamber, then go somewhere else as this community is anything but. Sorry, I think it is disgustingly greedy and obnoxious that he just sold 200k-300k USD worth of stake in his company (and still retained a nice amount of equity) then turns around and blackmail us into alienating our Chinese userbase. I only make 50k a year working 40 hours a week, so it disgusts me that 200k-300k is not enough for this man for a measly few months worth of work.
It is disgusting because I am sure there are many that would love to be in his position. I can name a few less successful Bitshares based companies that I am sure would love to be in his position. I would be happy to start a business and be in the position OpenLedger is now after juse banuking 200-300k from a crowdsale. They are the cornerstone business of the Bitshares economy. I have neither the time, nor money, nor jurisdiction. I work 40 hours a week and go to school, I don't have the money to focus full time on a start up, and the USA is not a friensly jurisdiction for cryptocurrency businesses.
I am not against high fees. I am against high fees before Bitshates has a chance to reach critical mass. Running people off because of fees is the last thing Bitshares needs right now. The DEX, Bitshares flagship feature, depends on adoption to be useful (have liquidity). It is a common marketing strategy for exchanges to have low fees to attract users, then increase the fees once a certain amount of volume is reached. You guys seem disillusioned as to how to increase volume, as if percentage based fees will be the savior. No, if the fees are still high you are just spending money for the sake of spending money.
I have been around here longer than you, and I am sure you will tire of the project before I do, so get used to me being around. I brought many people and attention to the Bitshares project early on. I am one of the earliest supporters, and have spent more time than anyone promoting and defending Bitshares in the biggest cryptocurrency community Bitcointalk. I can hardly make a post about other cryptocurrencies without someone commenting about my affiliation with Bitshares. All you do for Bitshares is blab on Bitsharestalk all day, get real kid.
If you do have a stake, then I'm sorry, I retract that. I thought you said you didn't but I obviously I was dumb enough to believe you when you said this a few days ago:
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.
As for the rest of your rant, well.. I'll leave it as it is. I'm not gonna touch this.
I do hope DPOS is strong enough so that people like you are not able to do much damage.
-
boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.
There are plenty of them on these 12 pages. Could you please take the time and address them?
need not to waste time on that.
So my only argument for defending your behavior, namely, that you want to discuss even radical ideas, just vanished with your statement not to address others concerns. Got it
-
the problem is how to define fee model for each asset. how about this:
1. apply A model to BTS.
2. issuer of every other asset can select which model to apply, for
public smartcoins, committee will decide, to me it's OK that all the
public smartcoins, including BitCNY to be applied model B.
but I worry this will also cause debate in some scenarios, for example,
if I issue privatized smartcoin TUSD and apply model A. as BitUSD is
applied model B, so maybe some people will complain unfairness that TUSD
get competitive advange than BitUSD.
any thoughts?
My thoughts: This is excatly what @abit is doing in his proposal. So I
recommend you don't claim this as your idea and instead support abit's
worker proposal to get this done!
P.S. Yes, I am pissed
-
I think the only problem that could arise is people complaining about
the complexity of this, isn't BitShares all about the free markets and
option of choice? This is the most versatile option so far. People who
prefer A can use A, people who prefer B can use B. It doesn't rally
matter if users find it unfair or not, they will simply move to the one
they think it's best for them, the only one affected by this is the
business.
I think free markets should be allowed to choose between different fee
models. But the issue is that we should not forget about the
profitability of the DAC itself. Hence, reducing the profits for the DAC
to zero is not something that will find a lot of support. Letting people
choose weather to pay a flat fee or a percentage based fee (and which
parameters) is certainly something worth considering (see BSIP#10 and
@abit's implementation, as well as his worker!!)
One thing though, once a business has chosen the plan they prefer, they
won't be able to change it. That makes it a zero sum game. You either
succeed or you don't, you can't go back.
Why wouldn't they be able to change it later on?
-
I think the only problem that could arise is people complaining about
the complexity of this, isn't BitShares all about the free markets and
option of choice? This is the most versatile option so far. People who
prefer A can use A, people who prefer B can use B. It doesn't rally
matter if users find it unfair or not, they will simply move to the one
they think it's best for them, the only one affected by this is the
business.
I think free markets should be allowed to choose between different fee
models. But the issue is that we should not forget about the
profitability of the DAC itself. Hence, reducing the profits for the DAC
to zero is not something that will find a lot of support. Letting people
choose weather to pay a flat fee or a percentage based fee (and which
parameters) is certainly something worth considering (see BSIP#10 and
@abit's implementation, as well as his worker!!)
One thing though, once a business has chosen the plan they prefer, they
won't be able to change it. That makes it a zero sum game. You either
succeed or you don't, you can't go back.
Why wouldn't they be able to change it later on?
Choosing between 2 different models doesn't imply no profitability for the DAC. It's just a matter of setting up those 2 models. Flat vs Percentage for example. One thing doesn't imply the other imo. It's just a matter of reaching consensus here. With two options should be easier because that way we can have one that benefits people who think fees are too high and others who think fees are too low.
Well, assuming it's the businesses that choose the fee model which their users will use, what if they just keep changing the fees? What about the first users who used a more expensive fee model before and the new users that get the new benefits of the new model? People will no be happy, even though the market will decide to continue supporting that business or not..
Will old users have a different model than new users? Will the fee model change for all users if the business who registered them chooses to? I assumed it won't. Can parameters from thousands of accounts be changed like that? While others aren't? There are lots of stuff to consider there. Maybe I'm going too deep already but I assumed they wouldn't be able to change because of that. Of course if it can be changed, I see no problem. If users find it unfair they will just move on to other business. That was my first assumption, maybe a wrong one but the initial one I had, hence my comment above.
-
I think free markets should be allowed to choose between different fee
models. But the issue is that we should not forget about the
profitability of the DAC itself. Hence, reducing the profits for the DAC
to zero is not something that will find a lot of support. Letting people
choose weather to pay a flat fee or a percentage based fee (and which
parameters) is certainly something worth considering (see BSIP#10 and
@abit's implementation, as well as his worker!!)
as I already stated, in my view, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient, attractive and cheap platform, meanwhile provide chance and tools for every player here to make money.
I know not everyone agree with me, but one fact is that most users are at the same time shareholders, charge more means shareholders need to pay more. so we need a balance to ensure the DAC can sustain itself and the shareholders/users are not enslaved.
-
the problem is how to define fee model for each asset. how about this:
1. apply A model to BTS.
2. issuer of every other asset can select which model to apply, for
public smartcoins, committee will decide, to me it's OK that all the
public smartcoins, including BitCNY to be applied model B.
but I worry this will also cause debate in some scenarios, for example,
if I issue privatized smartcoin TUSD and apply model A. as BitUSD is
applied model B, so maybe some people will complain unfairness that TUSD
get competitive advange than BitUSD.
any thoughts?
My thoughts: This is excatly what @abit is doing in his proposal. So I
recommend you don't claim this as your idea and instead support abit's
worker proposal to get this done!
AFAIK, there are difference between this and abit's proposal, in abit's proposal, all the smartcoins, including all privatized smartcoins will be applied model B.
this difference is important, it's possible for me to support abit's proposal, but before that I need to check with him for details of the fee stucture and do modification if necessary.
and even finally a consensus be reached, we still need to determine the flat fee parameter, and at frist step apply this to all assets, and then wait for abit to realize his proposal.
-
If you do have a stake, then I'm sorry, I retract that. I thought you said you didn't but I obviously I was dumb enough to believe you when you said this a few days ago:
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.
I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.
-
Choosing between 2 different models doesn't imply no profitability for
the DAC. It's just a matter of setting up those 2 models. Flat vs
Percentage for example. One thing doesn't imply the other imo. It's just
a matter of reaching consensus here. With two options should be easier
because that way we can have one that benefits people who think fees are
too high and others who think fees are too low.
Sure. My reasoning was that no matter what model you chose, the end user
will always need to pay a fee. And unless you can opt-out from the
referral program on a per-asset basis, 80% of that fee will go to the
referral program (except for ltm)
Well, assuming it's the businesses that choose the fee model which their
users will use, what if they just keep changing the fees? What about the
first users who used a more expensive fee model before and the new users
that get the new benefits of the new model? People will no be happy,
even though the market will decide to continue supporting that business
or not..
Sounds like business as usual to me :)
Will old users have a different model than new users? Will the fee model
change for all users if the business who registered them chooses to? I
assumed it won't. Can parameters from thousands of accounts be changed
like that? While others aren't? There are lots of stuff to consider
there. Maybe I'm going too deep already but I assumed they wouldn't be
able to change because of that. Of course if it can be changed, I see no
problem. If users find it unfair they will just move on to other
business. That was my first assumption, maybe a wrong one but the
initial one I had, hence my comment above.
Oh, wait, I think we are talking different things here. I am not talking
about makeing a distinction among USERS, but among ASSETS.
So, for instance, a user of asset TUSD does not need to pay referral
bonus because TUSD has opted out of the referral program. That, however,
does not mean that the referral fee is discarded for any other asset as
well.
-
as I already stated, in my view, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient, attractive and cheap platform
Uh huh, and who's gonna pay for that? So, if the POS system sells a 50 cent candy bar, it costs 1 BTS fine, but if the POS system sells a Ferarri, it should only charge 1 BTS for that too? How about a Navy Shipbuilder or Lightrail project? Think outside your firewalls, man.
Is nature flat? No. It's dynamic. We need to SCALE from micro to macro and everything in between.
I know not everyone agree with me, but one fact is that most users are at the same time shareholders, charge more means shareholders need to pay more.
Pay more, get more. Pay nothing and you get a LOT less. Understand?
Have you ever built a successful company in your life, or even one that managed to last for more than 5-10 years? Show us the flaws in BSIP10, please.
we need a balance to ensure the DAC can sustain itself
Good lord, you're all over the place.
Who's actually voting for you anyway? Be specific.
-
AFAIK, there are difference between this and abit's proposal, in abit's proposal, all the smartcoins, including all privatized smartcoins will be applied model B.
this difference is important, it's possible for me to support abit's proposal, but before that I need to check with him for details of the fee stucture and do modification if necessary.
My understanding was that this is just another fee model that has to be
applied on a per asset basis. So once it is implemented (and hard
forked) the committee still needs to change the fee model for other
assets. For that reason it will not be applied for BTS because the
committee does not own the BTS asset, in contrast to the other
bitassets.
and even finally a consensus be reached, we still need to determine the flat fee parameter, and at frist step apply this to all assets, and then wait for abit to realize his proposal.
And you propose a 1 BTS fee for transfers?
-
as I already stated, in my view, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient, attractive and cheap platform
Uh huh, and who's gonna pay for that? So, if the POS system sells a 50 cent candy bar, it costs 1 BTS fine, but if the POS system sells a Ferarri, it should only charge 1 BTS for that too? How about a Navy Shipbuilder or Lightrail project? Think outside your firewalls, man.
Is nature flat? No. It's dynamic. We need to SCALE from micro to macro and everything in between.
I know not everyone agree with me, but one fact is that most users are at the same time shareholders, charge more means shareholders need to pay more.
Pay more, get more. Pay nothing and you get a LOT less. Understand?
Have you ever built a successful company in your life, or even one that managed to last for more than 5-10 years? Show us the flaws in BSIP10, please.
we need a balance to ensure the DAC can sustain itself
Good lord, you're all over the place.
Who's actually voting for you anyway? Be specific.
傻逼
-
1.what a transfer fee is reasonable according to cost and competetion?
below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:
(http://i13.tietuku.com/b16086a34ba2729b.png)
some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.
it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01
to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.
upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.
-
bts lack users！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
-
My understanding was that this is just another fee model that has to be
applied on a per asset basis. So once it is implemented (and hard
forked) the committee still needs to change the fee model for other
assets. For that reason it will not be applied for BTS because the
committee does not own the BTS asset, in contrast to the other
bitassets.
I find there is a root difference between their proposal and my expection: in their flat fee mode, there are still 80% go to referrer, and in my expectation, in flat mode, all the fee should go to network.
because I think of this in order to get some assets out of the influence of referral program, but they do their proposal in order to make referral program work better.
And you propose a 1 BTS fee for transfers?
check my last reply, generally speaking the value can be discussed inside the narrower reasonable fee area: 2-5 BTS.
-
I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.
I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post?
I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.
Right. I do need some comprehension lessons.
-
1.what a transfer fee is reasonable according to cost and competetion?
below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:
(http://i13.tietuku.com/b16086a34ba2729b.png)
some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.
it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01
to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.
upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.
Despite much urging to debate/discuss the fees in terms of a stable currency, you keep discussing them in terms of BTS. So can I assume that means you don't care that the fee would be much higher in terms of USD and CNY when BTS goes up a lot in value?
Also, do you realize that your proposals are going to make micro-transactions much more expensive?
-
I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.
I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post?
I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.
Right. I do need some comprehension lessons.
You are a idiot man. Here is an english lesson for you. Learn the difference inbetween:
Investing: current or future tense
Invested: past tense
If I had said "I am no longer invested..." then you would be correct, but I didn't and instead you're just an idiot that doesn't understand English.
-
I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.
I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post?
I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.
Right. I do need some comprehension lessons.
You are a idiot man. Here is an english lesson for you. Learn the difference inbetween:
Investing: current or future tense
Invested: past tense
If I had said "I am no longer invested..." then you would be correct, but I didn't and instead you're just an idiot that doesn't understand English.
lol.. you mad bro??
-
He also wrote 'a idiot' instead of 'an idiot' :-D
-
He also wrote 'a idiot' instead of 'an idiot' :-D
You forgot to include punctuation at the end of your sentence. ::)
lol.. you mad bro??
I am not mad, but I am annoyed that he can't understand written english and is wasting my time. This is pointless drivel, and you guys idiots are the reason that the Bitshares value is in the dumpster. Maybe if anyone listened to me once and a while around here Bitshares would be better off. You guys keep diluting with your unsuccesful attempts to spur liquidity on the DEX. Maybe when we are all in nursing homes the DEX will have liquidity (and actually be useful.)
-
You have good humour.
I don't get it too. The people here have no feeling for good marketing. I have almost zero interest in doing anything for this project because of that.
Lame lame lame, and the most boring bunch.
-
He also wrote 'a idiot' instead of 'an idiot' :-D
You forgot to include punctuation at the end of your sentence. ::)
lol.. you mad bro??
I am not mad, but I am annoyed that he can't understand written english and is wasting my time. This is pointless drivel, and you guys idiots are the reason that the Bitshares value is in the dumpster. Maybe if anyone listened to me once and a while around here Bitshares would be better off. You guys keep diluting with your unsuccesful attempts to spur liquidity on the DEX. Maybe when we are all in nursing homes the DEX will have liquidity (and actually be useful.)
I've read your posts about diluting for a while now... The idea was soooo bad I didn't think it deserved a response. Plus you seem like the type of person who can't take any criticism, and just bitches and calls people idiots if you don't get your way. Another reason I didn't respond.
If you think it's such a great idea go fork BTS.
-
I've read your posts about diluting for a while now... The idea was soooo bad I didn't think it deserved a response. Plus you seem like the type of person who can't take any criticism, and just bitches and calls people idiots if you don't get your way. Another reason I didn't respond.
If you think it's such a great idea go fork BTS.
I can take critism, however blanket statements such as "The idea was soooo bad I didn't think it deserved a response" are impossible to prove wrong. I love a good debate, but if you can't bring anything to the table, other than a blanket statement with no substance, then I suppose I would prefer that you don't respond.
I am always hostile because there are so many assholes in the crypto community forums (and no one ever listens to me). I grew tired of it years ago and now I am an asshole towards everyone as somewhat of a defense mechanism, but I am capable of being reasonable from time to time. I am actually one of nicest and most reasonable people you'd ever have the chance of meeting IRL.
I am also very passionate about decentralized technology, so I have trouble holding holding my emotions back. I am one of the few that doesn't care about getting rich. I want to leverage decentralized technologies to promote my brand of anarchy throughout the world. If everything is decentralized, then I think governments will have trouble governing/regulating/enforcing things that shouldn't be governed/regulated/enforced (and will eventually admit defeat.)
-
Girls, don't hurt each other. Make love, no war. lol
-
I would suggest to add intrest for not moving bts in your wallet instead of lower transaction fee. Low transaction fee means easier to spam . Keep in mind ,bts is a platform for assets trading not just a simple bank account
-
Keep in mind ,bts is a platform for assets trading not just a simple bank account
Ideally, it should be both.
-
1.what a transfer fee is reasonable according to cost and competetion?
below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:
(http://i13.tietuku.com/b16086a34ba2729b.png)
some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.
it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01
to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.
upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.
This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.
As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it, and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.
-
may i know which one is delicate for assets trade but BTS. how can bts network prevent from spamming by lowing the tx fee?
1.what a transfer fee is reasonable according to cost and competetion?
below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:
(http://i13.tietuku.com/b16086a34ba2729b.png)
some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.
it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01
to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.
upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.
This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.
As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it, and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.
-
below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:
(http://i13.tietuku.com/b16086a34ba2729b.png)
some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.
it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01
to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.
upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.
It's useless to make comparisons with unsustainable systems. The real costs of bitcoin transactions are much higher (https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction) because they are funded with inflation.
And also it's useless to think what the transaction cost should be in BTS, because it is meant to be calculated in USD (or in other fiat currency) and it's committee's job to adjust BTS price of transaction based on the fiat price. So this whole poll is pointless. The poll should be on USD price, not BTS price. This is again a clear sign that you don't understand how Bitshares works or is supposed to work.
-
I now believe the debate on transfer fee come from the conflict of different business culture.
In China(maybe also in some other regions in the world), the current referral program is just a trouble maker, very few people are interested in playing as a referrer, on the otherside, the high fee brought by it make the old players unhappy and drive a lot potential new joiners away. even worse, the logic behind the referral program is not appreciated by the China blockchain/cryptocurrency community. the whole China BTS community are in pain because of this.
However, maybe the referral program really play a key role in BTS development in some other regions, maybe US and western europe? I am not sure, but from the feedback from the forum it seems so.
So now let's come back to the problem I have raised before: Is it possible that Bitshares become a platform that businessmen can develop their business of different types upon it with great convenience and without disturbing each other?
Now considering the transfer fee issue, referral program and also BSIP#10, I now propose a solution as below:
1. define 2 different mode on charging transfer fee.
mode A: only charge a resonable flat fee(1-5 BTS?), all the fee will go to network, and there are no difference in LTM and common user.
mode B: percent based fee, with defined min limit/max limit/percent parameters, the max limit can be defined as high as possible. and the fee will divided by network and referrer.
2. BTS will be applied mode A, issuers of other assets will decide which mode to apply. I suggest all the public smartcoins, including BitCNY, be applied mode B.
I feel this solution is possible to end the debate. however, this need some modification in BSIP#10, and need confirm from all sides.
China community hate dilution, but if most of the relevant people support the solution described above, I'll try to persuade China community to support BSIP#10.
because the implementation of BSIP#10 will cost more than 3 months, I'll suggest to reduce the transfer fee to a balanced level first(5-10 BTS) first, and then wait for BSIP#10 implementation. and then reduce the fee in A mode to the final reasonable level.
any thoughts? @ccedk @kenCode @jakub @BunkerChain Labs @xeroc @abit @Akado @clayop @puppies
-
I would suggest to add intrest for not moving bts in your wallet instead of lower transaction fee. Low transaction fee means easier to spam . Keep in mind ,bts is a platform for assets trading not just a simple bank account
Then btc38 would earn huge interest, which is paid by dilution.
On the other side it's a good idea, it will encourage people to withdraw their BTS back to their own wallet, if btc38 doesn't return the interest to customers.
-
I now believe the debate on transfer fee come from the conflict of different business culture.
In China(maybe also in some other regions in the world), the current referral program is just a trouble maker, very few people are interested in playing as a referrer, on the otherside, the high fee brought by it make the old players unhappy and drive a lot potential new joiners away. even worse, the logic behind the referral program is not appreciated by the China blockchain/cryptocurrency community. the whole China BTS community are in pain because of this.
However, maybe the referral program really play a key role in BTS development in some other regions, maybe US and western europe? I am not sure, but from the feedback from the forum it seems so.
So now let's come back to the problem I have raised before: Is it possible that Bitshares become a platform that businessmen can develop their business of different types upon it with great convenience and without disturbing each other?
Now considering the transfer fee issue, referral program and also BSIP#10, I now propose a solution as below:
1. define 2 different mode on charging transfer fee.
mode A: only charge a resonable flat fee(1-5 BTS?), all the fee will go to network, and there are no difference in LTM and common user.
With current percentage-based fee designation, set CER of your assets to 0.00001BTS, set the floor to 1-5 BTS, the result will be same to your proposal.
mode B: percent based fee, with defined min limit/max limit/percent parameters, the max limit can be defined as high as possible. and the fee will divided by network and referrer.
2. BTS will be applied mode A, issuers of other assets will decide which mode to apply. I suggest all the public smartcoins, including BitCNY, be applied mode B.
So with your proposal we come to 3 modes. The one which is missing in your proposal is CURRENT MODE:
Mode C: flat fee, 80% to referral program and 20% to network.
IMHO don't eliminate any other possibilities when you want to add your (new) options, and don't change default behavior unless the stake holders agreed. It will make the things easier to get more progress.
