BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Xeldal on February 04, 2016, 05:59:32 pm
-
In my view, the Referral Program(RP) is currently a "for the greater good" (socialized) tax. I think we can easily and safely correct this.
A simple solution that conceivably retains all/most referral incentives and income while opening the door to a great deal more opportunities, and reducing psychological and actual friction. As well, this may be fairly easy to implement(IDK), requiring few changes.
set referral fee to 0% by default.
Lower base fee to spam prevention level that supports network cost only.
Allow, in constructing any transaction, to designate what the referral fee will be.
A business that wants to use the referral system can then, within their app, simply turn key and charge whatever fee they want.
The split and distribution will happen automatically based on that users Membership status etc.
No 'building it themselves' is necessary.
Benefits:
Current LTM retain their benefits while using services that participate in referral program
Current LTM continue to earn from referrals and upgrades
Services that don't want referral program need not use it.
Services that can't operate with high fees can now use bitshares.
Psychological turn-offs of high fees, high friction eliminated.
Every business can easily and specifically tailor the referral program to their needs.
BitShares is more Capitalist and less Socialist
Drawbacks:
Power users will be able to avoid some fees without upgrade by using CLI or other low budget service.
tl;dr : 8)
Less socialism, more capitalism.
fewer taxes, more freedom
less grub grub grub, more pew pew pew
I think bitshares operating as a for profit business is a turn off to other business as it adds to baseline cost.
Instead I think bitshares should operate as a non-profit neutral platform for business to make their own profit.
Collect what is necessary to pay operating cost and that is it. IMO.
Get the committee out of the business of defining profits(taxes) and limit to defining network costs.
-
Is this the same discussion we are having on the other thread or would your proposal be substantively different?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21314.msg276990.html#msg276990 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21314.msg276990.html#msg276990)
-
I can see your point but then this comes down to what is Bitshares? Is it a neutral platform or DAC.
1) Bitshares is a platform that is revenue neutral. Profits are made and disturbed by businesses build on top it. Users must invest in those business or just hold and wait for potential increase in BTS price.
2) Bitshares is a made a for profit business and makes profits from users and businesses that use the platform by receiving a fee of every transaction above neutral cost.
-
This brings uo some very interesting thoughts. i like it. perhaos you can discuss with us tomorrow at the hangout or post a bit more succinct question we can discuss. Im thinking we cojld call the topic "less grub grub...more pew pew" ~ a Proposal by Xeldal
-
;)
btw, I have 2 lifetime membership accounts I will no longer need... deeply discounted prices...looking to generally cover the account transfer fee and whatever is vesting.
make an offer.
-
I think bitshares operating as a for profit business is a turn off to other business as it adds to baseline cost.
Instead I think bitshares should operate as a non-profit neutral platform for business to make their own profit.
Collect what is necessary to pay operating cost and that is it. IMO.
Why would anyone want to develop and maintain BTS as a non-profit platform?
The one thing that BitShares is really good at is a strong incentive structure for maintaining and expanding the chain. I absolutely don't get why we would want to kill that off.
-
I think bitshares operating as a for profit business is a turn off to other business as it adds to baseline cost.
Instead I think bitshares should operate as a non-profit neutral platform for business to make their own profit.
Collect what is necessary to pay operating cost and that is it. IMO.
Why would anyone want to develop and maintain BTS as a non-profit platform?
The one thing that BitShares is really good at is a strong incentive structure for maintaining and expanding the chain. I absolutely don't get why we would want to kill that off.
Don't you love those bitAsset being backed by not assets but by participation certificates in a charity?
-
I think bitshares operating as a for profit business is a turn off to other business as it adds to baseline cost.
Instead I think bitshares should operate as a non-profit neutral platform for business to make their own profit.
Collect what is necessary to pay operating cost and that is it. IMO.
Why would anyone want to develop and maintain BTS as a non-profit platform?
The one thing that BitShares is really good at is a strong incentive structure for maintaining and expanding the chain. I absolutely don't get why we would want to kill that off.
Don't you love those bitAsset being backed by not assets but by participation certificates in a charity?
Now that you mention it, that does sound like a great idea. Just think of all the media hype we would get!
-
Is this the same discussion we are having on the other thread or would your proposal be substantively different?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21314.msg276990.html#msg276990 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21314.msg276990.html#msg276990)
It is different.
I believe my suggestion eliminates both psychological and actual friction for every user while maintaining the referral incentives for business and users. Reducing the cost of LTM to zero seems to be a roundabout way, with extra steps and complexity of trying to achieve a similar thing while also missing the mark. It still retains the negative psychological effects of paying a higher fee to begin with, on every transfer. I suppose you could, in addition, allow registrars to set the LTM price as per the discussion at the link, I havn't fully considered it. My first thought is, what is the value of LTM if it is free, why even have it? what prevents everyone just grabbing LTM from that registrar? I would ultimately like to see some kind of market driven price for LTM but I don't know how that would work.
For this proposal, the user/app/webapp/service provider sets the referral fee for every transaction. default is 0. No extra fee is ever applied unless you're using a service that requires it.
For a user running their own wallet, transfers would not have any fee above what it costs to maintain the network. This is a psychological benefit as you're not paying a big fee and expecting something back later.
If that user is using a webwallet or some 3rd party service the fee would be determined by the business running the service, and the referral program would operate just as it does now.
I think bitshares operating as a for profit business is a turn off to other business as it adds to baseline cost.
Instead I think bitshares should operate as a non-profit neutral platform for business to make their own profit.
Collect what is necessary to pay operating cost and that is it. IMO.
Why would anyone want to develop and maintain BTS as a non-profit platform?