If we have 3 modes implemented, the committee would be able to decide which mode BTS and/or smart coins will have.
I'm capable for implementing the new mode you proposed, and I'm willing to do it if well funded.
I feel this solution is possible to end the debate. however, this need some modification in BSIP#10, and need confirm from all sides.
China community hate dilution, but if most of the relevant people support the solution described above, I'll try to persuade China community to support BSIP#10.
because the implementation of BSIP#10 will cost more than 3 months, I'll suggest to reduce the transfer fee to a balanced level first(5-10 BTS) first, and then wait for BSIP#10 implementation. and then reduce the fee in A mode to the final reasonable level.
any thoughts? @ccedk @kenCode @jakub @BunkerChain Labs @xeroc @abit @Akado @clayop @puppies
The reason why the time needed to implement BSIP10 is long, is that stake holders don't want to or aren't able to pay for it quicker (aka quicker decision making and higher per-day dilution). Most people assume that longer payment period means lower cost, or, more time to have work done means to do more work.
-
I am trying to understand. You seem to be saying that you have a fundamental problem with the referral program. Are there really not any similar systems in China? There are so many in the United States. Near my house there is a sporting association. They have a pistol range, rifle range, skeet shooting, and trap. Its open to the public at a certain price, but members get a greatly reduced rate. So a day of shooting trap might cost me $40 as a member, but would cost a non member $120.
Why do you think the Chinese community is not interested in attempting to earn through the referral program? We have a member of our community draining fee pools 10bts at a time. Surely the referral program is better than picking up pennies from the "give a penny leave a penny" tray.
I also have a hard time reconciling the wish to prevent dilution, and the wish to reduce the earnings of the network. The fees collected by the network help offset the dilution that we pay our witnesses and workers with. The account upgrade fee is one of the most important.
A quick count of upgrades shows 295 since launch, including 45 in the last month alone. That is equivalent 900,000 bts spent in the last month on this one single operation. Even if you assume that every upgrade was a newly registered account, and thus not referred by the committee that is 180,000 bts earned by the network in the last 30 days because 45 people found enough value in upgrading.
In contrast at the current rate of about 200 transfers a day , and 30 bts per transfer it would take about 5 months to earn for the network what account upgrade earned in the last month. I would really like to see more in depth fee information. I wonder if cryptofresh has compiled any of that information
Before I could accept your proposal to remove the referral program from bts but keep it on bitassets, I would need to see some evidence that this would be best for the network. I am open to the idea, but at this point I really don't see it.
edit. spaced the content out to aid in reading.
-
below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:
(http://i13.tietuku.com/b16086a34ba2729b.png)
some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.
it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01
to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.
upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.
It's useless to make comparisons with unsustainable systems. The real costs of bitcoin transactions are much higher (https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction) because they are funded with inflation.
And also it's useless to think what the transaction cost should be in BTS, because it is meant to be calculated in USD (or in other fiat currency) and it's committee's job to adjust BTS price of transaction based on the fiat price. So this whole poll is pointless. The poll should be on USD price, not BTS price. This is again a clear sign that you don't understand how Bitshares works or is supposed to work.
This!
And i have the code and a proposal in the pipeline. Ready ro be released soonish
-
With current percentage-based fee designation, set CER of your assets to 0.00001BTS, set the floor to 1-5 BTS, the result will be same to your proposal.
I don't think this is a good way, especially for the privatized smartcoins which has a feed price dependent CER, seems a independent mode for this is needed.
So with your proposal we come to 3 modes. The one which is missing in your proposal is CURRENT MODE:
Mode C: flat fee, 80% to referral program and 20% to network.
IMHO don't eliminate any other possibilities when you want to add your (new) options, and don't change default behavior unless the stake holders agreed. It will make the things easier to get more progress.
If we have 3 modes implemented, the committee would be able to decide which mode BTS and/or smart coins will have.
I'm capable for implementing the new mode you proposed, and I'm willing to do it if well funded.
if we have 3 mode, then the flat fee in mode A and C can be set independently, right?
and the budget will rise if there will be 3 modes? then how much? ;)
-
I am trying to understand. You seem to be saying that you have a fundamental problem with the referral program. Are there really not any similar systems in China? There are so many in the United States. Near my house there is a sporting association. They have a pistol range, rifle range, skeet shooting, and trap. Its open to the public at a certain price, but members get a greatly reduced rate. So a day of shooting trap might cost me $40 as a member, but would cost a non member $120.
In China, there are also many this kind of shops, a typical case is barbershop. Every time in a barbershop, the barber (hired by the shop owner) endlessly suggest you to buy a membership to get more discount and they can earn some referral income. Some people tend to buy it, but others don't, because many owners of these kind of shops just run away after collected a large amount of prepaid fee, and usually it's hard for the customers to get back the prepaid fee. Bigger shops are more unlikely to run away with customers' money, so their memberships are easier to sell. But negative examples are too many.
-
With current percentage-based fee designation, set CER of your assets to 0.00001BTS, set the floor to 1-5 BTS, the result will be same to your proposal.
I don't think this is a good way, especially for the privatized smartcoins which has a feed price dependent CER, seems a independent mode for this is needed.
So with your proposal we come to 3 modes. The one which is missing in your proposal is CURRENT MODE:
Mode C: flat fee, 80% to referral program and 20% to network.
IMHO don't eliminate any other possibilities when you want to add your (new) options, and don't change default behavior unless the stake holders agreed. It will make the things easier to get more progress.
If we have 3 modes implemented, the committee would be able to decide which mode BTS and/or smart coins will have.
I'm capable for implementing the new mode you proposed, and I'm willing to do it if well funded.
if we have 3 mode, then the flat fee in mode A and C can be set independently, right?
and the budget will rise if there will be 3 modes? then how much? ;)
I have an estimation of 1M BTS of my work, so maybe 1.5M BTS in total.
I'd like to emphasize again that fee rates can only be set by the committee, and issuers can only choose among the fee modes.
I'm willing to implement per-asset fee rates, however it would be funded via FBA, so won't come in the soon future.
-
I am trying to understand. You seem to be saying that you have a fundamental problem with the referral program. Are there really not any similar systems in China? There are so many in the United States. Near my house there is a sporting association. They have a pistol range, rifle range, skeet shooting, and trap. Its open to the public at a certain price, but members get a greatly reduced rate. So a day of shooting trap might cost me $40 as a member, but would cost a non member $120.
Why do you think the Chinese community is not interested in attempting to earn through the referral program? We have a member of our community draining fee pools 10bts at a time. Surely the referral program is better than picking up pennies from the "give a penny leave a penny" tray.
I also have a hard time reconciling the wish to prevent dilution, and the wish to reduce the earnings of the network. The fees collected by the network help offset the dilution that we pay our witnesses and workers with. The account upgrade fee is one of the most important.
A quick count of upgrades shows 295 since launch, including 45 in the last month alone. That is equivalent 900,000 bts spent in the last month on this one single operation. Even if you assume that every upgrade was a newly registered account, and thus not referred by the committee that is 180,000 bts earned by the network in the last 30 days because 45 people found enough value in upgrading.
In contrast at the current rate of about 200 transfers a day , and 30 bts per transfer it would take about 5 months to earn for the network what account upgrade earned in the last month. I would really like to see more in depth fee information. I wonder if cryptofresh has compiled any of that information
Before I could accept your proposal to remove the referral program from bts but keep it on bitassets, I would need to see some evidence that this would be best for the network. I am open to the idea, but at this point I really don't see it.
edit. spaced the content out to aid in reading.
I am not saying all the referral program do not work in China, I only said the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
-
the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.
How the f*ck would you know? Or.... the referral program is not welcomed by YOU?
Get real. Go out, hit the streets, take an honest poll of the Chinese people en masse. Ask them if they would like to receive $50 for every lifetime member that they sign up. Go to a college campus and have some kids go out and canvas with you.
Get out there in the real world and see how many people you can talk to about Bitshares, get them excited, start a Meetup group, show them the mobile wallet, send them 100 BTS, get them signed up on ccedk.com or OL, shake some hands, encourage others to do the same.
Your hubris far outweighs my ability to describe it.
-
Supply... Demand... Price...
What are we providing now?
Is there demands for our service?
I would support btsdacs idea.. Under low tps we'd better have low fees. When tps is high, higher fee is allowable.
-
the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.
How the f*ck would you know? Or.... the referral program is not welcomed by YOU?
Get real. Go out, hit the streets, take an honest poll of the Chinese people en masse. Ask them if they would like to receive $50 for every lifetime member that they sign up. Go to a college campus and have some kids go out and canvas with you.
Get out there in the real world and see how many people you can talk to about Bitshares, get them excited, start a Meetup group, show them the mobile wallet, send them 100 BTS, get them signed up on ccedk.com or OL, shake some hands, encourage others to do the same.
Your hubris far outweighs my ability to describe it.
seems you understand China more well than I do.
every one know who is more hubris.
I try to find some consensus with sincerity, if it is rejected roughly, the only way is to get the result by voting.
-
Again, as usual, you ignore everyone else's points but your own. You are MY B*TCH, not the other way around, boy. Answer at least ONE question, and be sincere. Are you scared?
the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.
Obviously the referral program is not welcomed by YOU, but how EXACTLY, could you possibly know what the entire Chinese population wants?
-
Again, as usual, you ignore everyone else's points but your own. You are MY B*TCH, not the other way around, boy. Answer at least ONE question, and be sincere. Are you scared?
the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.
Obviously the referral program is not welcomed by YOU, but how EXACTLY, could you possibly know what the entire Chinese population wants?
if you keep on being so dirty and rude, I can only ignore you.
-
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.
3) Or let A to be non-free to choice, say, someone need to pay for choosing A, then who pays? To whom? How much? One time payments or periodically payments?
-
With current percentage-based fee designation, set CER of your assets to 0.00001BTS, set the floor to 1-5 BTS, the result will be same to your proposal.
I don't think this is a good way, especially for the privatized smartcoins which has a feed price dependent CER, seems a independent mode for this is needed.
So with your proposal we come to 3 modes. The one which is missing in your proposal is CURRENT MODE:
Mode C: flat fee, 80% to referral program and 20% to network.
IMHO don't eliminate any other possibilities when you want to add your (new) options, and don't change default behavior unless the stake holders agreed. It will make the things easier to get more progress.
If we have 3 modes implemented, the committee would be able to decide which mode BTS and/or smart coins will have.
I'm capable for implementing the new mode you proposed, and I'm willing to do it if well funded.
if we have 3 mode, then the flat fee in mode A and C can be set independently, right?
and the budget will rise if there will be 3 modes? then how much? ;)
I have an estimation of 1M BTS of my work, so maybe 1.5M BTS in total.
I'd like to emphasize again that fee rates can only be set by the committee, and issuers can only choose among the fee modes.
I'm willing to implement per-asset fee rates, however it would be funded via FBA, so won't come in the soon future.
Wouldn't it mainly make sense to implement this all with per-asset free rates? Can the committee choose multiple fee rates upon request and can issuers just select among more choices or is it just one fee rate per mode? I don't expect the US and China to use the same fee structure. However for CNY they can choose mode A and in the US we can have mode B at 1% and some min/max... maybe we can start with that before implementing per-asset fee rates. I'm planning a privatized bitAsset so I'd prefer mode B, but if it's not flexible I'll probably do C until we can implement per-asset fee rates.
-
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.
why need to compensate referral program?
the referral program + high fee cause a lot of old users leave, should referral program compensate the whole system?
-
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.
why need to compensate referral program?
the referral program + high fee cause a lot of old users leave, should referral program compensate the whole system?
Can you proof your claim?
The purpose of the referral program is to motivate business to attract new users. It never was the idea to pay the "whole system" (whatever you mean by it)
-
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.
why need to compensate referral program?
the referral program + high fee cause a lot of old users leave, should referral program compensate the whole system?
Can you proof your claim?
The purpose of the referral program is to motivate business to attract new users. It never was the idea to pay the "whole system" (whatever you mean by it)
then do you mean because there is a referral program, so we cannot have a mode A?
-
Again, as usual, you ignore everyone else's points but your own. You are MY B*TCH, not the other way around, boy.
How about attacking the idea and not the person? Show a little class.
-
Great... Let's cater bts to poor Chinese people... That will definitely help the market cap.
Bts should change its name to bitcharity. It's already a charity to cnx, why not add the nation of china while we are at it...
-
Great... Let's cater bts to poor Chinese people... That will definitely help the market cap.
Bts should change its name to bitcharity. It's already a charity to cnx, why not add the nation of china while we are at it...
YEAH,u r so damn right.
And the "rich" unchineses people are busy earing the little tiny fee. ;D
-
the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.
How the f*ck would you know? Or.... the referral program is not welcomed by YOU?
Get real. Go out, hit the streets, take an honest poll of the Chinese people en masse. Ask them if they would like to receive $50 for every lifetime member that they sign up. Go to a college campus and have some kids go out and canvas with you.
Get out there in the real world and see how many people you can talk to about Bitshares, get them excited, start a Meetup group, show them the mobile wallet, send them 100 BTS, get them signed up on ccedk.com or OL, shake some hands, encourage others to do the same.
Your hubris far outweighs my ability to describe it.
not weird, MMM have tens of thousands of followers in China.
but in China BTS community, no people interested in this kind of things.
-
Great... Let's cater bts to poor Chinese people... That will definitely help the market cap.
Bts should change its name to bitcharity. It's already a charity to cnx, why not add the nation of china while we are at it...
that's the plan here. maybe they should just fork it? :D
-
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.
why need to compensate referral program?
the referral program + high fee cause a lot of old users leave, should referral program compensate the whole system?
Can you proof your claim?
The purpose of the referral program is to motivate business to attract new users. It never was the idea to pay the "whole system" (whatever you mean by it)
then do you mean because there is a referral program, so we cannot have a mode A?
It seems we are all very close and we can get this done with BSIP10. What about something like this @bitcrab?
Mode A: 1 cent per transaction to the network (no incentive for referral program or membership)
Mode B: 1% per transaction, 1 cent minimum fee (example max. $1/$10/$20), lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
Mode C: flat 20 cents per transaction, lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
In all three modes 1 cent goes to the network so it's fair and the network doesn't care which mode anyone selects. Mode B & C adds an extra fee layer that all goes to referrals.
-
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.
why need to compensate referral program?
the referral program + high fee cause a lot of old users leave, should referral program compensate the whole system?
Can you proof your claim?
The purpose of the referral program is to motivate business to attract new users. It never was the idea to pay the "whole system" (whatever you mean by it)
then do you mean because there is a referral program, so we cannot have a mode A?
It seems we are all very close and we can get this done with BSIP10. What about something like this @bitcrab?
Mode A: 1 cent per transaction to the network (no incentive for referral program or membership)
Mode B: 1% per transaction, 1 cent minimum fee (example max. $1/$10/$20), lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
Mode C: flat 20 cents per transaction, lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
In all three modes 1 cent goes to the network so it's fair and the network doesn't care which mode anyone selects. Mode B & C adds an extra fee layer that all goes to referrals.
so that seems like: issuers can select to pay to referrers for marketing if they like, if they do not like, they can select not to hire them.
this solution is close to mine, I am ok with it, but I am not sure whether the businessmen will support this.
-
I would suggest to add intrest for not moving bts in your wallet instead of lower transaction fee. Low transaction fee means easier to spam . Keep in mind ,bts is a platform for assets trading not just a simple bank account
If you had all of BTS in your possession, you would run out of them in about one month, if you try to spam 1000 tps network with 1 BTS per transaction fee. Who is going to do this?
-
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
Some logical reasoning:
1) If A is free to choice, why people choose C? So Fee of A should be lower than C for non-LTMs, but higher than C for LTMs.
2) based on 1), if volume raises of doesn't change, choosing A means the network will gain some, referral program and LTMs will loss some, and probably the asset issuer will gain some. To be fair, the network and the issuer need to compensate the referral program and LTMs in some way.
why need to compensate referral program?
the referral program + high fee cause a lot of old users leave, should referral program compensate the whole system?
Can you proof your claim?
The purpose of the referral program is to motivate business to attract new users. It never was the idea to pay the "whole system" (whatever you mean by it)
then do you mean because there is a referral program, so we cannot have a mode A?
It seems we are all very close and we can get this done with BSIP10. What about something like this @bitcrab?
Mode A: 1 cent per transaction to the network (no incentive for referral program or membership)
Mode B: 1% per transaction, 1 cent minimum fee (example max. $1/$10/$20), lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
Mode C: flat 20 cents per transaction, lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
In all three modes 1 cent goes to the network so it's fair and the network doesn't care which mode anyone selects. Mode B & C adds an extra fee layer that all goes to referrals.
so that seems like: issuers can select to pay to referrers for marketing if they like, if they do not like, they can select not to hire them.
this solution is close to mine, I am ok with it, but I am not sure whether the businessmen will support this.
Yes it is very close to yours and @abit's proposals. Business people should like it because there is a choice right?
-
This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.
As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it, and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.
I really don't get why should I pay 80% of fee to ccedk just for helping to register my account, instead of paying this fee to network? Ok, ccedk helped me, let them be rewarded for this, but to pay ~$80 to them to get out of their slavery is too much. These funds should go to network, which shares I have.
-
This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.
As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it, and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.
I really don't get why should I pay 80% of fee to ccedk just for helping to register my account, instead of paying this fee to network? Ok, ccedk helped me, let them be rewarded for this, but to pay ~$80 to them to get out of their slavery is too much. These funds should go to network, which shares I have.
Because businesses are the ones who bring people in. A healthy business will attract much more people and thus help the network. No services, no users. Simple as that. They're the ones with the potential to bring in thousands of users, not you or me.
-
I would suggest to add intrest for not moving bts in your wallet instead of lower transaction fee. Low transaction fee means easier to spam . Keep in mind ,bts is a platform for assets trading not just a simple bank account
If you had all of BTS in your possession, you would run out of them in about one month, if you try to spam 1000 tps network with 1 BTS per transaction fee. Who is going to do this?
High-frequency stock trading. Have you heard it before
-
This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.
As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it, and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.
I really don't get why should I pay 80% of fee to ccedk just for helping to register my account, instead of paying this fee to network? Ok, ccedk helped me, let them be rewarded for this, but to pay ~$80 to them to get out of their slavery is too much. These funds should go to network, which shares I have.
Because businesses are the ones who bring people in. A healthy business will attract much more people and thus help the network. No services, no users. Simple as that. They're the ones with the potential to bring in thousands of users, not you or me.
A healthy business should be rewarded by profit which it gets by charging fees for its service. I don't use ccedk services, and I am obligated to pay them $80 minimum just for signing me up to bitshares. Why the fuck is this? This is not the way to do business.
-
I would suggest to add intrest for not moving bts in your wallet instead of lower transaction fee. Low transaction fee means easier to spam . Keep in mind ,bts is a platform for assets trading not just a simple bank account
If you had all of BTS in your possession, you would run out of them in about one month, if you try to spam 1000 tps network with 1 BTS per transaction fee. Who is going to do this?
High-frequency stock trading. Have you heard it before
I even educated myself about how HFT works. It works by buying a place for server which is close to stock exchange processing center, such that the owner of the server can overrun orders made from remote hosts. It is irrelevant to distributed blockchain, since such blockchain has no central processing facility.
-
This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.
As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it, and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.
I really don't get why should I pay 80% of fee to ccedk just for helping to register my account, instead of paying this fee to network? Ok, ccedk helped me, let them be rewarded for this, but to pay ~$80 to them to get out of their slavery is too much. These funds should go to network, which shares I have.
Because businesses are the ones who bring people in. A healthy business will attract much more people and thus help the network. No services, no users. Simple as that. They're the ones with the potential to bring in thousands of users, not you or me.
I agree.
Also I think it's good to think of the referral program as a feature to help businesses primarily with marketing, and not a revenue source for the network. Even if the network earned fees on the referral program, the network might as well pour the referral income back into expanding the marketing anyways. Businesses or asset issuers will have an option to use the referral program feature for marketing or just pay the basic network fee and find other ways to market.
The bigger question is what should basic network fees be? In order to gain the maximum network effect, I think we keep network fees to a bare minimum 1 cent to have the broadest appeal. The small dilution could probably cover software development and maintenance. FBA's can cover more advanced features. Those in China and developing countries will be happy because fees will be more in line with the cost of living. I think it will be good for the committee to keep fees higher for Smartcoins in the US & Europe. However if the low fees turns out to drive much faster growth I think the committee can consider lowering fees in the US & Europe as well. Privatized Smartcoins, UIA's, FBA's can choose either mode. I really believe that in the US and the demographic we at Bitcash will be going after the referral program will drive more growth, but it will be interesting to see. That's another reason it's better for us to create a privatized Smartcoin because we'll have more flexibility to adapt based on our particular business model.
-
This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.
As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it, and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.
I really don't get why should I pay 80% of fee to ccedk just for helping to register my account, instead of paying this fee to network? Ok, ccedk helped me, let them be rewarded for this, but to pay ~$80 to them to get out of their slavery is too much. These funds should go to network, which shares I have.
Because businesses are the ones who bring people in. A healthy business will attract much more people and thus help the network. No services, no users. Simple as that. They're the ones with the potential to bring in thousands of users, not you or me.
A healthy business should be rewarded by profit which it gets by charging fees for its service. I don't use ccedk services, and I am obligated to pay them $80 minimum just for signing me up to bitshares. Why the fuck is this? This is not the way to do business.
If you're using the web wallet you're using their services. They host the wallet.
-
This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.
As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it, and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.
I really don't get why should I pay 80% of fee to ccedk just for helping to register my account, instead of paying this fee to network? Ok, ccedk helped me, let them be rewarded for this, but to pay ~$80 to them to get out of their slavery is too much. These funds should go to network, which shares I have.
Because businesses are the ones who bring people in. A healthy business will attract much more people and thus help the network. No services, no users. Simple as that. They're the ones with the potential to bring in thousands of users, not you or me.
A healthy business should be rewarded by profit which it gets by charging fees for its service. I don't use ccedk services, and I am obligated to pay them $80 minimum just for signing me up to bitshares. Why the fuck is this? This is not the way to do business.
If you're using the web wallet you're using their services. They host the wallet.
And what if I am not using their web wallet? What if I am using desktop wallet? What if I will switch to bitshares-munich android wallet when it is ready? Will I still need to pay fee to ccedk just because they signed me up, and at same time pay fee to bitshares-munich because I use their service?
-
Currently referral business is not that working now. See the low TPS. Why do we have to support "in the future" thing now, with hurting existing business, such as transwiser?
When new businesses are completed and run, then we can agree with higher fee, if it is essential for them.
So I would argue that during use of network (tps) is low, we'd better to keep low fee, as said by @BTSdac
If someone really want high-fee based referral program, he must bring his own product before just arguing that.
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
As for @clayop if those people are the ones bringing new people in, why shouldn't they benefit from it? What if no one was doing that? We wouldn't grow, at least not as fast definitely. I don't understand this it's like for you this is making the chain hostage.
I have already said countless times, these services are the ones bringing people in, it won't be you or me bringing a continuous stream of new users. It will be services. People alone won't try BitShares just "because". They will because they hear about services like OpenLedger. They are the ones who do all the marketing for the network. They are the ones who pay for that marketing. They are the ones spending time.
I don't know how you still think they are hurting the chain. Without incentive you think individual people will do that for you? That someone will loose the time , energy and money to do it? Yes, if you or me get someone to register, we are helping the network, but people won't come alone.
Users are not free. They need to be acquired. Customer acquisition has costs. It's not individuals like us who will bring in hundreds or thousands of users and provide a continuous stream of new users. Those same services you don't seem to want to help, will. Without that incentive you won't have new users.
What you seem to be forgetting is that if that same service didn't register that same user, that user would have never joined BitShares or even heard about it.
I think your logic is completely twisted. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
As for @clayop if those people are the ones bringing new people in, why shouldn't they benefit from it? What if no one was doing that? We wouldn't grow, at least not as fast definitely. I don't understand this it's like for you this is making the chain hostage.
I have already said countless times, these services are the ones bringing people in, it won't be you or me bringing a continuous stream of new users. It will be services. People alone won't try BitShares just "because". They will because they hear about services like OpenLedger. They are the ones who do all the marketing for the network. They are the ones who pay for that marketing. They are the ones spending time.
I don't know how you still think they are hurting the chain. Without incentive you think individual people will do that for you? That someone will loose the time , energy and money to do it? Yes, if you or me get someone to register, we are helping the network, but people won't come alone.
Users are not free. They need to be acquired. Customer acquisition has costs. It's not individuals like us who will bring in hundreds or thousands of users and provide a continuous stream of new users. Those same services you don't seem to want to help, will. Without that incentive you won't have new users.
What you seem to be forgetting is that if that same service didn't register that same user, that user would have never joined BitShares or even heard about it.
I think your logic is completely twisted. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Referral program can be "one of" incentives for business owners. But high fees are always disadvantage for users.
We are now killing a very important business that are connected to enormous market, china. I'm really worried that bitcrab leaves BTS with his customers and human networks (exchanges, celebrities). He can, because he's a business guy. If he find more attractive market than BTS he will move.
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
As for @clayop if those people are the ones bringing new people in, why shouldn't they benefit from it? What if no one was doing that? We wouldn't grow, at least not as fast definitely. I don't understand this it's like for you this is making the chain hostage.
I have already said countless times, these services are the ones bringing people in, it won't be you or me bringing a continuous stream of new users. It will be services. People alone won't try BitShares just "because". They will because they hear about services like OpenLedger. They are the ones who do all the marketing for the network. They are the ones who pay for that marketing. They are the ones spending time.
I don't know how you still think they are hurting the chain. Without incentive you think individual people will do that for you? That someone will loose the time , energy and money to do it? Yes, if you or me get someone to register, we are helping the network, but people won't come alone.
Users are not free. They need to be acquired. Customer acquisition has costs. It's not individuals like us who will bring in hundreds or thousands of users and provide a continuous stream of new users. Those same services you don't seem to want to help, will. Without that incentive you won't have new users.
What you seem to be forgetting is that if that same service didn't register that same user, that user would have never joined BitShares or even heard about it.
I think your logic is completely twisted. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Referral program can be "one of" incentives for business owners. But high fees are always disadvantage for users.
We are now killing a very important business that are connected to enormous market, china. I'm really worried that bitcrab leaves BTS with his customers and human networks (exchanges, celebrities). He can, because he's a business guy. If he find more attractive market than BTS he will move.
Still, BitShares needs to please more than just bitcrab
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
As for @clayop if those people are the ones bringing new people in, why shouldn't they benefit from it? What if no one was doing that? We wouldn't grow, at least not as fast definitely. I don't understand this it's like for you this is making the chain hostage.
I have already said countless times, these services are the ones bringing people in, it won't be you or me bringing a continuous stream of new users. It will be services. People alone won't try BitShares just "because". They will because they hear about services like OpenLedger. They are the ones who do all the marketing for the network. They are the ones who pay for that marketing. They are the ones spending time.
I don't know how you still think they are hurting the chain. Without incentive you think individual people will do that for you? That someone will loose the time , energy and money to do it? Yes, if you or me get someone to register, we are helping the network, but people won't come alone.
Users are not free. They need to be acquired. Customer acquisition has costs. It's not individuals like us who will bring in hundreds or thousands of users and provide a continuous stream of new users. Those same services you don't seem to want to help, will. Without that incentive you won't have new users.
What you seem to be forgetting is that if that same service didn't register that same user, that user would have never joined BitShares or even heard about it.
I think your logic is completely twisted. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Referral program can be "one of" incentives for business owners. But high fees are always disadvantage for users.
We are now killing a very important business that are connected to enormous market, china. I'm really worried that bitcrab leaves BTS with his customers and human networks (exchanges, celebrities). He can, because he's a business guy. If he find more attractive market than BTS he will move.
Still, BitShares needs to please more than just bitcrab
Correct. But he's still important.
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
As for @clayop if those people are the ones bringing new people in, why shouldn't they benefit from it? What if no one was doing that? We wouldn't grow, at least not as fast definitely. I don't understand this it's like for you this is making the chain hostage.
I have already said countless times, these services are the ones bringing people in, it won't be you or me bringing a continuous stream of new users. It will be services. People alone won't try BitShares just "because". They will because they hear about services like OpenLedger. They are the ones who do all the marketing for the network. They are the ones who pay for that marketing. They are the ones spending time.
I don't know how you still think they are hurting the chain. Without incentive you think individual people will do that for you? That someone will loose the time , energy and money to do it? Yes, if you or me get someone to register, we are helping the network, but people won't come alone.
Users are not free. They need to be acquired. Customer acquisition has costs. It's not individuals like us who will bring in hundreds or thousands of users and provide a continuous stream of new users. Those same services you don't seem to want to help, will. Without that incentive you won't have new users.
What you seem to be forgetting is that if that same service didn't register that same user, that user would have never joined BitShares or even heard about it.
I think your logic is completely twisted. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Referral program can be "one of" incentives for business owners. But high fees are always disadvantage for users.
We are now killing a very important business that are connected to enormous market, china. I'm really worried that bitcrab leaves BTS with his customers and human networks (exchanges, celebrities). He can, because he's a business guy. If he find more attractive market than BTS he will move.
If he isn't here due to the principles that Bytemaster has expressed for the creation of this ecosystem, then let him go. You can make money from anything if you don't have principles, so no need for him to stay here. There are, no doubt, many profitable ways to lead people into further slavery. BitShares, in my opinion, is one of the best opportunities to lead people to freedom if they want it.
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
Let me ask a simple question again. If I created an account through openledger, and I don't want to use their service anymore for my reasons, why the fuck I still need to pay fees to them? This is bullshit. Bitshares transaction fees should be paid to network. Business should charge separate fees for using their service. And if community wants to support ccedk or other business, this should be done through worker proposals voted by shareholders, or by crowdfund tokens, or by whatever, but not through this shitty referral. This does not bring new users in, this distracts them.
-
Just fork it, then. That's not the result we want, but if there are irreconcilable needs, then you should try your low-fee model on another chain and see if it works.
-
and still nobody answer my question:
1. what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
2. should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
good point
we need to ask ourselves a question: what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
and another question: should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
In my opinion, transfer fees and trade fees should as low as posible,
because we need more active users, and good liquility.
the value of users/liquility is much more valuable than the poor transfer fees
and I guess referral program can work even more better with low transfer/trade fee,
we can got more fees for special service, such as issue an asset, active asset's market, upgrade account ....
-
Just fork it, then. That's not the result we want, but if there are irreconcilable needs, then you should try your low-fee model on another chain and see if it works.
I guess BTS have forked about 1000 times if forked it every time we are in argument.
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
Let me ask a simple question again. If I created an account through openledger, and I don't want to use their service anymore for my reasons, why the fuck I still need to pay fees to them? This is bullshit. Bitshares transaction fees should be paid to network. Business should charge separate fees for using their service. And if community wants to support ccedk or other business, this should be done through worker proposals voted by shareholders, or by crowdfund tokens, or by whatever, but not through this shitty referral. This does not bring new users in, this distracts them.
by using the web wallet you're already using their service. If you don't want to, use the light client with a different account. What's the problem?
@clayop how can people take that into account if he hasn't shown a business plan yet? You claim he knows a lot of people, celebrities and exchanges, well, why doesn't he present BitShares with a plan on how he plans to use those to grow the platform? Then maybe people would consider. As it is, it doesn't make any sense because people have nothing to judge. OpenLedger at least, as simple as it might seem, as presented us with something.
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
Let me ask a simple question again. If I created an account through openledger, and I don't want to use their service anymore for my reasons, why the fuck I still need to pay fees to them? This is bullshit. Bitshares transaction fees should be paid to network. Business should charge separate fees for using their service. And if community wants to support ccedk or other business, this should be done through worker proposals voted by shareholders, or by crowdfund tokens, or by whatever, but not through this shitty referral. This does not bring new users in, this distracts them.
If you create a mail account at hotmail.com, do you see their advertisment if you read your mails?
is hotmail preventing you from registering another account at googlemail who has less/other ads?
-
and still nobody answer my question:
1. what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
2. should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
good point
we need to ask ourselves a question: what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
and another question: should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
In my opinion, transfer fees and trade fees should as low as posible,
because we need more active users, and good liquility.
the value of users/liquility is much more valuable than the poor transfer fees
and I guess referral program can work even more better with low transfer/trade fee,
we can got more fees for special service, such as issue an asset, active asset's market, upgrade account ....
A good practice for those who hate the referral program: introduce others to register via your faucet and referral link, and reimburse them the 80% fees paid by them (to you). You won't feel guilty anymore. If you want to cover some costs of doing so, reimburse less, for example 79.9%.
Do something please, don't just complain.
-
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system, exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to sponsor gulu.
also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.
and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know
-
and still nobody answer my question:
1. what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
2. should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
good point
we need to ask ourselves a question: what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
and another question: should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
In my opinion, transfer fees and trade fees should as low as posible,
because we need more active users, and good liquility.
the value of users/liquility is much more valuable than the poor transfer fees
and I guess referral program can work even more better with low transfer/trade fee,
we can got more fees for special service, such as issue an asset, active asset's market, upgrade account ....
A good practice for those who hate the referral program: introduce others to register via your faucet and referral link, and reimburse them the 80% fees paid by them (to you). You won't feel guilty anymore. If you want to cover some costs of doing so, reimburse less, for example 79.9%.
Do something please, don't just complain.
yes I am not a person who just complained of course,
I will ask share holders to vote for low transfer fees.
and it's not a complain, it's a discuss, althrough I know most people don't like to think.
-
by using the web wallet you're already using their service. If you don't want to, use the light client with a different account. What's the problem?
Whats a problem? Are you kidding me? If I use a service once and then should pay fees forever is not a problem? Or am I missing something and there is a way to make account without being referred by ccedk or somebody else?
-
by using the web wallet you're already using their service. If you don't want to, use the light client with a different account. What's the problem?
Whats a problem? Are you kidding me? If I use a service once and then should pay fees forever is not a problem? Or am I missing something and there is a way to make account without being referred by ccedk or somebody else?
If you don't have a BitShares account yet, then the very first account you need to create with somebody else as your referrer.
Then you can upgrade this first account to LTM and once you do that, you achieve two things:
(1) you become your own referrer, so effectively you cut off the original referrer
(2) you are free to create further accounts being your own referrer
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
-
by using the web wallet you're already using their service. If you don't want to, use the light client with a different account. What's the problem?
Whats a problem? Are you kidding me? If I use a service once and then should pay fees forever is not a problem? Or am I missing something and there is a way to make account without being referred by ccedk or somebody else?
it's reasonable if you pay the same fees with or without reference program
means reference should get payment from BTS company, not from BTS users.
If you want sold me a product value 100 USD.
you should sold at price 100 USD,
you can't sold me at price 200 USD because of you use a refrence sell network.
if you sold at price 200, we call that ponzi.
-
means reference should get payment from BTS company, not from BTS users.
And where does the BTS company take this money from, if not from fees earned on users?
if you sold at price 200, we call that ponzi.
No, we call it sales margin.
All existing products have this, unless you have a way to buy straight from the factory that produces it.
Look, the referral program is meant to incentivize business around BitShares.
The ecosystem has benefits from that (e.g. we would not have Open Ledger fiat gateway without this incentive).
But somebody has to pay for it and no matter how we try to arrange things, it's always the end user who pays the bill.
-
do you believe BTS can earn more money from special service?
some service like register short account, upgrade account, create UIA, active a market for UIA
somebody have asked with low transfer fee, why people upgrade account?
we can give more features to VIP account, such as normal users can't create UIA, display a gold color name for VIP in the web site...
and can you give you answer for this questions:
forget about referal program, withou this program, what's the fees you prefer for transfer?
All I want to say is we should give a low fee for basic service, earn money from special service
and the referal program can run better,
actually no conflics between low transfer fees and refreal program.
means reference should get payment from BTS company, not from BTS users.
And where does the BTS company take this money from, if not from fees earned on users?
if you sold at price 200, we call that ponzi.
No, we call it sales margin.
All existing products have this, unless you have a way to buy straight from the factory that produces it.
Look, the referral program is meant to incentivize business around BitShares.
The ecosystem has benefits from that (e.g. we would not have Open Ledger fiat gateway without this incentive).
But somebody has to pay for it and no matter how we try to arrange things, it's always the end user who pays the bill.
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
-
I believe you only pay to your registrar. Check accounts on cryptofresh, if they have something like "Registrar openledger-reg", they were registered trough Openledger so they pay them. If you use the lightclient I believe you don't, however you might not have a faucet to register it so you'll need someone to send you the initial bts. I'm not sure though, give it a try.
Let me ask a simple question again. If I created an account through openledger, and I don't want to use their service anymore for my reasons, why the fuck I still need to pay fees to them? This is bullshit. Bitshares transaction fees should be paid to network. Business should charge separate fees for using their service. And if community wants to support ccedk or other business, this should be done through worker proposals voted by shareholders, or by crowdfund tokens, or by whatever, but not through this shitty referral. This does not bring new users in, this distracts them.
by using the web wallet you're already using their service. If you don't want to, use the light client with a different account. What's the problem?
@clayop how can people take that into account if he hasn't shown a business plan yet? You claim he knows a lot of people, celebrities and exchanges, well, why doesn't he present BitShares with a plan on how he plans to use those to grow the platform? Then maybe people would consider. As it is, it doesn't make any sense because people have nothing to judge. OpenLedger at least, as simple as it might seem, as presented us with something.
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
I'm little surprised by your ignorance.
Transwiser is the only fiat-to-smartcoin gateway that is also used by other 3rd party services, like btc38. You don't think this is important?
-
Transwiser is the only fiat-to-smartcoin gateway that is also used by other 3rd party services, like btc38. You don't think this is important?
Not important enought to let them destroy bts. What does Transwiser want? to increase their profits/customers short term at the expense of bts? If the referal program goes away bts is DEAD, DEADCan't you guys see that?
Another change of this magnitude to the rules and we are done, no need to mention about the halt to every work/development that will follow. Find another way to solve your problems and leave the referal program alone.
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
But over time, you realize savings on every transaction you make and eventually you end up saving more than the $100 you paid to become a lifetime member!
-
do you believe BTS can earn more money from special service?
some service like register short account, upgrade account, create UIA, active a market for UIA
somebody have asked with low transfer fee, why people upgrade account?
we can give more features to VIP account, such as normal users can't create UIA, display a gold color name for VIP in the web site...
Give a business plan at least revenue/profit analysis please? Who are the targeted users? How much will they pay for the "special service"?
* register short account, upgrade account, create UIA: these are already there, we can find whether they are profitable via data analysis.
* active a market for UIA: It's free now, so there is no complaint. Once you started charging fee, why do you think there will be no complaint? To start charging this fee we need development, will it worth fund via dilution? Data analysis please.
* normal users can't create UIA: currently fee of UIA registration is 5000, which means 1000 for LTM, so users are already motivated to upgrade to LTM. Imo it's more flexible than disabling something.
* display a gold color name for VIP in the web site: good idea. On CryptoFresh LTMs are displayed with a lightning icon, it's very cool. But on OpenLedger LTM shows with no difference to normal users. @svk can we have this feature?
Thank you for the suggestions. Very helpful.
and can you give you answer for this questions:
forget about referal program, withou this program, what's the fees you prefer for transfer?
Sorry, I don't know.
All I want to say is we should give a low fee for basic service, earn money from special service
and the referal program can run better,
actually no conflics between low transfer fees and refreal program.
means reference should get payment from BTS company, not from BTS users.
And where does the BTS company take this money from, if not from fees earned on users?
if you sold at price 200, we call that ponzi.
No, we call it sales margin.
All existing products have this, unless you have a way to buy straight from the factory that produces it.
Look, the referral program is meant to incentivize business around BitShares.
The ecosystem has benefits from that (e.g. we would not have Open Ledger fiat gateway without this incentive).
But somebody has to pay for it and no matter how we try to arrange things, it's always the end user who pays the bill.
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
Let's try to reach a compromise..
If you like, I can register a new name for you, and if you upgrade it to LTM, I'll return you 15000 BTS. Deal?
-
Can't a faucet page be made where new accounts can be created with no referrer and the user simply pays in Bitcoin and they can even sign up with a premium name from day one.
-
Some of you are ignoring that transfer does not mean only for money. It can include information, like messaging, communicating with iot, etc. High fees can remove these opportunities.
-
Some of you are ignoring that transfer does not mean only for money. It can include information, like messaging, communicating with iot, etc. High fees can remove these opportunities.
How about different (new?) operation for those... they do not fall under "asset transfer" category by most definitions, aren't they? (mostly you do not buy them/pay for them first, you just create the message, much like the memo field. A kB field and a small say 0.01BTS base/min fee.
-
We are now killing a very important business that are connected to enormous market, china. I'm really worried that bitcrab leaves BTS with his customers and human networks (exchanges, celebrities). He can, because he's a business guy. If he find more attractive market than BTS he will move.
Still, BitShares needs to please more than just bitcrab
Correct. But he's still important.
here I propose mainly as a representative of China community and a committee member, not the founder of transwiser.
whether I am important is not important, but it is important to face the problem and find a solution.
why there are always voice from China community to request transfer fee reduction, not because we like to make noise, but because the whole China community suffered from the high fee day after day.
now in this poll more than 50% voted 1 BTS or 0.1 BTS, this shows that even outside China there are many shareholders/users are not satisfactory with current transfer fee structure.
even I leave BTS the problem still exist.
-
I would very much like to see fewer rash and hateful words here.
I'm extremely disappointed with certain members of this community based on the tone of their posts in this thread.
While others are standing out for their clear and genuine efforts at reaching some understanding.
I understand a certain degree of skepticism and mistrust here, but we mustn't let it get the best of us. We can solve this issue, like so many before it.
I for one stand to benefit greatly from the referral program, yet I wish for a solution to the great fee debate which gives the Chinese members of our community the tools they need to succeed, and therefore the tools we need for all of us to succeed. Others have already pointed out the obvious, and I will reiterate, we are a global blockchain, a global community. We need to look after the interests of as many members of our community as we can manage. We will be as strong as our diversity, and we haven't yet begun to exhaust options for devising a plan which can accommodate the many communities of which we are comprised. Let's not let haste, or greed, for our little piece of the pie, distract us from the greater purpose here.
I'm generally in the don't change things until we've had a chance to see what's really happening as a result of current parameters camp, but we are faced with a situation in which a significant portion of our community is expressing a strong desire for another way of doing business, and we would do well to listen. Try to understand where bitcrab is coming from, and respond accordingly... don't just react. @merivercap and @abit, among others, are really keeping it real on this front. Respect.
We must have real dialogue between all interested parties, not just throwing stones. There must be a way to resolve this issue to the benefit of everyone involved. May reason and goodwill prevail.
C'mon, we're only on page 19 of this thread.. I think we'll have it around page 34. Someone start a prediction market for the fee debate already. ;)
The whole world is counting on us... no pressure. 8)
@bytemaster alluded to some thoughts on the matter in the last mumble... I'm curious when he will weigh in... page 20?
-
In China(maybe also in some other regions in the world), the current referral program is just a trouble maker, very few people are interested in playing as a referrer, on the otherside, the high fee brought by it make the old players unhappy and drive a lot potential new joiners away. even worse, the logic behind the referral program is not appreciated by the China blockchain/cryptocurrency community. the whole China BTS community are in pain because of this.
here I propose mainly as a representative of China community and a committee member, not the founder of transwiser.
whether I am important is not important, but it is important to face the problem and find a solution.
why there are always voice from China community to request transfer fee reduction, not because we like to make noise, but because the whole China community suffered from the high fee day after day.
now in this poll more than 50% voted 1 BTS or 0.1 BTS, this shows that even outside China there are many shareholders/users are not satisfactory with current transfer fee structure.
even I leave BTS the problem still exist.
@bitcrab , if you say the referral program is nothing but "a trouble maker" in countries like China, maybe this is a simple solution:
Create a special faucet in China that registers new users and offers them LTM for free (or almost for free to cover the network LTM fee).
This faucet will be a non-profit entity (or will have to be subsidized a little bit by businesses like yours) but in my eyes it makes perfect sense, if you say you are able to make profit elsewhere, i.e. outside the referral program.
The only drawback is that Chinese customers will have to be aware of the vesting aspect (i.e. they pay higher fee today but 80% of it gets refunded in the future).
It's so simple that I'm sure you must have thought about it already.
But what are the reasons (apart from vesting) that prevent you from solving the problem this way?
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)
I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)
I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
why should a worker be paid to run a non-profit faucet? It would be better to have the faucet itself pay 10% for maintenance and burn the other 90%. It is technically also possible to identify those referers that upgraded to LTM and pay them back automatically (invovles trust) after 90 days of vesting. Since this needs coding and resouces, this should at least make some little money for however sets it up.
Wouldn't it?
I can certainly set something like this op on bitshares.eu if you want it
-
I would very much like to see fewer rash and hateful words here.
I'm extremely disappointed with certain members of this community based on the tone of their posts in this thread.
While others are standing out for their clear and genuine efforts at reaching some understanding.
I understand a certain degree of skepticism and mistrust here, but we mustn't let it get the best of us. We can solve this issue, like so many before it.
I for one stand to benefit greatly from the referral program, yet I wish for a solution to the great fee debate which gives the Chinese members of our community the tools they need to succeed, and therefore the tools we need for all of us to succeed. Others have already pointed out the obvious, and I will reiterate, we are a global blockchain, a global community. We need to look after the interests of as many members of our community as we can manage. We will be as strong as our diversity, and we haven't yet begun to exhaust options for devising a plan which can accommodate the many communities of which we are comprised. Let's not let haste, or greed, for our little piece of the pie, distract us from the greater purpose here.
I'm generally in the don't change things until we've had a chance to see what's really happening as a result of current parameters camp, but we are faced with a situation in which a significant portion of our community is expressing a strong desire for another way of doing business, and we would do well to listen. Try to understand where bitcrab is coming from, and respond accordingly... don't just react. @merivercap and @abit, among others, are really keeping it real on this front. Respect.
We must have real dialogue between all interested parties, not just throwing stones. There must be a way to resolve this issue to the benefit of everyone involved. May reason and goodwill prevail.
C'mon, we're only on page 19 of this thread.. I think we'll have it around page 34. Someone start a prediction market for the fee debate already. ;)
The whole world is counting on us... no pressure. 8)
@bytemaster alluded to some thoughts on the matter in the last mumble... I'm curious when he will weigh in... page 20?
Every word....fantastic.
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)
I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
why should a worker be paid to run a non-profit faucet? It would be better to have the faucet itself pay 10% for maintenance and burn the other 90%. It is technically also possible to identify those referers that upgraded to LTM and pay them back automatically (invovles trust) after 90 days of vesting. Since this needs coding and resouces, this should at least make some little money for however sets it up.
Wouldn't it?
I can certainly set something like this op on bitshares.eu if you want it
This really does sound like a great solution. I support it too!
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)
I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
why should a worker be paid to run a non-profit faucet? It would be better to have the faucet itself pay 10% for maintenance and burn the other 90%. It is technically also possible to identify those referers that upgraded to LTM and pay them back automatically (invovles trust) after 90 days of vesting. Since this needs coding and resouces, this should at least make some little money for however sets it up.
Wouldn't it?
I can certainly set something like this op on bitshares.eu if you want it
You're right, @xeroc
I agree that what you propose makes more sense than a worker porposal.
If you could do that, it would be great. Because I think @yvv has a valid point - it's not fair anybody should be forced to pay a fee to a third-party if actually no third-party was involved in attracting this new user to BitShares. If I come across BitShares via Market Coin Cap or Google, I should have the right not to pay anybody (except the network) for the ability to create an account.
Also, this gives a new dimension to the referral program. There will be faucets competing on the LTM discount and thus they will be forced to offer additional services to justify their pricing policy.
And this should be good news to those who say that the referral program is a burden for BitShares - you can run your own non-profit faucet and thus force the referral businesses to bring some added value to the user or go out of business.
@bitcrab @clayop @alt - what do you think?
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
-
We should certainly have more competition in faucets and I can set one up this week.
What I do NOT want (and I think many will agree) is to be the DEFAULT faucet on bitshares.org/wallet or something similar because faucets need competition as well!
We should give the user a choice on registration which faucet they want to use and for what reason they should pick them. Of course, openledger.info is excluded here since they don't want to give that option to the users they catch in their marketing they are working hard on.
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
But the difference between non-LTM and LTM transfer fees is the whole point of the referral program.
You cannot have low transfer fees across the whole system and the referral program at the same time.
I have no interesting for the faucets
If you're personally not interested in running a non-profit faucet, that's fine.
But note that the existence of a non-profit faucet will achieve your aim: low transfer fees for all users who have registered via this faucet.
I'm a bit supported you fight so hard for low transfer fees, saying that they are crucial for BitShares in China, but when I offer you means to achieve that, you say you are not interested.
-
I think we should lower the transfer fees so that we stay competitive with other businesses but no further ..
Transfers are not essential to the referral program unless you are a payment processor and only want that operation ..
most businesses in the referral program do refer traders and business that want to trade and or create their own assets on the chain .. those fees could be raised .. as well as the fee for upgrading to LTM
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
thanks, I have not understand all, but here is some advice:
1. for asset settle, I agree should be discourage, but I prefer compensate shorters instead of charge high fees to pool.
this means: a low settle fees + force_settlement_offset_percent(compensate like 1%)
2. if override_transfer can be used by prediction markets, I prefer a low fee.
3. some operation used for maintain, not for profit, I prefer a low fee, such as:
asset_update_bitasset asset_update_feed_producers asset_claim_fees
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
But the difference between non-LTM and LTM transfer fees is the whole point of the referral program.
You cannot have low transfer fees across the whole system and the referral program at the same time.
I have no interesting for the faucets
If you're personally not interested in running a non-profit faucet, that's fine.
But note that the existence of a non-profit faucet will achieve your aim: low transfer fees for all users who have registered via this faucet.
I'm a bit supported you fight so hard for low transfer fees, saying that they are crucial for BitShares in China, but when I offer you means to achieve that, you say you are not interested.
I guess xeroc also have different option with you
I have no problem for LTM have same transfer fees/trade fees with normal users,
because I encourage as more as possible people can come to use bitshares for transfer, for trade.
(in traditional company, they even send a free gift(like a mouse, a cup) for customer who used their payment service.)
upgrade or not upgrade to LTM is cursomers free, I wish they have low transfer/trade fees even they don't choose to upgrade.
but we can offer more special service to attract user to upgrade to LTM,
referal program should earn money from these special service, or upgrade fees.
you are supprice for me because you still don't understand me.
-
@bitcrab , if you say the referral program is nothing but "a trouble maker" in countries like China, maybe this is a simple solution:
Create a special faucet in China that registers new users and offers them LTM for free (or almost for free to cover the network LTM fee).
This faucet will be a non-profit entity (or will have to be subsidized a little bit by businesses like yours) but in my eyes it makes perfect sense, if you say you are able to make profit elsewhere, i.e. outside the referral program.
The only drawback is that Chinese customers will have to be aware of the vesting aspect (i.e. they pay higher fee today but 80% of it gets refunded in the future).
It's so simple that I'm sure you must have thought about it already.
But what are the reasons (apart from vesting) that prevent you from solving the problem this way?
I do not get you.
now one LTM cost 20K BTS, how can a faucet offer free LTM? even I can make a little profit, I cannot offer free LTM.
and if there is a faucet that offer free LTM, new users all around the world will come to sign up, how will openledger attract users?
-
thanks, I have not understand all, but here is some advice:
1. for asset settle, I agree should be discourage, but I prefer compensate shorters instead of charge high fees to pool.
this means: a low settle fees + force_settlement_offset_percent(compensate like 1%)
We could certainly do this, but it kind of kills our reputation since we
advertised settlement AT the pricefeed. Not sure how this would be
perceived :(
2. if override_transfer can be used by prediction markets, I prefer a low fee.
Need to figure this out first
3. some operation used for maintain, not for profit, I prefer a low fee, such as:
asset_update_bitasset asset_update_feed_producers asset_claim_fees
privatized bitassets are certainly a feature that the network can
benefit from. I agree that this is not the case for committee-owned
bitassets, but it is for every other (privatized) bitasset.
-
I do not get you.
now one LTM cost 20K BTS, how can a faucet offer free LTM? even I can make a little profit, I cannot offer free LTM.
The faucet promises to pay back 90% of the upgrade fee after 90 days. Done.
And you can make 10% profit plus every profit made from fees until the upgrade.
and if there is a faucet that offer free LTM, new users all around the world will come to sign up, how will openledger attract users?
now that is marketing. pick any idea to set your service apart from any other
-
3. some operation used for maintain, not for profit, I prefer a low fee, such as:
asset_update_bitasset asset_update_feed_producers asset_claim_fees
privatized bitassets are certainly a feature that the network can
benefit from. I agree that this is not the case for committee-owned
bitassets, but it is for every other (privatized) bitasset.
because these operations are used for maitain, It's very user unfriendly if you charge high fee.
maybe it's more reasonable for add a percent fees(go to global fee pool) based UIA's trade/transfer fees(go to UIA's pool)
#edit seems the simple way is add a percent fee for asset_claim_fees
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal". EDIT: I've found it.
If transfer fees are removed from the LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?
I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
-
3. some operation used for maintain, not for profit, I prefer a low fee, such as:
asset_update_bitasset asset_update_feed_producers asset_claim_fees
privatized bitassets are certainly a feature that the network can
benefit from. I agree that this is not the case for committee-owned
bitassets, but it is for every other (privatized) bitasset.
because these operations are used for maitain, It's very user unfriendly if you charge high fee.
maybe it's more reasonable for add a percent fees(go to global fee pool) based UIA's trade/transfer fees(go to UIA's pool)
#edit seems the simple way is add a percent fee for asset_claim_fees
indeed ..
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".
If transfer fees are removed from the LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?
I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
We do want online merchants, and we do want micropayments. for that reason a transfer fee of 0.024$c is proposed together with alot of other changes in the fee structure that are yet to be opimized by many iterations ..
Also, name one bitcoin processor that profits from a) referrals or b) transaction fees.
Whatevery we pay them, it is already an extra profit for them.
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".
If transfer fees are removed from the LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?
I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
we should add more aditional feature for LTM,
such as can add a field for json info, lined to photo, webpage, social account,
can add a wall for LTM, others can wirte public message for LTM,
can use chat room on chain....
-
I just got a new idea,
LTM means trust.
with reliable evidence, if LTM cheat somebody with money, committee can cancel an account's LTM
-
actually, I'd rather see some more operations that REQUIRE a LTM to be used .. good candidates are
WITHDRAW_PERMISSIONS
BOND MARKET
STEALTH TRANSFERS
etc ..
-
We do want online merchants, and we do want micropayments. for that reason a transfer fee of 0.024$c is proposed together with alot of other changes in the fee structure that are yet to be opimized by many iterations ..
Also, name one bitcoin processor that profits from a) referrals or b) transaction fees.
Whatevery we pay them, it is already an extra profit for them.
Let Referral program businesses make more profit from other features that are considered less 'core'-ish.
This weakens our sales pitch to online merchants to a large degree.
Majority of their customers will never do anything in BitShares beyond the 'core'-ish stuff, so if transfer fees are not part of the deal, the chance of buying LTM by the merchants' customers becomes really small.
Indeed, whatever we pay online merchants, it is already an extra profit for them, but this "whatever" becomes much less.
In this case, the LTM concept evolves into an offer for *advanced* users instead of being an offer for *frequent* users.
It's a significant change in the referral program strategy, but if businesses like @kenCode are OK with it, then maybe it makes sense.
-
I have no income, zero.
The mobile wallets will bring us referral income. This income is sorely needed to get the wallet past v1.0 and keep it bug free, constantly improving and ad-free. I have a family of four and my wife works 3 jobs, she is NOT happy that I have had no income for over a year. I have put my life blood, sweat and tears into this business and to have the only thing I have going yanked out from under me once again, well, I have to say this is it. Nuff said. Please enable micro-payments with near zero fees all the way up to large POS payments such as a Ferarri (charge a much higher fee of course) on a dynamic scale, but I would definitely cap it and use the Smartcoins as the % basis instead of the volatile BTS. @abit @jakub @xeroc @fav @BunkerChain Labs @chryspano and many others here know how important the network effect is, we need dynamic fees.
The Smartcoins POS for Odoo can bring us ALL an income. Dynamic fees are required here as well. Everything from 5 cent gumballs all the way up to houses and yachts and beyond.
Flat models don't scale, nature itself is dynamic, mimic nature and THRIVE.
-
I have no income, zero.
The mobile wallets will bring us referral income. This income is sorely needed to get the wallet past v1.0 and keep it bug free, constantly improving and ad-free. I have a family of four and my wife works 3 jobs, she is NOT happy that I have had no income for over a year. I have put my life blood, sweat and tears into this business and to have the only thing I have going yanked out from under me once again, well, I have to say this is it. Nuff said. Please enable micro-payments with near zero fees all the way up to large POS payments such as a Ferarri (charge a much higher fee of course) on a dynamic scale, but I would definitely cap it and use the Smartcoins as the % basis instead of the volatile BTS. @abit @jakub @xeroc @fav @BunkerChain Labs @chryspano and many others here know how important the network effect is, we need dynamic fees.
The Smartcoins POS for Odoo can bring us ALL an income. Dynamic fees are required here as well. Everything from 5 cent gumballs all the way up to houses and yachts and beyond.
Flat models don't scale, nature itself is dynamic, mimic nature and THRIVE.
It's important to realize people like ken have been developing businesses for bts using the current referral model as a key element in their design. I don't think people her realize that businesses don't just pop up in a week.
I was just starting to develop a business as well, but now all of a sudden we are facing another drastic rule change. A rule change that effectively destroys any business that had been developing for the current version of bts.
Yes, everyone would love to pay extremely low fees. But just because they want lower fees doesn't mean they won't pay slightly higher ones. There is little real evidence to show high fees are slowing bitshares adoption. On the other hand there is vast empirical evidence that shows rule and parameter changes are cutting bts off at the knees.
-
There is little real evidence to show high fees are slowing bitshares adoption. On the other hand there is vast empirical evidence that shows rule and parameter changes are cutting bts off at the knees.
This. Which makes it compltely illogical to change atm, imo. This is the most rational option so why come up with stuff that will destabilize the network? I just don't get it.
Atm the status of the network is A
Someone wants B because they don't agree with A
There is no evidence A is harmful
There is evidence that changing the status of the network (ie, B) is harmful.
What's even there left to discuss?
-
There is little real evidence to show high fees are slowing bitshares adoption. On the other hand there is vast empirical evidence that shows rule and parameter changes are cutting bts off at the knees.
This. Which makes it compltely illogical to change atm, imo. This is the most rational option so why come up with stuff that will destabilize the network? I just don't get it.
Atm the status of the network is A
Someone wants B because they don't agree with A
There is no evidence A is harmful
There is evidence that changing the status of the network (ie, B) is harmful.
What's even there left to discuss?
+5%
I fully agree with @lil_jay890 and @Akado
Those who want to experiment with changing from status A to status B - let them do this without affecting other existing (or planned) businesses, i.e. by giving up their referral profits and running a non-profit faucet for *their* customers to see how the transition to status B works for them.
This way we can reconcile both approaches and let the more efficient one survive.
This is a very important question: do low transfer fees (for bigger transfers) really matter for the customers? Maybe they do and maybe to some degree they don't. Maybe it all depends on regional / cultural circumstances. The point is we don't know this at this stage. People who say they know it for sure because it's "obvious", cannot be treated seriously.
-
@bitcrab , if you say the referral program is nothing but "a trouble maker" in countries like China, maybe this is a simple solution:
Create a special faucet in China that registers new users and offers them LTM for free (or almost for free to cover the network LTM fee).
This faucet will be a non-profit entity (or will have to be subsidized a little bit by businesses like yours) but in my eyes it makes perfect sense, if you say you are able to make profit elsewhere, i.e. outside the referral program.
The only drawback is that Chinese customers will have to be aware of the vesting aspect (i.e. they pay higher fee today but 80% of it gets refunded in the future).
It's so simple that I'm sure you must have thought about it already.
But what are the reasons (apart from vesting) that prevent you from solving the problem this way?
I do not get you.
now one LTM cost 20K BTS, how can a faucet offer free LTM? even I can make a little profit, I cannot offer free LTM.
and if there is a faucet that offer free LTM, new users all around the world will come to sign up, how will openledger attract users?
Some misunderstandings here..
I think what Jakub proposed about "free LTM" is: if you refer someone, when she upgrade to LTM (for example the cost for her is 20K BTS), you will get 16K BTS but it will vest after 90 days, so you CAN return that 16K BTS to her after 90 days. That's all. I think Jakub didn't mean that you should give the user 20K BTS to upgrade to LTM.
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".
If transfer fees are removed from the LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?
I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
we should add more aditional feature for LTM,
such as can add a field for json info, lined to photo, webpage, social account,
can add a wall for LTM, others can wirte public message for LTM,
can use chat room on chain....
Trollbox for LTM!
-
There is little real evidence to show high fees are slowing bitshares adoption. On the other hand there is vast empirical evidence that shows rule and parameter changes are cutting bts off at the knees.
This. Which makes it compltely illogical to change atm, imo. This is the most rational option so why come up with stuff that will destabilize the network? I just don't get it.
Atm the status of the network is A
Someone wants B because they don't agree with A
There is no evidence A is harmful
There is evidence that changing the status of the network (ie, B) is harmful.
What's even there left to discuss?
There's no evidence that high fees accelerate Bitshares adoption too
-
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".
If transfer fees are removed from the LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?
I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
we should add more aditional feature for LTM,
such as can add a field for json info, lined to photo, webpage, social account,
can add a wall for LTM, others can wirte public message for LTM,
can use chat room on chain....
Trollbox for LTM!
Wouldn't be a trollbox anymore.. it would be VIPbox. ;)
I think new FBA type features introduced would be up to the makers if they wish to make them LTM or not. There maybe some business models that would really like that.
-
[
There's no evidence that high fees accelerate Bitshares adoption too
[/quote]
Which is why changing the rules now will crush all the business's that are just getting ready to launch with the current form of BTS...
There may be no difference in adoption rates between lower or higher fee's, but adoption will continue to be retarded when there are constant parameter and rule changes.
-
I have no income, zero.
The mobile wallets will bring us referral income. This income is sorely needed to get the wallet past v1.0 and keep it bug free, constantly improving and ad-free. I have a family of four and my wife works 3 jobs, she is NOT happy that I have had no income for over a year. I have put my life blood, sweat and tears into this business and to have the only thing I have going yanked out from under me once again, well, I have to say this is it. Nuff said. Please enable micro-payments with near zero fees all the way up to large POS payments such as a Ferarri (charge a much higher fee of course) on a dynamic scale, but I would definitely cap it and use the Smartcoins as the % basis instead of the volatile BTS. @abit @jakub @xeroc @fav @BunkerChain Labs @chryspano and many others here know how important the network effect is, we need dynamic fees.
The Smartcoins POS for Odoo can bring us ALL an income. Dynamic fees are required here as well. Everything from 5 cent gumballs all the way up to houses and yachts and beyond.
Flat models don't scale, nature itself is dynamic, mimic nature and THRIVE.
So can you please describe your business model more clearly? For example how lowering transfer fees would affect you and etc..
-
@bitcrab , if you say the referral program is nothing but "a trouble maker" in countries like China, maybe this is a simple solution:
Create a special faucet in China that registers new users and offers them LTM for free (or almost for free to cover the network LTM fee).
This faucet will be a non-profit entity (or will have to be subsidized a little bit by businesses like yours) but in my eyes it makes perfect sense, if you say you are able to make profit elsewhere, i.e. outside the referral program.
The only drawback is that Chinese customers will have to be aware of the vesting aspect (i.e. they pay higher fee today but 80% of it gets refunded in the future).
It's so simple that I'm sure you must have thought about it already.
But what are the reasons (apart from vesting) that prevent you from solving the problem this way?
I do not get you.
now one LTM cost 20K BTS, how can a faucet offer free LTM? even I can make a little profit, I cannot offer free LTM.
and if there is a faucet that offer free LTM, new users all around the world will come to sign up, how will openledger attract users?
Some misunderstandings here..
I think what Jakub proposed about "free LTM" is: if you refer someone, when she upgrade to LTM (for example the cost for her is 20K BTS), you will get 16K BTS but it will vest after 90 days, so you CAN return that 16K BTS to her after 90 days. That's all. I think Jakub didn't mean that you should give the user 20K BTS to upgrade to LTM.
That's indeed what I meant.
Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)
I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
I'd like to make myself clear, I am not against referral program. I participate in a bunch of them all the time. For example, if I refer a new tenant to my apartment leasing company, I get $300 from them. This is one time payment, which is about 20% of monthly rental fee. A new tenant is not forced to pay 80% of my rent, he pays just his regular monthly fee to the company. And of course he could go straight to the office, and make a deal with them directly. This is how referral program should work imo.
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)
I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
I'd like to make myself clear, I am not against referral program. I participate in a bunch of them all the time. For example, if I refer a new tenant to my apartment leasing company, I get $300 from them. This is one time payment, which is about 20% of monthly rental fee. A new tenant is not forced to pay 80% of my rent, he pays just his regular monthly fee to the company. And of course he could go straight to the office, and make a deal with them directly. This is how referral program should work imo.
'
Are you saying new users should just do a one time - but higher - payment to whoever refers them?
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)
I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
I'd like to make myself clear, I am not against referral program. I participate in a bunch of them all the time. For example, if I refer a new tenant to my apartment leasing company, I get $300 from them. This is one time payment, which is about 20% of monthly rental fee. A new tenant is not forced to pay 80% of my rent, he pays just his regular monthly fee to the company. And of course he could go straight to the office, and make a deal with them directly. This is how referral program should work imo.
'
Are you saying new users should just do a one time - but higher - payment to whoever refers them?
This is not what happens in the example which I described. In my example, a new user, whom I refer, pays regular fee to the company. And the company decides how much they want to reward me for bringing in new user. In my case, they cut my rent by 20% for one month. This is a pretty good motivation to advertise this company.
-
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.
So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)
I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
I'd like to make myself clear, I am not against referral program. I participate in a bunch of them all the time. For example, if I refer a new tenant to my apartment leasing company, I get $300 from them. This is one time payment, which is about 20% of monthly rental fee. A new tenant is not forced to pay 80% of my rent, he pays just his regular monthly fee to the company. And of course he could go straight to the office, and make a deal with them directly. This is how referral program should work imo.
'
Are you saying new users should just do a one time - but higher - payment to whoever refers them?
This is not what happens in the example which I described. In my example, a new user, whom I refer, pays regular fee to the company. And the company decides how much they want to reward me for bringing in new user. In my case, they cut my rent by 20% for one month. This is a pretty good motivation to advertise this company.
You do understand that you are paying higher rent than you would if your company did not have this referral program right? Just because they don't state this doesn't make it untrue. The money has to come from somewhere. I am shocked that you are not angry that you are being overcharged by your landlord, and kept in rent slavery that you can only get out of by referring new renters.
-
The referral program is broken for reasons that no one has ever brought up on these forums (or at least I haven't seen it brought up.) Do not make important decisions based on it.
I had an epiphany today regarding it. I do not have time to explain now as I have school work that is due by 12am. Also, it is a lucrative business plan (hinging on Bitshares' success) so I'm not sure if I want to explain it publicly without taking a stab at being the "first mover" on the said business plan.
-
The referral program is broken for reasons that no one has ever brought up on these forums (or at least I haven't seen it brought up.) Do not make important decisions based on it.
I had an epiphany today regarding it. I do not have time to explain now as I have school work that is due by 12am. Also, it is a lucrative business plan so I'm not sure if I want to explain it publicly without taking a stab at being the "first mover" on the said business plan.
That doesn't really help. You say it's broken but then you say you can't disclose. You have every right to do so but that doesn't prove anything. For anyone else you're arguing it's broken just "because".
-
The referral program is broken for reasons that no one has ever brought up on these forums (or at least I haven't seen it brought up.) Do not make important decisions based on it.
I had an epiphany today regarding it. I do not have time to explain now as I have school work that is due by 12am. Also, it is a lucrative business plan so I'm not sure if I want to explain it publicly without taking a stab at being the "first mover" on the said business plan.
That doesn't really help. You say it's broken but then you say you can't disclose. You have every right to do so but that doesn't prove anything. For anyone else you're arguing it's broken just "because".
Feel free to ignore me... the business plan would be more lucrative if fees stay as-is (high) and the referral program remain unchanged. :P
-
The referral program is broken for reasons that no one has ever brought up on these forums (or at least I haven't seen it brought up.) Do not make important decisions based on it.
I had an epiphany today regarding it. I do not have time to explain now as I have school work that is due by 12am. Also, it is a lucrative business plan so I'm not sure if I want to explain it publicly without taking a stab at being the "first mover" on the said business plan.
That doesn't really help. You say it's broken but then you say you can't disclose. You have every right to do so but that doesn't prove anything. For anyone else you're arguing it's broken just "because".
Feel free to ignore me... the business plan would be more lucrative if fees stay as-is (high) and the referral program remain unchanged. [emoji14]
Lucrative for whom? You or the bts shareholders?
This brings us right to the core of the problem. No matter what fee is chosen, you cant please everyone.
We cant bring in micropayment users and at the same time keep businesses that run solely on top of the referral fee for transfer operations.
-
You do understand that you are paying higher rent than you would if your company did not have this referral program right? Just because they don't state this doesn't make it untrue. The money has to come from somewhere. I am shocked that you are not angry that you are being overcharged by your landlord, and kept in rent slavery that you can only get out of by referring new renters.
No. Exactly opposite happens. We have the lowest fees in neighborhood, because our landlord fills available apartments fast. They pay me $300, because I save them bunch of money. Unoccupied apartment cost them, since they have to pay mortgage for their property. Their motivation is clear and reasonable. This is how business people do their business. This is not how bitshares referral works. Bitshares referrers rob the network and new users. They bite 80% of fees from reserve pool, then dump it on the market for fiat, and then have a good time with blackjack and hookers.
-
I understand you now.
I guess the conflict is you need fast money and can't wait.
but I am afraid it's very hard to earn fast money from users
I suggest you have a long term plan, and seek venture capital, maybe you can get fast money from them.
another problem, why Europe bank have a high transfer fee?
I think it's not for a simply transfer service, maybe include some other cost,
like they need to take responsibility to avoid your wrong transfer,
they need to maintain the customers real identify, credit infomation, and offer these to customers
these are my guess, I just can't belive in a free market, a simply transfer service with high fee can win in the final.
I have no income, zero.
The mobile wallets will bring us referral income. This income is sorely needed to get the wallet past v1.0 and keep it bug free, constantly improving and ad-free. I have a family of four and my wife works 3 jobs, she is NOT happy that I have had no income for over a year. I have put my life blood, sweat and tears into this business and to have the only thing I have going yanked out from under me once again, well, I have to say this is it. Nuff said. Please enable micro-payments with near zero fees all the way up to large POS payments such as a Ferarri (charge a much higher fee of course) on a dynamic scale, but I would definitely cap it and use the Smartcoins as the % basis instead of the volatile BTS. @abit @jakub @xeroc @fav @BunkerChain Labs @chryspano and many others here know how important the network effect is, we need dynamic fees.
The Smartcoins POS for Odoo can bring us ALL an income. Dynamic fees are required here as well. Everything from 5 cent gumballs all the way up to houses and yachts and beyond.
Flat models don't scale, nature itself is dynamic, mimic nature and THRIVE.
-
Oops, I posted this on the wrong thread. Following up on my previous posts ITT:
Alright, school work done! I decided that I don't have the time or will to enact this evil plan. Also, someone can kill the "lucrative" part of it, so here goes nothing...
How to Monopolize the Referral Business:
Bob wants to monopolize the referral business because he likes making money. He sets up a business that works like the rakeback business in poker [1]. Anyone that signs up under him, he gives X% of the fees back to them that he earns. It costs him very little to set this up. It mostly just costs him the time it takes to program an automated solution. Bob makes it known that if anyone competes with him, he will burn the referral business to the ground by coming over the top of whatever percentage of rakeback they offer until 100%. There is then no incentive to compete with Bob using the same business model, because if you do he will come over the top of your offer- all the way to a 100% rakeback offering. Assuming everyone acts in their own self-interest, they would register for an account with Bob as their referrer because they will save a lot of BTS on the fees. Monopolizing the referral business would not work if someone was motivated enough to kill the referral business outright (see below.)
How to Kill Referral Businesses:
Charlie wants the referral business to die because he thinks the inflated fees are bad for the future of Bitshares. He sets up a business that works like the rakeback business in poker [1]. Anyone that signs up under him, he gives 100% of the fees back to them that he earns. It costs him very little to set this up. It mostly just costs him the time it takes to program an automated solution. Assuming everyone acts in their own self-interest, they would register for an account with Charlie as their referrer because they will save a lot of BTS on the fees. No one can compete with 100% rakeback, and all referral businesses that rely on the referral program for profit would die off.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_(poker)#Rakeback
-
What ways are there for bitshares to incentivize users to pay a higher fee by choice?
Can the referral system be an option for some benefit, but not mandatory? what benefit?
I would pay a higher then necessary fee, if ...
I started a new thread for this here if anyone's interested.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21262.msg276150.html#msg276150
-
Alright, school work done! I decided that I don't have the time or will to enact this evil plan. Also, someone can kill the "lucrative" part of it, so here goes nothing...
How to Monopolize the Referral Business:
Bob wants to monopolize the referral business because he likes making money. He sets up a business that works like the rakeback business in poker [1]. Anyone that signs up under him, he gives X% of the fees back to them that he earns. It costs him very little to set this up. It mostly just costs him the time it takes to program an automated solution. Bob makes it known that if anyone competes with him, he will burn the referral business to the ground by coming over the top of whatever percentage of rakeback they offer until 100%. There is then no incentive to compete with Bob using the same business model, because if you do he will come over the top of your offer- all the way to a 100% rakeback offering. Assuming everyone acts in their own self-interest, they would register for an account with Bob as their referrer because they will save a lot of BTS on the fees. Monopolizing the referral business would not work if someone was motivated enough to kill the referral business outright (see below.)
If this works lets let Bitcrab implement this so that his customerers/clients have lower fees/expenses and lets see how it goes.
How to Kill Referral Businesses:
Charlie wants the referral business to die because he thinks the inflated fees are bad for the future of Bitshares. He sets up a business that works like the rakeback business in poker [1]. Anyone that signs up under him, he gives 100% of the fees back to them that he earns. It costs him very little to set this up. It mostly just costs him the time it takes to program an automated solution. Assuming everyone acts in their own self-interest, they would register for an account with Charlie as their referrer because they will save a lot of BTS on the fees. No one can compete with 100% rakeback, and all referral businesses that rely on the referral program for profit would die off.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_(poker)#Rakeback
Ok, what will happen if I spam/create 15.342.736.643 accounts with Charlie as referral?
-
Alright, school work done! I decided that I don't have the time or will to enact this evil plan. Also, someone can kill the "lucrative" part of it, so here goes nothing...
How to Monopolize the Referral Business:
Bob wants to monopolize the referral business because he likes making money. He sets up a business that works like the rakeback business in poker [1]. Anyone that signs up under him, he gives X% of the fees back to them that he earns. It costs him very little to set this up. It mostly just costs him the time it takes to program an automated solution. Bob makes it known that if anyone competes with him, he will burn the referral business to the ground by coming over the top of whatever percentage of rakeback they offer until 100%. There is then no incentive to compete with Bob using the same business model, because if you do he will come over the top of your offer- all the way to a 100% rakeback offering. Assuming everyone acts in their own self-interest, they would register for an account with Bob as their referrer because they will save a lot of BTS on the fees. Monopolizing the referral business would not work if someone was motivated enough to kill the referral business outright (see below.)
If this works lets let Bitcrab implement this so that his customerers/clients have lower fees/expenses and lets see how it goes.
I know this would work but it would be centralized. You could create a more decentralized version with account permissions and multiple parties, but that makes it a lot more complicated to implement. The person that offers the highest rakeback will be the referrer that people want to sign up with. China could setup one with a very high percentage (or 100%) which would effectively nullifying the referral program.
How to Kill Referral Businesses:
Charlie wants the referral business to die because he thinks the inflated fees are bad for the future of Bitshares. He sets up a business that works like the rakeback business in poker [1]. Anyone that signs up under him, he gives 100% of the fees back to them that he earns. It costs him very little to set this up. It mostly just costs him the time it takes to program an automated solution. Assuming everyone acts in their own self-interest, they would register for an account with Charlie as their referrer because they will save a lot of BTS on the fees. No one can compete with 100% rakeback, and all referral businesses that rely on the referral program for profit would die off.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_(poker)#Rakeback
I assume that I
Ok, what will happen if I spam/create 15.342.736.643 accounts with Charlie as referral?
Good point- that's something I hadn't thought of but I don't think it would make my plan not work. I suppose I would implement SMS verification, email verification, or social verification to make it very complicated and expensive (cell phone #s) to register many accounts with the intention of sabotage. Yet, to be realistic it should remain easy enough for people to sign up for accounts. So, all types of verification checks would probably not be used.
Edit: You could also charge whatever it cost in BTS to register an account. I think that people would gladly pay the (currently 19 BTS) registration fee considering they will save the much in fees in no time (6 BTS per transaction for instance.) This would effectively make it impossible to abuse (at least in this way.)
-
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system, exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to sponsor gulu.
also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.
and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know
No replies on this post :p
Cannot rebut?
-
there is a bit off topic
I guess most of you don't know bitcrab because of he handle his business so professional, never ask for a cent from community. so you even don't know his exist.
there is a world in China: a baby who cried louder can get more candies.
and I guess you also don't know, bitcrab is one of the guys who first translate bitshares whitepaper to Chinese, almost all Chinese fans got to known BTS because of him.
Ironically, you call this guy toxic to bitshares
you don't learn to respect our old friend, no new friend will come
you don't learn to respect share holders(how many times you have said, fork it if you not satisfied), no money will support us
-
I have tried to remain respectful to bitcrab and others even when I disagree with them. There have been some from both communities that have lowered themselves to making personal attacks. I have stated that I find all of that distasteful, and we should work to remain civil. Bitcrab has taken a large amount of abuse, and he has largely remained calm and professional. I have more respect for bitcrab now than I did when he began this thread.
-
I would very much like to see fewer rash and hateful words here.
I'm extremely disappointed with certain members of this community based on the tone of their posts in this thread.
While others are standing out for their clear and genuine efforts at reaching some understanding.
I understand a certain degree of skepticism and mistrust here, but we mustn't let it get the best of us. We can solve this issue, like so many before it.
I for one stand to benefit greatly from the referral program, yet I wish for a solution to the great fee debate which gives the Chinese members of our community the tools they need to succeed, and therefore the tools we need for all of us to succeed. Others have already pointed out the obvious, and I will reiterate, we are a global blockchain, a global community. We need to look after the interests of as many members of our community as we can manage. We will be as strong as our diversity, and we haven't yet begun to exhaust options for devising a plan which can accommodate the many communities of which we are comprised. Let's not let haste, or greed, for our little piece of the pie, distract us from the greater purpose here.
I'm generally in the don't change things until we've had a chance to see what's really happening as a result of current parameters camp, but we are faced with a situation in which a significant portion of our community is expressing a strong desire for another way of doing business, and we would do well to listen. Try to understand where bitcrab is coming from, and respond accordingly... don't just react. @merivercap and @abit, among others, are really keeping it real on this front. Respect.
We must have real dialogue between all interested parties, not just throwing stones. There must be a way to resolve this issue to the benefit of everyone involved. May reason and goodwill prevail.
C'mon, we're only on page 19 of this thread.. I think we'll have it around page 34. Someone start a prediction market for the fee debate already. ;)
The whole world is counting on us... no pressure. 8)
@bytemaster alluded to some thoughts on the matter in the last mumble... I'm curious when he will weigh in... page 20?
Page 20 is up and BM has not weighed in. This is a positive development for bitshares. BM is letting the self-governing merchanism of bitshares to function. Let the community, and its proxies and committee to discuss and sort things out.
+5% for your much-needed sensible post. There are numerous emotionally charged responses before your post - some resorting to name calling, personal attacks and using expletives. It is regretable that part of the bitshares community has lost the better part of themselves. I urge all parties to remain calm. Please voice your concerns and offer ideas and counter proposals instead.
I firmly believe that we the bitshares community is well capable of civil discussions even in the face of sensitive topics.
-
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".
You have access to the Committee telegram channel. All known proxies were invited. You were there once but you probably forgotten about it. Please come into the channel. There are discussions going on and we need your input.
Also, name one bitcoin processor that profits from a) referrals or b) transaction fees.
Whatevery we pay them, it is already an extra profit for them.
You are right. Most payment processors are a 'commodity product' these days and they cannot command any more than a few small percentage of transfer fees. If our competitors are charging a much lower fees, what do we have that can differentiate from our competitors?
This. Which makes it compltely illogical to change atm, imo. This is the most rational option so why come up with stuff that will destabilize the network? I just don't get it.
Atm the status of the network is A
Someone wants B because they don't agree with A
There is no evidence A is harmful
There is [no] evidence that changing the status of the network (ie, B) is harmful.
What's even there left to discuss?
There is no concrete evidence shown in either A or B. I do not see changing to X tx fee will bring in so much Y revenue/profit/number of new users. Neither do I see a business plan that says with the current referral program, I can expect to see so much Z revenue/profit/number of new users by certain time frame. Neither A nor B have given any business plan and this is giving rise to the current great discussion.
But this idea weakens the purpose of buying LTM in the first place.
The smaller the difference between non-LTM and LTM, the harder it is to sell to anybody.
We do need to give the referrers some bullets to use when talking to their potential customers while ensuring that our other businesses eg trading biz can function properly. This is a delicate balancing act we need to make.
Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.
Corrected.
The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price. From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period. Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
-
there is a bit off topic
I guess most of you don't know bitcrab because of he handle his business so professional, never ask for a cent from community. so you even don't know his exist.
there is a world in China: a baby who cried louder can get more candies.
and I guess you also don't know, bitcrab is one of the guys who first translate bitshares whitepaper to Chinese, almost all Chinese fans got to known BTS because of him.
Ironically, you call this guy toxic to bitshares
you don't learn to respect our old friend, no new friend will come
you don't learn to respect share holders(how many times you have said, fork it if you not satisfied), no money will support us
Agree, our community is far too un friendly to everyone and no good listener at all[emoji12]
-
I would very much like to see fewer rash and hateful words here.
I'm extremely disappointed with certain members of this community based on the tone of their posts in this thread.
While others are standing out for their clear and genuine efforts at reaching some understanding.
I understand a certain degree of skepticism and mistrust here, but we mustn't let it get the best of us. We can solve this issue, like so many before it.
I for one stand to benefit greatly from the referral program, yet I wish for a solution to the great fee debate which gives the Chinese members of our community the tools they need to succeed, and therefore the tools we need for all of us to succeed. Others have already pointed out the obvious, and I will reiterate, we are a global blockchain, a global community. We need to look after the interests of as many members of our community as we can manage. We will be as strong as our diversity, and we haven't yet begun to exhaust options for devising a plan which can accommodate the many communities of which we are comprised. Let's not let haste, or greed, for our little piece of the pie, distract us from the greater purpose here.
I'm generally in the don't change things until we've had a chance to see what's really happening as a result of current parameters camp, but we are faced with a situation in which a significant portion of our community is expressing a strong desire for another way of doing business, and we would do well to listen. Try to understand where bitcrab is coming from, and respond accordingly... don't just react. @merivercap and @abit, among others, are really keeping it real on this front. Respect.
We must have real dialogue between all interested parties, not just throwing stones. There must be a way to resolve this issue to the benefit of everyone involved. May reason and goodwill prevail.
C'mon, we're only on page 19 of this thread.. I think we'll have it around page 34. Someone start a prediction market for the fee debate already. ;)
The whole world is counting on us... no pressure. 8)
@bytemaster alluded to some thoughts on the matter in the last mumble... I'm curious when he will weigh in... page 20?
Page 20 is up and BM has not weighed in. This is a positive development for bitshares. BM is letting the self-governing merchanism of bitshares to function. Let the community, and its proxies and committee to discuss and sort things out.
+5% for your much-needed sensible post. There are numerous emotionally charged responses before your post - some resorting to name calling, personal attacks and using expletives. It is regretable that part of the bitshares community has lost the better part of themselves. I urge all parties to remain calm. Please voice your concerns and offer ideas and counter proposals instead.
I firmly believe that we the bitshares community is well capable of civil discussions even in the face of sensitive topics.
This is correct.
We are very pleased watching the community take over.
-
the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.
How the f*ck would you know? Or.... the referral program is not welcomed by YOU?
Get real. Go out, hit the streets, take an honest poll of the Chinese people en masse. Ask them if they would like to receive $50 for every lifetime member that they sign up. Go to a college campus and have some kids go out and canvas with you.
Get out there in the real world and see how many people you can talk to about Bitshares, get them excited, start a Meetup group, show them the mobile wallet, send them 100 BTS, get them signed up on ccedk.com or OL, shake some hands, encourage others to do the same.
Your hubris far outweighs my ability to describe it.
frankly speaking, what described above is something I really worry.
I am not saying that the current Bitshares referral program is pyramid scheme, but under some condition it may become something which is not very far from that.
set transfer fee to a level several times the reasonable level.
then "force" users to prepay and motivate them to refer others to prepay.
"create pain which does not exist before and force users to prepay to lessen the pain" - what I want to say is that this model is not welcomed in China BTS community.
I am not against referral program generally, but I don't think the current Bitshares referral program is healthy enough, some improvement is necessary. we need a model like "make users feel comfortable for the fundamental service and attract them to pay more for advanced features".
in China a lot pyramid scheme/ponzi trap occured in recent years, for example:
VPAL - a ponzi trap which has some link to ripple.
MMM - come from Russia and catched a lot of followers in China and India, make a lot of people lost money.
just today, it is announced that the "ezubao" is a ponzi trap.
so we need to keep a distance away from this kind of things. and should be careful to invite potential users to prepay.
this conclusion are based on China context, and it is why China community has a strong request for a "make users feel comfortable for the fundamental service and attract them to pay more for advanced features" model.
-
there is a bit off topic
I guess most of you don't know bitcrab because of he handle his business so professional, never ask for a cent from community. so you even don't know his exist.
there is a world in China: a baby who cried louder can get more candies.
and I guess you also don't know, bitcrab is one of the guys who first translate bitshares whitepaper to Chinese, almost all Chinese fans got to known BTS because of him.
Ironically, you call this guy toxic to bitshares
you don't learn to respect our old friend, no new friend will come
you don't learn to respect share holders(how many times you have said, fork it if you not satisfied), no money will support us
Never let it be said that we don't appreciate old friends.
-
the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.
How the f*ck would you know? Or.... the referral program is not welcomed by YOU?
Get real. Go out, hit the streets, take an honest poll of the Chinese people en masse. Ask them if they would like to receive $50 for every lifetime member that they sign up. Go to a college campus and have some kids go out and canvas with you.
Get out there in the real world and see how many people you can talk to about Bitshares, get them excited, start a Meetup group, show them the mobile wallet, send them 100 BTS, get them signed up on ccedk.com or OL, shake some hands, encourage others to do the same.
Your hubris far outweighs my ability to describe it.
If one gets 100 BTS he or she will spend it up in three transfers ;)
-
Ironically, you call this guy toxic to bitshares
you don't learn to respect our old friend, no new friend will come
you don't learn to respect share holders(how many times you have said, fork it if you not satisfied), no money will support us
I agree with this. And I really don't understand why people get so frustrated about a forum post that merely contains a proposal.
We need to get back to the old times where this community was highly motivated, happy and welcomed everyone.
-
1) add the intrest to account that no moving bts for more than a month
2) to lower the fee to LTM level but increasing the vesting period(non-LTM) to 150-180 days and reduce LTM's vesting period to 7 days
-
FYI... Ethereum charges 0.01 ETH ($0.02) per transfer for all users, while we charges 30 BTS ($0.10). Oh I forgot LTM... yeah you need to transfer 833 times to recoup LTM fee.
-
we can definitely lower the fee to the same level as ETH ... do not worry ... we are getting there ...soooooooooooon
1) add the intrest to account that no moving bts for more than a month
2) to lower the fee to LTM level but increasing the vesting period(non-LTM) to 150-180 days and reduce LTM's vesting period to 7 days
FYI... Ethereum charges 0.01 ETH ($0.02) per transfer for all users, while we charges 30 BTS ($0.10). Oh I forgot LTM... yeah you need to transfer 833 times to recoup LTM fee.
-
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".
You have access to the Committee telegram channel. All known proxies were invited. You were there once but you probably forgotten about it. Please come into the channel. There are discussions going on and we need your input.
Thanks, I've found it.
Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.
Corrected.
The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price. From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period. Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
IMO it IS perfectly safe, assuming you are BTS long anyway.
You're right, this will not suit everyone but this assumption holds for most BitShares-related businesses, including bitcrab's transwiser.
You give away 16k BTS today and you're sure to get the full amount back in 90 days.
You need to freeze some of your BTS capital this way, but in return you get a happy customer having access to low transfer fees.
I'm still curious why @bitcrab is not willing to consider this as an alternative option to "1 BTS for transfer".
-
You do understand that you are paying higher rent than you would if your company did not have this referral program right? Just because they don't state this doesn't make it untrue. The money has to come from somewhere. I am shocked that you are not angry that you are being overcharged by your landlord, and kept in rent slavery that you can only get out of by referring new renters.
No. Exactly opposite happens. We have the lowest fees in neighborhood, because our landlord fills available apartments fast. They pay me $300, because I save them bunch of money. Unoccupied apartment cost them, since they have to pay mortgage for their property. Their motivation is clear and reasonable. This is how business people do their business. This is not how bitshares referral works. Bitshares referrers rob the network and new users. They bite 80% of fees from reserve pool, then dump it on the market for fiat, and then have a good time with blackjack and hookers.
@yvv , this is only illustrates that your flat rental example is quite inadequate to our situation.
We do not have any significant cost (the equivalent of mortgage) to pay for unoccupied space on the blockchain.
You suggest the referral reward should be paid by the BitShares company. However, since the new user does not give us any savings in costs, this referral reward has to be financed by the expected future earnings the company makes on this new user. Which brings us to the referral scheme we have now.
-
Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.
Corrected.
The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price. From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period. Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
IMO it IS perfectly safe, assuming you are BTS long anyway.
You're right, this will not suit everyone but this assumption holds for most BitShares-related businesses, including bitcrab's transwiser.
You give away 16k BTS today and you're sure to get the full amount back in 90 days.
You need to freeze some of your BTS capital this way, but in return you get a happy customer having access to low transfer fees.
I'm still curious why @bitcrab is not willing to consider this as an alternative option to "1 BTS for transfer".
Probably it need to freeze too many BTS's. Probably you don't know how many potential (ab)users are there in China. 16K BTS per user means 1.6M per 100 users, 16M per 1000 users, imo it's too easy to be exploited.
//Update:
Even the 16K BTS is paid by the referrer, the 4K upgrading fee seems to be still high for some users who want 1 BTS transfer fee.
-
We cant bring in micropayment users and at the same time keep businesses that run solely on top of the referral fee for transfer operations.
I disagree. There is a way to reconcile these two.
The percentage-based fee system effectively removes micro-payments from the referral program but in exchange it offers more generous profits for the referrers in case of bigger transfers.
This way both sides can be happy. Users have micro-payments. Referrers have income. Problem solved.
-
Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.
Corrected.
The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price. From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period. Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
IMO it IS perfectly safe, assuming you are BTS long anyway.
You're right, this will not suit everyone but this assumption holds for most BitShares-related businesses, including bitcrab's transwiser.
You give away 16k BTS today and you're sure to get the full amount back in 90 days.
You need to freeze some of your BTS capital this way, but in return you get a happy customer having access to low transfer fees.
I'm still curious why @bitcrab is not willing to consider this as an alternative option to "1 BTS for transfer".
Probably it need to freeze too many BTS's. Probably you don't know how many potential (ab)users are there in China. 16K BTS per user means 1.6M per 100 users, 16M per 1000 users, imo it's too easy to be exploited.
Maybe the vesting period should be significantly shortened when LTM is bought, as @twitter suggested.
(I'm probably missing something, as I don't know why we need vesting for LTM in the first place - anyone can explain? What kind of abuse would be possible without it?)
And secondly, you need 1.6 M per 100 users in a given time window. But as time goes by, the already vested funds can be reused for new users.
-
@yvv , this is only illustrates that your flat rental example is quite inadequate to our situation.
We do not have any significant cost (the equivalent of mortgage) to pay for unoccupied space on the blockchain.
Well. That is not really true. bts witnesses still need to keep their nodes up and running, and pay running cost, whether there is transaction to be signed or not. These expenses are being financed by the network.
-
We cant bring in micropayment users and at the same time keep businesses that run solely on top of the referral fee for transfer operations.
I disagree. There is a way to reconcile these two.
The percentage-based fee system effectively removes micro-payments from the referral program but in exchange it offers more generous profits for the referrers in case of bigger transfers.
This way both sides can be happy. Users have micro-payments. Referrers have income. Problem solved.
Yes .. I was referring to flat fees. Should have made myself more clear
-
Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.
Corrected.
The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price. From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period. Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
IMO it IS perfectly safe, assuming you are BTS long anyway.
You're right, this will not suit everyone but this assumption holds for most BitShares-related businesses, including bitcrab's transwiser.
You give away 16k BTS today and you're sure to get the full amount back in 90 days.
You need to freeze some of your BTS capital this way, but in return you get a happy customer having access to low transfer fees.
I'm still curious why @bitcrab is not willing to consider this as an alternative option to "1 BTS for transfer".
Probably it need to freeze too many BTS's. Probably you don't know how many potential (ab)users are there in China. 16K BTS per user means 1.6M per 100 users, 16M per 1000 users, imo it's too easy to be exploited.
Maybe the vesting period should be significantly shortened when LTM is bought, as @twitter suggested.
(I'm probably missing something, as I don't know why we need vesting for LTM in the first place - anyone can explain? What kind of abuse would be possible without it?)
And secondly, you need 1.6 M per 100 users in a given time window. But as time goes by, the already vested funds can be reused for new users.
I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a single person - could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes to LTM referral payouts. So I will continue to maintain that there is ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.
Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of the LTM fee? Think about it. If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets no piece of the transaction fees going forward. So the referrer NEEDS to collect the LTM fee. But the network gets paid for transactions regardless. So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam.
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users immediately. Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers.
If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties. We would still need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging these last couple days. Thoughts?
-
@yvv , this is only illustrates that your flat rental example is quite inadequate to our situation.
We do not have any significant cost (the equivalent of mortgage) to pay for unoccupied space on the blockchain.
Well. That is not really true. bts witnesses still need to keep their nodes up and running, and pay running cost, whether there is transaction to be signed or not. These expenses are being financed by the network.
Maybe I need to rephrase it:
The landlady only needs one tenant to start making profit instead of incurring a loss. Her situation is binary. She either has a tenant and makes money or doesn't have a tenant and makes a loss. So she is willing to pay to the referrer the difference between the state of making money and making a loss.
Whereas we can only pay to the referrer as much as we expect to earn on the user he brings us. So we need to set the fees in such a way that the user actually pays for the effort of referring him, as puppies pointed it out. Our situation is not binary. So there is no way we could act like the landlady. Our economic model is different.
-
I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a single person - could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes to LTM referral payouts. So I will continue to maintain that there is ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.
Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of the LTM fee? Think about it. If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets no piece of the transaction fees going forward. So the referrer NEEDS to collect the LTM fee. But the network gets paid for transactions regardless. So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam.
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users immediately. Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers.
If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties. We would still need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging these last couple days. Thoughts?
+5%
I could not agree more. This is exactly what I think.
We need to sort out these two:
- why does there need to be vesting on LTM?
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?
If both are unnecessary, they need to be removed.
And once they are removed, the referral program becomes fully optional, and our long lasting debate is finally over.
-
I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a
single person - could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes
to LTM referral payouts. So I will continue to maintain that there is
ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.
I thought there was one given by Daniel in one of the hangouts, but I
may be wrong. I can't see any reason just now.
Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of
the LTM fee? Think about it. If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets
no piece of the transaction fees going forward. So the referrer NEEDS
to collect the LTM fee. But the network gets paid for transactions
regardless. So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of
the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam.
The network (read: shareholders) collect fees on EVERY SINGLE operation
that is stored on the blockchain and unless you won't like to see a DAC
be profitable, you shouldn't remove that.
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it
would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for
lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users
immediately. Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their
users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers.
The split between referral program and network is 80/20 independent of
the operation. Changing that is a) a lot of work and b) gives even more
degrees of freedom to figure out a useful fee schedule.
If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based
transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam
prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties. We would still
need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but
that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging
these last couple days. Thoughts?
Since BSIP#10 cannot be applied to STEALTH, I see that at least
@onceuponatime will have issues with that (or increase the fee to
something way beyond 3x transfer fee, which would be fine for me)
-
+5%
I could not agree more. This is exactly what I think.
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?
-
Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of
the LTM fee? Think about it. If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets
no piece of the transaction fees going forward. So the referrer NEEDS
to collect the LTM fee. But the network gets paid for transactions
regardless. So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of
the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam.
The network (read: shareholders) collect fees on EVERY SINGLE operation
that is stored on the blockchain and unless you won't like to see a DAC
be profitable, you shouldn't remove that.
The logical thing is to make an exception here.
The LTM upgrade does only one thing - it redirects the income stream from the referrer to the user.
The network is entitled to something like 30 BTS for handling this transaction on the blockchain but otherwise there is no justification for the network to take a huge 20% fee on this particular transaction.
The LTM upgrade is a transaction only between the referrer and the user, the network has nothing to do with it.
IMO it's logically inconsistent the way we have it now.
For me, the network steals 20% of the value of this transaction for no apparent reason.
-
yeah, why?
-
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system, exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to sponsor gulu.
also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.
and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know
No replies on this post :p
Cannot rebut?
lol this is the kind of comments that lead people into useless attacks against each other. I simply didn't see it.
I didn't ask what he has done. I asked what is he going to do. What's his plan. Alt didn't understand my question giving a reply that has nothing to do with what I asked (it happens) an I still get provoked? I really hope you didn't do this on purpose and was simply a joke, which is fine, otherwise these kind of comments are useless and only contribute to unnecessary discussions. If I reacted like Ken I would already be flaming and turning this into a fight.
I could argue the same about other questions that have been asked but that would simply be childish.
So I will ask again. What is his plan in the future with the lower fees? And to be even more specific, this is not an rhetoric question aiming to insult his business plan or understimate it, I merely want to know what he plans to do. Continue with what he has done so far or take advantage of the lower fees to do something else?
I know this is strectching it but assuming he has good relationship with chinese exchanges, with lower fees does he intend on trying to convince them to run on top of BitShares like OpenLedger? Given that lower fees could open the door for that.
-
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system, exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to sponsor gulu.
also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.
and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know
No replies on this post :p
Cannot rebut?
lol this is the kind of comments that lead people into useless attacks against each other. I simply didn't see it.
I didn't ask what he has done. I asked what is he going to do. What's his plan. Alt didn't understand my question giving a reply that has nothing to do with what I asked (it happens) an I still get provoked? I really hope you didn't do this on purpose and was simply a joke, which is fine, otherwise these kind of comments are useless and only contribute to unnecessary discussions. If I reacted like Ken I would already be flaming and turning this into a fight.
I could argue the same about other questions that have been asked but that would simply be childish.
So I will ask again. What is his plan in the future with the lower fees? And to be even more specific, this is not an rhetoric question aiming to insult his business plan or understimate it, I merely want to know what he plans to do. Continue with what he has done so far or take advantage of the lower fees to do something else?
I know this is strectching it but assuming he has good relationship with chinese exchanges, with lower fees does he intend on trying to convince them to run on top of BitShares like OpenLedger? Given that lower fees could open the door for that.
Your question makes no sense to me. What is the better plan than making the current business profitable (or at least out of danger)? Other guys can give you a good plan because their business has not started yet. But bitcrab's business is running now, and in danger. If this continues, the next plan will be closing the business I think.
-
I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a single person - could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes to LTM referral payouts. So I will continue to maintain that there is ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.
Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of the LTM fee? Think about it. If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets no piece of the transaction fees going forward. So the referrer NEEDS to collect the LTM fee. But the network gets paid for transactions regardless. So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam.
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users immediately. Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers.
If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties. We would still need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging these last couple days. Thoughts?
+5%
I could not agree more. This is exactly what I think.
We need to sort out these two:
- why does there need to be vesting on LTM?
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?
If both are unnecessary, they need to be removed.
And once they are removed, the referral program becomes fully optional, and our long lasting debate is finally over.
I agree. I don't think vesting or a network fee is necessary. As I stated before if the network earns fees on referrals it makes sense to just pour that back into the referral program anyways. The referral program is mainly for marketing. I think originally it was to get people to pay for transaction fees up front assuming long-term fees would be 20 cents. It's a better strategy to just start with low network fees and assume you can raise it in the future.
Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of
the LTM fee? Think about it. If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets
no piece of the transaction fees going forward. So the referrer NEEDS
to collect the LTM fee. But the network gets paid for transactions
regardless. So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of
the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam.
The network (read: shareholders) collect fees on EVERY SINGLE operation
that is stored on the blockchain and unless you won't like to see a DAC
be profitable, you shouldn't remove that.
The DAC can always raise fees far into the future. It doesn't have to be profitable now as long as it can cover its expenses. Network effect is the key right now
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it
would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for
lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users
immediately. Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their
users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers.
The split between referral program and network is 80/20 independent of
the operation. Changing that is a) a lot of work and b) gives even more
degrees of freedom to figure out a useful fee schedule.
I thought the committee determined the split. Can't we just make it 100%/0%?
-
A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's
-
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it
would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for
lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users
immediately. Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their
users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers.
The split between referral program and network is 80/20 independent of
the operation. Changing that is a) a lot of work and b) gives even more
degrees of freedom to figure out a useful fee schedule.
I thought the committee determined the split. Can't we just make it 100%/0%?
Actually, you are correct. The are defined by the committee:
"network_percent_of_fee": 2000,
"lifetime_referrer_percent_of_fee": 3000,
-
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system, exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to sponsor gulu.
also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.
and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know
No replies on this post :p
Cannot rebut?
lol this is the kind of comments that lead people into useless attacks against each other. I simply didn't see it.
I didn't ask what he has done. I asked what is he going to do. What's his plan. Alt didn't understand my question giving a reply that has nothing to do with what I asked (it happens) an I still get provoked? I really hope you didn't do this on purpose and was simply a joke, which is fine, otherwise these kind of comments are useless and only contribute to unnecessary discussions. If I reacted like Ken I would already be flaming and turning this into a fight.
I could argue the same about other questions that have been asked but that would simply be childish.
So I will ask again. What is his plan in the future with the lower fees? And to be even more specific, this is not an rhetoric question aiming to insult his business plan or understimate it, I merely want to know what he plans to do. Continue with what he has done so far or take advantage of the lower fees to do something else?
I know this is strectching it but assuming he has good relationship with chinese exchanges, with lower fees does he intend on trying to convince them to run on top of BitShares like OpenLedger? Given that lower fees could open the door for that.
Your question makes no sense to me. What is the better plan than making the current business profitable (or at least out of danger)? Other guys can give you a good plan because their business has not started yet. ]But bitcrab's business is running now, and in danger. If this continues, the next plan will be closing the business I think.
The referral program was debated, very extensively , and decided upon, quite a long time ago. As were the fees necessary to make it profitable.
If bttcrab subsequently made a business that cannot operate profitably under the agreed upon conditions, it is up to him to tweak his business model to make it profitable. Otherwuse he forces ronny at ccedk, and Ken and Data with their business models that had expected to profit from referrals, to change theirs. And I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.
-
Actually, you are correct. The are defined by the committee:
"network_percent_of_fee": 2000,
"lifetime_referrer_percent_of_fee": 3000,
This totals to 50%.
Who gets the other 50%?
-
The referral program was debated, very extensively , and decided upon, quite a long time ago. As were the fees necessary to make it profitable.
If bttcrab subsequently made a business that cannot operate profitably under the agreed upon conditions, it is up to him to tweak his business model to make it profitable. Otherwuse he forces ronny at ccedk, and Ken and Data with their business models that had expected to profit from referrals, to change theirs. And I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
The referral programme hasn't been successful because the flat fee is too high and BTS doesn't have a product to sell yet, however the percentage fees and Smartcoin improvements will address that.
In early 2015, Coinbase had a $400 million valutation and 5 months ago they were listed among 50 companies that could be could soon have a
$1 billion dollar valuation - http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/here-are-the-companies-that-may-be-the-next-50-start-up-unicorns/
Coinbase uses a referral programme so there is some evidence it is an effective technique for marketing a crypto exchange.
I think a 1 BTS fee will significantly impact the referral programme and harm the businesses that are forming on BTS around it.
I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.
I suppose you will still have the power to control the fees for Stealth because it is an FBA. I think you will find the $0.5/1 per TX you were hoping to charge, I forget the amount? Will not generate much business beyond a few people claiming their BTS1 balances, similar to the current TX fee, so I think you/whoever controls Stealth will bring it down. I think that power is still in your hands though.
-
It also would hurt my referral business.
-
A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't 90%+ of businesses depend on the referral program? All the blog/affiliate/marketing businesses should be the largest in number and should be the main focus for user growth.
Also we're a wallet/gateway business. We can produce a great product, but we can't charge a fee on top of the network fee. We can charge a monthly software-as-a-service (SaaS) fee, but that limits options. (The easiest way is probably just to allow any business to add a fee on top of a basic network fee for any asset on the network.) The referral revenue is actually a proxy for income. We can take our product and sell it to people and merchants who are willing to pay 1% per tx. However that entire 1% would normally go to the network the way it's set up and if we didn't have a referral program, but that doesn't make sense for any business. Normally a network platform might charge 0.2% and the business would profit 0.8%. Businesses should be able to charge as low as .21% and as high as 3%. The whole Mode A/B/C options is a roundabout way of achieving this flexibility. One way is probably just to allow businesses to add an extra fee layer on top of all assets (privatized/public Smartcoins, FBAs, UIAs)... might be complicated to link accounts to assets to add a fee layer, so right now the referral income is a sufficient proxy.
-
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system, exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to sponsor gulu.
also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.
and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know
No replies on this post :p
Cannot rebut?
lol this is the kind of comments that lead people into useless attacks against each other. I simply didn't see it.
I didn't ask what he has done. I asked what is he going to do. What's his plan. Alt didn't understand my question giving a reply that has nothing to do with what I asked (it happens) an I still get provoked? I really hope you didn't do this on purpose and was simply a joke, which is fine, otherwise these kind of comments are useless and only contribute to unnecessary discussions. If I reacted like Ken I would already be flaming and turning this into a fight.
I could argue the same about other questions that have been asked but that would simply be childish.
So I will ask again. What is his plan in the future with the lower fees? And to be even more specific, this is not an rhetoric question aiming to insult his business plan or understimate it, I merely want to know what he plans to do. Continue with what he has done so far or take advantage of the lower fees to do something else?
I know this is strectching it but assuming he has good relationship with chinese exchanges, with lower fees does he intend on trying to convince them to run on top of BitShares like OpenLedger? Given that lower fees could open the door for that.
Your question makes no sense to me. What is the better plan than making the current business profitable (or at least out of danger)? Other guys can give you a good plan because their business has not started yet. But bitcrab's business is running now, and in danger. If this continues, the next plan will be closing the business I think.
How come it doesn't make any sense? I asked a simple question, that he is free to answer to or not. It's pretty simple. If does he intend on doing something more with the help of lower trading fees. Is it that hard to understand? You're making a fuss where there is none.
What doesn't make sense is your reply. I ask what is the business plan and you reply me "What is the better plan than making the current business profitable " lol. You know that's every single businesses' goal?
Being profitable is not a business plan. How to make it profitable is the business plan. That's what I asked.
From your reply I take it it is to continue to provide the same service, only better since fees are lower. That's all good, I just asked if there's something more to it, it with lower fees he can do more and if he has a plan to do more?
Although he might not want to reply or his reply might just be "continue doing what I do" my question is perfectly legit and makes perfect sense.
What doesn't make sense is you being caught up on trying to forcefully defend him because you seem "threatened" by the questions I'm asking. You're on defensive mode, thinking I'm questioning his abilities to run a business or that I'm insinuating his plan is not good enough.
Like I said, you're so caught up trying to defend your point of view you're not seeing things correctly. You're worrying to much in defending it when my question is perfectly legit and didn't insinuate anything.
And now like I said we're having useless arguments. Why? Because you're not interpreting things right due to being completely biased :) and by that I can only assume you're not really trying to make an effort to give in a little and reach consensus, which is the sole purpose of this debate. Reaching a common ground. W
Can't argue with people like this. I will take my own conclusions. and by the way, the fact I won't be replying to this thread anymore, once again, doesn't mean I can't rebut ;) I can see more other than my own belly.
Either put it up to vote or continue arguing for the following 20 pages. Have fun trying to reach a consensus.
-
Ok. Might as well bring up the inevitable.
What about trading fees? Shouldn't we just have the same fee schedule for that too? Wouldn't it be easier to just have a Mode A/B/C work the same for trading fees?
I think Mode B allows exchange businesses to have pricing similar to centralized exchanges and charge around 0.2% per trade which is good. The bigger question is what is the revenue model for exchanges in the first place? I've focused on the payments side and the referral program so I haven't thought a lot about exchanges, but what compels an exchange business to use the Bitshares platform? If an exchange like Kraken wanted to use the Bitshares platform and charge ~0.2% per trade as they currently do how would it work?
-
The referral program was debated, very extensively , and decided upon, quite a long time ago. As were the fees necessary to make it profitable.
If bttcrab subsequently made a business that cannot operate profitably under the agreed upon conditions, it is up to him to tweak his business model to make it profitable. Otherwuse he forces ronny at ccedk, and Ken and Data with their business models that had expected to profit from referrals, to change theirs. And I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.
I agree that nothing is new. We have had this same transfer fee schedule for months now.
Right now a regular transfer is 30bts and a LTM is 6BTS
Under stealth we would be looking at 3X which I understand to be 90BTS and a LTM is 18BTS
At present transaction levels of roughly 200 transfers a day. Lets assume that Stealth brings in others that doubles that. I think overall at the current BTS market cap you would be looking at a return of about $200 a month give or take. If the fees were to come down by say a factor of 10, would we see greater adoption by a factor of 10? Could we see 2000 users of stealth instead of 200? It's not unreasonable to think so since lower fees can be more attractive. Of course we need to get to 40,000 users of stealth to make it more viable in this situation instead of just 4000 at the current rates.
Suppose with stealth now the refer people have a NEW feature to SELL... what if we manage to get setup next as a bitcoin sidechain where people can store their BTC in bitshares network and trade on the DEX AND get to use stealth features to give them increased privacy over what they can get in bitcoin? Another feature or refers to SELL. Are 40k users more likely in this scenario?
I think part of the challenge we face here is that we really don't know what is coming in 30 60 or 90 days from now for Bitshares aside from a handful of unfinished projects that none of us really know will produce any sort of results to the likes of the increased users or transactions as I just suggested. I think if we could get some sense for growth to be seen/had from reduced fees or keeping them the same it would be helpful. At this point though we are all just taking best guesses.
I also think @Empirical1.2 made a good point that you can increase the fee as you see fit if a decreased fee is going to have a strong impact. Which I think is another exciting aspect of FBAs.. though I don't know if it is something that is easily adjustable.
-
A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't 90%+ of businesses depend on the referral program? All the blog/affiliate/marketing businesses should be the largest in number and should be the main focus for user growth.
Also we're a wallet/gateway business. We can produce a great product, but we can't charge a fee on top of the network fee. We can charge a monthly software-as-a-service (SaaS) fee, but that limits options. (The easiest way is probably just to allow any business to add a fee on top of a basic network fee for any asset on the network.) The referral revenue is actually a proxy for income. We can take our product and sell it to people and merchants who are willing to pay 1% per tx. However that entire 1% would normally go to the network the way it's set up and if we didn't have a referral program, but that doesn't make sense for any business. Normally a network platform might charge 0.2% and the business would profit 0.8%. Businesses should be able to charge as low as .21% and as high as 3%. The whole Mode A/B/C options is a roundabout way of achieving this flexibility. One way is probably just to allow businesses to add an extra fee layer on top of all assets (privatized/public Smartcoins, FBAs, UIAs)... might be complicated to link accounts to assets to add a fee layer, so right now the referral income is a sufficient proxy.
Since you are operating a wallet you can require whatever fee you want. This can be over and above the fee required by the network.
Lets say a user is making a transfer. The user is non LTM and you are the referrer. When your wallet builds the transaction it can add 30BTS rather than the 3bts required by the network. In that case the network would take 6bts, and 24 bts would go to the referrer of the user.
Hope that makes sense.
-
The referral program was debated, very extensively , and decided upon, quite a long time ago. As were the fees necessary to make it profitable.
If bttcrab subsequently made a business that cannot operate profitably under the agreed upon conditions, it is up to him to tweak his business model to make it profitable. Otherwuse he forces ronny at ccedk, and Ken and Data with their business models that had expected to profit from referrals, to change theirs. And I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.
I agree that nothing is new. We have had this same transfer fee schedule for months now.
Right now a regular transfer is 30bts and a LTM is 6BTS
Under stealth we would be looking at 3X which I understand to be 90BTS and a LTM is 18BTS
At present transaction levels of roughly 200 transfers a day. Lets assume that Stealth brings in others that doubles that. I think overall at the current BTS market cap you would be looking at a return of about $200 a month give or take. If the fees were to come down by say a factor of 10, would we see greater adoption by a factor of 10? Could we see 2000 users of stealth instead of 200? It's not unreasonable to think so since lower fees can be more attractive. Of course we need to get to 40,000 users of stealth to make it more viable in this situation instead of just 4000 at the current rates.
Suppose with stealth now the refer people have a NEW feature to SELL... what if we manage to get setup next as a bitcoin sidechain where people can store their BTC in bitshares network and trade on the DEX AND get to use stealth features to give them increased privacy over what they can get in bitcoin? Another feature or refers to SELL. Are 40k users more likely in this scenario?
I think part of the challenge we face here is that we really don't know what is coming in 30 60 or 90 days from now for Bitshares aside from a handful of unfinished projects that none of us really know will produce any sort of results to the likes of the increased users or transactions as I just suggested. I think if we could get some sense for growth to be seen/had from reduced fees or keeping them the same it would be helpful. At this point though we are all just taking best guesses.
I also think @Empirical1.2 made a good point that you can increase the fee as you see fit if a decreased fee is going to have a strong impact. Which I think is another exciting aspect of FBAs.. though I don't know if it is something that is easily adjustable.
Just one point: It is my opinion that any increase of adopters that is due to reducing fees to a very low rate will NOT consist of those likely to use a premium priced STEALTH feature for their transactions ???
Micro-transactions and users who would only be attracted by very low fees can still be accommodated by a percentage based fee with min and max caps.
-
Micro-transactions and users who would only be attracted by very low fees can still be accommodated by a percentage based fee with min and max caps.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
Just one point too: the success of referral program is not determined by the fee level, but by how many times people use BTS system.
With lower fees, you can make enough referral income, if your customers use BTS system actively. Why do you think low fee hurts your business? Please give me the number.
-
Just one point too: the success of referral program is not determined by the fee level, but by how many times people use BTS system.
With lower fees, you can make enough referral income, if your customers use BTS system actively. Why do you think low fee hurts your business? Please give me the number.
I was not talking about referral income, but of STEALTH income. Why would anyone use STEALTH at a premium fee for small purchases from a mobile wallet, or for small transfers of funds?
-
Just one point too: the success of referral program is not determined by the fee level, but by how many times people use BTS system.
With lower fees, you can make enough referral income, if your customers use BTS system actively. Why do you think low fee hurts your business? Please give me the number.
Over and over again, you keep making this assumption: low transfer fees = high number of users.
If this assumption is false (i.e. the correlation between transfer fees and number of users is weak) your whole argument collapses.
-
Just one point too: the success of referral program is not determined by the fee level, but by how many times people use BTS system.
With lower fees, you can make enough referral income, if your customers use BTS system actively. Why do you think low fee hurts your business? Please give me the number.
I was not talking about referral income, but of STEALTH income. Why would anyone use STEALTH at a premium fee for small purchases from a mobile wallet, or for small transfers of funds?
Stealth must have much higher fee than basic transfer I think.
-
Just one point too: the success of referral program is not determined by the fee level, but by how many times people use BTS system.
With lower fees, you can make enough referral income, if your customers use BTS system actively. Why do you think low fee hurts your business? Please give me the number.
Over and over again, you keep making this assumption: low transfer fees = high number of users.
If this assumption is false (i.e. the correlation between transfer fees and number of users is weak) your whole argument collapses.
Actually not. I agree with that lower fee does not attract many transactions.
However, as we see now, high fee can drive out some business models. It's not inclusive. If we can only support a single business model - based on referral program, can we have as many as services compared to when we have lower fee system?
-
I've proposed to settle this debate by making the referral program fully optional.
We need to sort out these two:
- why does there need to be vesting on LTM?
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?
If both are unnecessary, they need to be removed.
*IF* the above is true, we effectively end up with a fully optional referral program which can satisfy every party involved:
- If you think the referral program is beneficial to your business: use it as it is now.
- If you think the referral program is hurting your business and you want to offer low transfer fees to your customers by default: offer LTM to your customers for free (i.e. while registering a new account for your customer, upgrade it to LTM by default)
- If you are somewhere in between: offer LTM to your customers at a discount (i.e. offer a partial refund of the LTM fee).
Simple. Am I missing something?
-
Just one point too: the success of referral program is not determined by the fee level, but by how many times people use BTS system.
With lower fees, you can make enough referral income, if your customers use BTS system actively. Why do you think low fee hurts your business? Please give me the number.
I was not talking about referral income, but of STEALTH income. Why would anyone use STEALTH at a premium fee for small purchases from a mobile wallet, or for small transfers of funds?
Stealth must have much higher fee than basic transfer I think.
I see it the same. *IF* there is a proposal that reduces the transfer fee .. It should definitely be in combination of raising the 3x factor for blind transfers to whatever it needs to be to stay where it currently is.
As for Ken's business model: I have the opinion that a business should never focus merely on the income from referrals. Simple due to the fact that this income in is in the hands of others and difficult to calculate with. I am sure Ken can make some nice profit by selling the product as well.
Ronny certainly can make quite a bit of money by the advanced (possibly LTM-only) features of the DAC.
But in the end, this is all quite difficult multi-dimensional optimization and I have the feeling that we can only fail unless we have more data, ... or .. we are brave, pick a new schedule and try to get the baby of the ground with it for 6 months (of course while keeping existing buddies within reach)
It seems the biggest question to solve now is:
Do we experiment with the fee schedule ...
a) now
b) later
c) never
Personally, I prefer "now" simply because market cap is low, not many businesses exist and we certainly have not so many users to loose.
But that of course is just my opinion. I won't dare put anything up to vote that has not been put tons of thoughts into!
-
Actually, you are correct. The are defined by the committee:
"network_percent_of_fee": 2000,
"lifetime_referrer_percent_of_fee": 3000,
This totals to 50%.
Who gets the other 50%?
20% go to network .. ALWAYS.
the other parameters, not sure what it does
not sure what that parameter is a global parameters because every account has its own
"lifetime_referrer_fee_percentage"
it seems to be a default value defined in the chain's config that get's overwritten on every account creation ..
-
Actually not. I agree with that lower fee does not attract many transactions.
However, as we see now, high fee can drive out some business models. It's not inclusive. If we can only support a single business model - based on referral program, can we have as many as services compared to when we have lower fee system?
That's interesting from purely logical point of view.
That would logically mean that a business can collapse because the income from fees has increased while the number of transactions has not dropped.
Come on @clayop , the assumption about the existence of a significant correlation between transfer fees and the number of transactions is the foundation of your (and bitcrab's) argument.
Otherwise I don't know what we are talking about. Why would you want "1 BTS for transfer" if it doesn't translate (in your eyes) into generating more transactions?
-
20% go to network .. ALWAYS.
@xeroc , would you agree that if you are my referrer and after while I want to pay you off and become my own referrer, it's a deal between me and you. Nobody else is involved or affected, the income stream for the network is not affected.
Why on earth should the network be allowed to take a 20% cut in this private deal between me and you?
Just because somebody said "20% always goes to network"? It does not make sense in this case.
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
IMO, it's logical error made by BM and it should be fixed.
As well as this absurd (so it seems) LTM 90-day vesting.
-
On the other hand, without the network, neither xeroc or you would be here at all!
Or anyone would have the ability to be a referrer.
-
On the other hand, without the network, neither xeroc or you would be here at all!
Or anyone would have the ability to be a referrer.
I understand this.
The network should charge for being the intermediary in this deal something like 30 BTS, but definitely not 20% of the LTM's value.
Even Western Union doesn't charge like this.
I think the 20% cut was initially meant as a compensation to the network for the lost income from my fees in the future, but if I understand it correctly, network's income stream is not affected in any way by me upgrading to LTM.
After the upgrade (i.e. the deal between me and xeroc) is done, the network still gets 6 BTS on every transfer I make.
-
A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't 90%+ of businesses depend on the referral program? All the blog/affiliate/marketing businesses should be the largest in number and should be the main focus for user growth.
Also we're a wallet/gateway business. We can produce a great product, but we can't charge a fee on top of the network fee. We can charge a monthly software-as-a-service (SaaS) fee, but that limits options. (The easiest way is probably just to allow any business to add a fee on top of a basic network fee for any asset on the network.) The referral revenue is actually a proxy for income. We can take our product and sell it to people and merchants who are willing to pay 1% per tx. However that entire 1% would normally go to the network the way it's set up and if we didn't have a referral program, but that doesn't make sense for any business. Normally a network platform might charge 0.2% and the business would profit 0.8%. Businesses should be able to charge as low as .21% and as high as 3%. The whole Mode A/B/C options is a roundabout way of achieving this flexibility. One way is probably just to allow businesses to add an extra fee layer on top of all assets (privatized/public Smartcoins, FBAs, UIAs)... might be complicated to link accounts to assets to add a fee layer, so right now the referral income is a sufficient proxy.
Since you are operating a wallet you can require whatever fee you want. This can be over and above the fee required by the network.
Lets say a user is making a transfer. The user is non LTM and you are the referrer. When your wallet builds the transaction it can add 30BTS rather than the 3bts required by the network. In that case the network would take 6bts, and 24 bts would go to the referrer of the user.
Hope that makes sense.
Hmm. That makes sense. Thanks. I guess you can build extra fees into the wallet and I guess any business can do that for any type of business (ie. exchange) as you described. It's still a model that's influenced by the referral model at the moment. It's ok for us since all the income we would have made would be poured back into a referral program anyways. It may be better overall to just start with a low network fee and then allow businesses to add the current referral program or an extra layer of fees as add-ons. Right now it's ok for us to use the referral model because any income we would earn would be used to fund a referral program anyways for the early years.
-
I've proposed to settle this debate by making the referral program fully optional.
We need to sort out these two:
- why does there need to be vesting on LTM?
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?
If both are unnecessary, they need to be removed.
*IF* the above is true, we effectively end up with a fully optional referral program which can satisfy every party involved:
- If you think the referral program is beneficial to your business: use it as it is now.
- If you think the referral program is hurting your business and you want to offer low transfer fees to your customers by default: offer LTM to your customers for free (i.e. while registering a new account for your customer, upgrade it to LTM by default)
- If you are somewhere in between: offer LTM to your customers at a discount (i.e. offer a partial refund of the LTM fee).
Simple. Am I missing something?
I agree that it should be fully optional. If you are a faucet/LTM you can just pass referral income back to customers, but it will be more a 'cash-back' situation rather than an immediate low fee. If you eliminate the network fee then you can upgrade all acounts to LTM by default. The danger there is then everyone would get free LTM wherever it is offered and no one would pay anywhere else. That's why a Mode A/B/C would work better. If people chose Mode A they would still have to pay LTM to use other assets at low cost, not just CNY assets.
20% go to network .. ALWAYS.
@xeroc , would you agree that if you are my referrer and after while I want to pay you off and become my own referrer, it's a deal between me and you. Nobody else is involved or affected, the income stream for the network is not affected.
Why on earth should the network be allowed to take a 20% cut in this private deal between me and you?
Just because somebody said "20% always goes to network"? It does not make sense in this case.
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
IMO, it's logical error made by BM and it should be fixed.
As well as this absurd (so it seems) LTM 90-day vesting.
The committee can change it to 0%/100%. Vesting is unnecessary IMO. We shouldn't be so loose with the word 'steal'. The network can dictate what any of the fees are and for whatever purpose and most everyone here is a shareholder. I think the original intent was to reimburse the network for the discounted fees for LTM members. Instead of 20cents, LTM's pay 4 cents to the network so it was a way to recoup the difference. However since the network ultimately controls basic network costs, I always thought it was unnecessary and we could create better incentives without it.
Just reading the Membership page on OL right now. 50% is split between affiliate and Registrar. I guess the annual membership is no longer available? Hmm.. I thought that was originally a good idea. $20 is an easier sell for membership than $100. Can we implement the annual membership? (We can just make annual members have the same low fees for a year to make it simple?)
If the committee votes to move the network fee down to 0%, I guess the registrar/faucet decides how to split it up with affiliates. We'll probably create a faucet that takes 0%, but we have to check to see if the referral account is a LTM member. If not we'll probably put ourselves as LTM. The rest of the 50% will go to the affiliate in the current setup. If we move the network fee to 0% we can move 70% to the affiliate and 30% to LTM. Hence if an LTM is the referrer he can get 100%.
Bitcash setup:
20% network fee
30% LTM user referrer
50% affiliate referrer
If network fee is changed to 0%:
0% network fee
30% LTM user referrer
70% affiliate referrer
I think that's the way it would work.
-
20% go to network .. ALWAYS.
@xeroc , would you agree that if you are my referrer and after while I want to pay you off and become my own referrer, it's a deal between me and you. Nobody else is involved or affected, the income stream for the network is not affected.
Why on earth should the network be allowed to take a 20% cut in this private deal between me and you?
Just because somebody said "20% always goes to network"? It does not make sense in this case.
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
IMO, it's logical error made by BM and it should be fixed.
As well as this absurd (so it seems) LTM 90-day vesting.
I, and many others, have been risking large amounts of capital and working our butts off for two years to get this network to where the referrers have their opportunity to make an income by using it. The network isn't "stealing" anything. It is being compensated for the opportunity it has created at great cost.
-
The danger there is then everyone would get free LTM wherever it is offered and no one would pay anywhere else.
Initially this is what I thought as well. But now I think this is the way it should be!
The referral business should bring some added value to the user (e.g. education materials or a nice mobile app) - if it's not able to do that but just wants earn profit for doing nothing useful, it should go out of business.
And by the way, that's how it works in any other business.
If there is a retail shop that wants to operate without any profit margin, who can stop it?
I'm a big supporter of the referral program, provided it can economically justify its existence. If it cannot do that and it does nothing but keeps the prices high, it should die.
Instead of 20cents, LTM's pay 4 cents to the network so it was a way to recoup the difference.
Not true, IMO.
Both non-LTM and LTM users always pay 6 BTS (=20% of 30 BTS) to the network.
So there is no difference to be recouped.
@abit , could you confirm this^?
-
Just reading the Membership page on OL right now. 50% is split between affiliate and Registrar. I guess the annual membership is no longer available? Hmm.. I thought that was originally a good idea. $20 is an easier sell for membership than $100. Can we implement the annual membership? (We can just make annual members have the same low fees for a year to make it simple?)
I don't want to comment on other things, but this.. annual membership is intended to be available, but there seems to be a bug so it's actually not available. See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21163.0.html
-
Instead of 20cents, LTM's pay 4 cents to the network so it was a way to recoup the difference.
Not true, IMO.
Both non-LTM and LTM users always pay 6 BTS (=20% of 30 BTS) to the network.
So there is no difference to be recouped.
@abit , could you confirm this^?
Yes, I can confirm this.
But I think the network (read: stake holders) should get some from users.
-
20% go to network .. ALWAYS.
@xeroc , would you agree that if you are my referrer and after while I want to pay you off and become my own referrer, it's a deal between me and you. Nobody else is involved or affected, the income stream for the network is not affected.
Why on earth should the network be allowed to take a 20% cut in this private deal between me and you?
Just because somebody said "20% always goes to network"? It does not make sense in this case.
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
IMO, it's logical error made by BM and it should be fixed.
As well as this absurd (so it seems) LTM 90-day vesting.
I, and many others, have been risking large amounts of capital and working our butts off for two years to get this network to where the referrers have their opportunity to make an income by using it. The network isn't "stealing" anything. It is being compensated for the opportunity it has created at great cost.
I think you misunderstood me. You mix up the referrer's income with the BitShares network's income.
All I'm saying is that when I buy LTM, the network currently takes 20% of the referrer's income without any valid reason. The entire referral fee should go to the referrer.
The network should not be compensated for anything. Its situation does not change when I buy LTM.
It's the referrer who created the opportunity and risked his money for marketing efforts, not the network.
-
Instead of 20cents, LTM's pay 4 cents to the network so it was a way to recoup the difference.
Not true, IMO.
Both non-LTM and LTM users always pay 6 BTS (=20% of 30 BTS) to the network.
So there is no difference to be recouped.
@abit , could you confirm this^?
Yes, I can confirm this.
But I think the network (read: stake holders) should get some from users.
Maybe the network should get something, but why on earth 20%?
This is pure profit, not a compensation for anything, as most people think.
And this is important because this unjustified 20% charge (by the network) is a financial barrier that prevents businesses to fully opt out from the referral program.
As we have it now, we make the referral program compulsory to a large degree (causing lots of conflicts within the community) while it could be fully optional.
-
@abit , have you got a rational explanation for the 90-day vesting period in case of LTM?
What kind of abuse is it supposed to prevent?
-
@yvv , this is only illustrates that your flat rental example is quite inadequate to our situation.
We do not have any significant cost (the equivalent of mortgage) to pay for unoccupied space on the blockchain.
You suggest the referral reward should be paid by the BitShares company. However, since the new user does not give us any savings in costs, this referral reward has to be financed by the expected future earnings the company makes on this new user. Which brings us to the referral scheme we have now.
A new user brings you new income (active user i mean). Giving away 80% of this income to referrer at the point when network expenses exceed network fees is unwise imo. Again, the fact that I need to pay to ccedk $80 minimum just for signing me up is ridiculous. Fees for using bitshares should go to bitshares. Fees for using ccedk services should go to ccedk. If I don't use ccedk, I should not pay fees to them.
P.S. Ok, ccedk provides a web wallet, they deserve some reward to support their effort (not 80% of steak of course). Substitute ccedk for any other referrer.
-
@abit , have you got a rational explanation for the 90-day vesting period in case of LTM?
What kind of abuse is it supposed to prevent?
I have no idea..
Instead of 20cents, LTM's pay 4 cents to the network so it was a way to recoup the difference.
Not true, IMO.
Both non-LTM and LTM users always pay 6 BTS (=20% of 30 BTS) to the network.
So there is no difference to be recouped.
@abit , could you confirm this^?
Yes, I can confirm this.
But I think the network (read: stake holders) should get some from users.
Maybe the network should get something, but why on earth 20%?
This is pure profit, not a compensation for anything, as most people think.
And this is important because this unjustified 20% charge (by the network) is a financial barrier that prevents businesses to fully opt out from the referral program.
As we have it now, we make the referral program compulsory to a large degree (causing lots of conflicts within the community) while it could be fully optional.
I do think network should profit (maybe not now but sooner or later we need it).
Currently the network need to pay out 43k BTS to witnesses and 80k BTS to workers every day, but average daily income is only 8k BTS or so, among it about 900 come from transfers, 6k come from account upgrades. If we decrease transfer fee for LTM from 6 BTS to 1 BTS, it means we need at least 6x volume to keep same revenue. If we decrease account upgrade fee to 0, it means we need 54x transfer volume to keep same revenue.
-
20% go to network .. ALWAYS.
@xeroc , would you agree that if you are my referrer and after while I want to pay you off and become my own referrer, it's a deal between me and you. Nobody else is involved or affected, the income stream for the network is not affected.
Why on earth should the network be allowed to take a 20% cut in this private deal between me and you?
Just because somebody said "20% always goes to network"? It does not make sense in this case.
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
IMO, it's logical error made by BM and it should be fixed.
As well as this absurd (so it seems) LTM 90-day vesting.
I, and many others, have been risking large amounts of capital and working our butts off for two years to get this network to where the referrers have their opportunity to make an income by using it. The network isn't "stealing" anything. It is being compensated for the opportunity it has created at great cost.
I think you misunderstood me. You mix up the referrer's income with the BitShares network's income.
All I'm saying is that when I buy LTM, the network currently takes 20% of the referrer's income without any valid reason. The entire referral fee should go to the referrer.
The network should not be compensated for anything. Its situation does not change when I buy LTM.
It's the referrer who created the opportunity and risked his money for marketing efforts, not the network.
I don't think that I have misunderstood you.
I just think that the network has every right to get 20% of the referral fee brought in by small (or large) marketing businesses that are given the opportunity created by us. Think of it as franchise fees if you like.
Some marketer can come in tomorrow and take advantage of the two years of sweat, tears and treasure that we have poured into creating this platform while they were off making money marketing something else.
Do you not place any value on the creation of our platform? I sure do.
-
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
I am sorry, but this is bullshit. It is opposite. Referrer steals 80% of network money. I would rather make a deal with network directly, rather than through ccedk, but I was not given a choice.
-
I do think network should profit (maybe not now but sooner or later we need it).
Currently the network need to pay out 43k BTS to witnesses and 80k BTS to workers every day, but average daily income is only 8k BTS or so, among it about 900 come from transfers, 6k come from account upgrades. If we decrease transfer fee for LTM from 6 BTS to 1 BTS, it means we need at least 6x volume to keep same revenue. If we decrease account upgrade fee to 0, it means we need 54x transfer volume to keep same revenue.
I see. In this case I agree. We cannot make a drastic change in this situation.
LTM 20% upgrade tax is our milk cow. It has no logical justification but it just happens to be our main source of revenue.
All we could do is lower the LTM upgrade tax to something like 10% and remove the 90-day vesting.
This would make the referral program easier to opt out, but still not fully optional.
-
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
I am sorry, but this is bullshit. It is opposite. Referrer steals 80% of network money. I would rather make a deal with network directly, rather than through ccedk, but I was not given a choice.
If you had read my posts more carefully, you'd have noticed that all I wanted was to make the referral program fully optional to satisfy people like you who don't feel like paying any third-party.
If you call this BS, so be it. I rest my case.
-
Just reading the Membership page on OL right now. 50% is split between affiliate and Registrar. I guess the annual membership is no longer available? Hmm.. I thought that was originally a good idea. $20 is an easier sell for membership than $100. Can we implement the annual membership? (We can just make annual members have the same low fees for a year to make it simple?)
I don't want to comment on other things, but this.. annual membership is intended to be available, but there seems to be a bug so it's actually not available. See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21163.0.html
Thanks. Yeah we should be configuring a faucet soon so it would be good to know.
Looking at that thread I do see a membership expiration for woodygar, but the "referrer_rewards_percentage" seems to be associated with the affiliate % which is set to 0 currently. Reading: https://bitshares.org/referral-program/ it says up to 50% so my guess is that OL as the registrar currently has it set at 0% for annual members unfortunately. My thought now is that annual membership actually refers to the affiliate % ( "referrer_rewards_percentage" ) and everyone has to at least be an annual member to get any referral rewards. This all seems to make sense now. There should be an update on OL GUI to say that annual members get the affiliate %, otherwise it's confusing.
-
I don't think that I have misunderstood you.
I just think that the network has every right to get 20% of the referral fee brought in by small (or large) marketing businesses that are given the opportunity created by us. Think of it as franchise fees if you like.
Some marketer can come in tomorrow and take advantage of the two years of sweat, tears and treasure that we have poured into creating this platform while they were off making money marketing something else.
Do you not place any value on the creation of our platform? I sure do.
Generally I agree with you. The platform should have its way to recoup "two years of sweat, tears etc". I fully support the network's right to have income.
What I find difficult to accept is the fact that we've made the LTM upgrade our only profit center, due to no particular reason.
The 20% tax by the network in this case is detached from the economical sense of this particular transaction.
We should spread our platform taxes more evenly. As we have it now, over 90% of our revenue comes from LTM upgrade. And this is bad.
-
I do think network should profit (maybe not now but sooner or later we need it).
Currently the network need to pay out 43k BTS to witnesses and 80k BTS to workers every day, but average daily income is only 8k BTS or so, among it about 900 come from transfers, 6k come from account upgrades. If we decrease transfer fee for LTM from 6 BTS to 1 BTS, it means we need at least 6x volume to keep same revenue. If we decrease account upgrade fee to 0, it means we need 54x transfer volume to keep same revenue.
I see. In this case I agree. We cannot make a drastic change in this situation.
LTM 20% upgrade tax is our milk cow. It has no logical justification but it just happens to be our main source of revenue.
All we could do is lower the LTM upgrade tax to something like 10% and remove the 90-day vesting.
This would make the referral program easier to opt out, but still not fully optional.
I still think your outlook on this is a little jaded.
Name one product sold on the internet via an affiliate network where the company offering product gets nothing and the affiliate seller gets 100% of the sale. Not one. :) It doesn't make any sense for any business to do that.
Or don't even consider it a product.. think about an affiliate network that hosts products for companies and provides the infrastructure for affiliates to get paid. The affiliate network gets a cut of all the transactions of every product that every affiliate sells. Never does the affiliate who does all the work get 100%.. Never.. Paypal gets their cut.. credit card companies get their cut.. whom ever is part of the transaction gets their cut.. as Bitshare the network/stakeholders should/can/will too.
Sure you can argue about ongoing fees etc, but we have already established those numbers are fractional in comparison. Sprinkles on the cake.
The rewards given to the promoter are not necessarily based out of the % of the sale they are getting but the amount of the compensation. Can they expect $50 per sale or $100 per sale? These are the numbers that promoters care about in order to fashion their campaigns and effectively optimize the conversion of traffic. What % of the sale they get means nothing to them otherwise. I know affiliate marketers who get paid $500 per product they sell that costs in the neighbourhood of $2500. They don't care about it costing $2500, they care only about the $500 they will get. The margins we are offering as far as % are already on the high scale of offers as well.
This does lead to an important question regarding how much LTMs should be sold for.
I am currently recommending they should be in the neighbourhood of $97. At the current 80% rate that would mean they can expect $77 per sale. Still running numbers to see if that is the most ideal sweet spot for now with all things considered.
I am also currently considering the potential of what you mentioned regarding going from 20% to 10% network. It could be a great way to increase the refer profitability in exchange of other fees possibly being reduced.
I agree with some of the other commentary as well in terms of adding more value to LTMs beyond just fee differences.
You all realize we are WAY off topic of this thread now? :)
I don't think we are going to see 1bts transfers for basic fees... however I do think we will see some kind of reduction.. just not to that level. The committee is still doing a thorough analysis of all the fees to determine the positive negative impact to everyone. It's not going to happen overnight, but at least it's becoming a more cohesive discussion.
-
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
I am sorry, but this is bullshit. It is opposite. Referrer steals 80% of network money. I would rather make a deal with network directly, rather than through ccedk, but I was not given a choice.
If you had read my posts more carefully, you'd have noticed that all I wanted was to make the referral program fully optional to satisfy people like you who don't feel like paying any third-party.
If you call this BS, so be it. I rest my case.
I confess, I don't read 100s of pages of bs on internet forums carefully. I skip most of them. I have a good job in real world, and it takes time and efforts. If you are proposing an alternative to this referral program, you have my support.
-
Name one product sold on the internet via an affiliate network where the company offering product gets nothing and the affiliate seller gets 100% of the sale. Not one. :) It doesn't make any sense for any business to do that.
OK, thanks for that. Your suggestion made me realize what my point really is.
I agree that it is fair that when an affiliate earns some revenue, so should the company that produced the product. In this case the current 80% / 20% makes sense.
But what about the situation when an affiliate / referrer (like bitcrab) wants to forgo his referral revenue entirely? Wouldn't it be fair if the company (or the BitShares network in our case) gave up its part of the revenue as well?
Thus we would have:
- Referrer wants to earn profit - we tax him 20%. This way the user gets more expensive product but also the added value supplied by the referrer.
- Referrer forgoes profit - we don't tax him at all. This way the user can get the pure product, without being forced to pay anything extra.
All that would be required to have this implemented is this: an option for the registrar to register a new account and make it LTM at the time of its creation.
This would effectively mean this: the referral business abstains from its right to be a referrer and at the same time the network abstains from the 20% LTM upgrade charge.
Isn't it a fair deal for everyone?
You all realize we are WAY off topic of this thread now? :)
I think we are very much on topic :)
We are trying to find a viable alternative to bitcrab's proposal.
-
But what about the situation when an affiliate / referrer (like bitcrab) wants to forgo his referral revenue entirely? Wouldn't it be fair if the company (or the BitShares network in our case) gave up its part of the revenue as well?
Isn't it a fair deal for everyone?
jakub... go ask Apple.. whoever actually
"Would you mind not making any profit at all, if I sell your product?"
Cause essentially the LTM-ship is paying for your product upfront, instead of gradually with normal fees.
and I do get the other side as well - selling something ( the 20% prepaid fees) and paying the promoter 80% ( 4x the price of the product itself) as an incentive for him, is more than odd, some might call it Ponzi/scam whatever.
So do not interpret this as me being in the LTM camp at all.
PS
I should probably analyze this whole thing now after 50 28 pages of discussion... but from my pov the fees are such a none issue, you cannot imagine.
-
The danger there is then everyone would get free LTM wherever it is offered and no one would pay anywhere else.
Initially this is what I thought as well. But now I think this is the way it should be!
The referral business should bring some added value to the user (e.g. education materials or a nice mobile app) - if it's not able to do that but just wants earn profit for doing nothing useful, it should go out of business.
And by the way, that's how it works in any other business.
If there is a retail shop that wants to operate without any profit margin, who can stop it?
I'm a big supporter of the referral program, provided it can economically justify its existence. If it cannot do that and it does nothing but keeps the prices high, it should die.
I agree with the general direction you're going and in the end it may not make a difference if some faucets use automatic upgrades by default, but I think keeping the membership structure for specific assets is a better option. (Mode A/B/C) The value of the referral is not so much ongoing education or a good UX although that helps a lot, it's just the fact that any user signs up and pays membership for whatever reason. Also when someone pays for something they are invested and they have a higher probability of using the product even if it doesn't offer that much value. Of course with Bitshares we shouldn't have to worry about the value part. Membership is based on exclusivity, otherwise it really isn't a membership. People may resent the fact that they really weren't paying for discounted fees if they didn't have to for the same product. I would probably recommend the free LTM instead of selling membership and request a donation because the 'membership' is misleading. It doesn't seem like that many people want to cut out the entire network fee anyways.
Having Modes A/B/C just changes certain assets. The committee can set rates. It's easier to just add one extra Mode A for CNY assets and appease the Chinese community. I think that's why they are supporting BSIP10. Mode B & C can remain the same for US/Eur assets. The world is happy.
Instead of 20cents, LTM's pay 4 cents to the network so it was a way to recoup the difference.
Not true, IMO.
Both non-LTM and LTM users always pay 6 BTS (=20% of 30 BTS) to the network.
So there is no difference to be recouped.
@abit , could you confirm this^?
I just meant it was to offset some of the costs that a LTM would have paid if he/she were a basic member. Essentially LTMs pay their fees up front and some goes back to the network.
Actually now I think the vesting is ok... It may prevent spam. It may be good for the faucet/registrar to charge a minimal fee to prevent spam as well. I can imagine some people just creating massive amounts of spam accounts as an attack. I do think the network can lower the fee to 10%. I think the minimum of the faucet can be 10%. Both the network and faucet need to maintain infrastructure.
-
20% go to network .. ALWAYS.
@xeroc , would you agree that if you are my referrer and after while I want to pay you off and become my own referrer, it's a deal between me and you. Nobody else is involved or affected, the income stream for the network is not affected.
Why on earth should the network be allowed to take a 20% cut in this private deal between me and you?
Just because somebody said "20% always goes to network"? It does not make sense in this case.
The network effectively steals 20% of the referrer's money.
IMO, it's logical error made by BM and it should be fixed.
As well as this absurd (so it seems) LTM 90-day vesting.
Don't you think you gain something FROM THE NETWORK aswell when you
upgrade to LTM? How about you can join committee, be worker, or create
your OWN accounts? Is that not a premium feature?
Furhter, the protocol can be changed such that other features may
require PREMIUM membership as well. You can think of those services:
- bond markets
- asset creations
and I can even think of new features to require LTM for the first 6
months. Like an exclusive right.
-
Hence if an LTM is the referrer he can get 100%.
Which is a very bad idea because it allows spamming at zero cost.
-
and I do get the other side as well - selling something ( the 20% prepaid fees) and paying the promoter 80% ( 4x the price of the product itself) as an incentive for him, is more than odd, some might call it Ponzi/scam whatever.
So do not interpret this as me being in the LTM camp at all.
That's called "sales margin" (according to someone's post). When you buy a nice suit from a shop and paid $500, how much do you think the shop will earn (by promoting it)? Cost for the suit is perhaps less than $50.
-
OK. I think I now get it.
My recent conclusion is that the referral program is *not* meant to be optional by design.
That's probably why we have this 90-day vesting - to make it hard to create a faucet giving out LTM accounts for free (or very cheaply) on a massive scale.
The LTM upgrade does several things at the same time:
- redirects fees from the referrer to the user
- offers the user access to advanced features
- it's the point where the network gets most of its revenue
Thus all three parties (i.e. the user, the referrer and the network) are integral parts of the LTM contract.
It's *not* a simple deal between the user and the referrer, as I previously thought.
So I guess only two things can be realistically done as slight improvements:
(1) Create a non-profit faucet (which voluntarily burns its referral income) for people like @yvv - those who are willing to pay for LTM but they want their money to go straight to the network, not to some third-party.
(2) Remove the transfer fee from the LTM deal, as @xeroc suggests, and rebrand LTM as a feature for *advanced* users (as opposed to *frequent* users).
Regarding (2): This will probably please people like @alt and @bitcrab to some extent but for businesses generally not dealing with advanced users on a daily basis (e.g. mobile app operators: @kenCode @merivercap ) this change will make it much harder to sell LTM to their customers. Maybe LTM combined with percentage-based transfer fees will make more sense for their customers.
Also, we significantly weaken our sales pitch for online merchants. So for me, it's a mixed bag of good and bad consequences.
-
(1) Create a non-profit faucet (which voluntarily burns its referral income) for people like @yvv - those who are willing to pay for LTM but they want their money to go straight to the network, not to some third-party.
You have to study social mind though. If it is just me who wants this, you probably wouldn't want to bother.