The one thing that BitShares is really good at is a strong incentive structure for maintaining and expanding the chain. I absolutely don't get why we would want to kill that off.
Bitcoin operates at a loss. It doesn't seem to be a detractor for business building on top of it.
In the same way, BitShares is useful, and requires BTS to use. BTS holders profit in terms of buying power by the use and proliferation of the system, they don't need an additional BTS profit to see a monetary gain. BitShares can operate at a BTS loss and BTS holders can still profit from the exchange rate/buying power.
-
;)
btw, I have 2 lifetime membership accounts I will no longer need... deeply discounted prices...looking to generally cover the account transfer fee and whatever is vesting.
make an offer.
I bid 100 bts
-
If you charge no fee's who is going to produce blocks? people are not going to do it for free.
Your description is actually making bitshares much more socialist. The blockchain should be compensated for doing the work of producing blocks. Your proposal expects the blockchain to do this for free. Free doesn't work and bts will fail if this plan is implemented.
I have had objections to how reserve funds have been controlled and spent, but the ability for a blockchain to fund itself is uniqe and valuable. Neutering Bitshare's ability to fund itself takes away a major invest-able advantage.
-
If you charge no fee's who is going to produce blocks? people are not going to do it for free.
Your description is actually making bitshares much more socialist. The blockchain should be compensated for doing the work of producing blocks. Your proposal expects the blockchain to do this for free. Free doesn't work and bts will fail if this plan is implemented.
I have had objections to how reserve funds have been controlled and spent, but the ability for a blockchain to fund itself is uniqe and valuable. Neutering Bitshare's ability to fund itself takes away a major invest-able advantage.
You might have missed what I said.
I'm suggesting BitShares should be non-profit. I didn't say bitshares should be free.
Committee determines what it costs to pay the witnesses and any other costs, just as they do now, and set the fee accordingly. In addition there is a huge supply of BTS for workers. I'm not suggesting changing any of that.
The non-profit thing is more of a side note anyway. The primary issues I'm addressing is the referral program.
-
@Xeldal , I like your approach.
But have some doubts:
(1) If you eliminate subscriptions entirely (LTM & AM), what does you proposal offer me if I'm a heavy user and do a lot of stuff on your platform?
I think I'll get the same treatment as a user who does one transfer per year.
(2) Is it doable? This would require that all witnesses accept a transfer, if whatever fee is paid as long as it is above the minimum level.
This is probably the case but I'm not sure.
(3) I don't agree with your theory about psychological turn offs. If something is expensive and I get a huge discount for a very small price (or even for free due to some "promotion") - for me this is not a psychological turn off. Quite the opposite. I get the impression that I'm smart and I've made a very good deal.
-
@Xeldal , I like your approach.
But have some doubts:
(1) If you eliminate subscriptions entirely (LTM & AM), what does you proposal offer me if I'm a heavy user and do a lot of stuff on your platform?
I think I'll get the same treatment as a user who does one transfer per year.
(2) Is it doable? This would require that all witnesses accept a transfer, if whatever fee is paid as long as it is above the minimum level.
This is probably the case but I'm not sure.
(3) I don't agree with your theory about psychological turn offs. If something is expensive and I get a huge discount for a very small price (or even for free due to some "promotion") - for me this is not a psychological turn off. Quite the opposite. I get the impression that I'm smart and I've made a very good deal.
(1) subscriptions would remain. no change there. Using a site that has a RP fee I would get the discount just as I do now.
(2) yes there would be no other restriction. Pay the base fee, anything above that fee is part of the RP fee to be distributed to referrer and registrar
(3) I think it works both ways and depends on what your paying for. If I'm just trying to move money from this account to that account. I can do that anywhere and the quality of transfer is pretty much consistent wherever you go. I'm looking for the cheapest price. Paying more doesn't give me the feeling of it being better. However paying for a product like a watch, that the quality can very drastically, I agree with you that paying more gives the impression that it is of higher quality.
-
(3) I think it works both ways and depends on what your paying for. If I'm just trying to move money from this account to that account. I can do that anywhere and the quality of transfer is pretty much consistent wherever you go. I'm looking for the cheapest price. Paying more doesn't give me the feeling of it being better. However paying for a product like a watch, that the quality can very drastically, I agree with you that paying more gives the impression that it is of higher quality.
Well, I understand the distinction but I think we are more like the watch here.
If you try to sell BitShares as an ordinary payment system - your cards are very weak. You cannot compete on price. You cannot compete on UX.
So you need to add some story to it, something special that differentiates BitShares from other payment systems.
Let's assume your customer "buys" this story, but just after the first transfer (or even before making the first transfer) s/he concludes that the system is cool but too expensive. So you explain that it has cost a lot of effort to set up & maintain this system and that's why it cannot be free. And this explanation perfectly fits with "the story" that got the customer interested in the first place.
Then you go on like this:
"But you know what? Here is a special promotion for you. Just for $2 (or whatever) you can upgrade to AM and get all this cool stuff almost for free."
So for me BitShares sells like a good watch offered at a generous discount. Not like a simple payment system to move money from A to B.
-
(3) I think it works both ways and depends on what your paying for. If I'm just trying to move money from this account to that account. I can do that anywhere and the quality of transfer is pretty much consistent wherever you go. I'm looking for the cheapest price. Paying more doesn't give me the feeling of it being better. However paying for a product like a watch, that the quality can very drastically, I agree with you that paying more gives the impression that it is of higher quality.
Well, I understand the distinction but I think we are more like the watch here.
If you try to sell BitShares as an ordinary payment system - your cards are very weak. You cannot compete on price. You cannot compete on UX.
So you need to add some story to it, something special that differentiates BitShares from other payment systems.
Let's assume your customer "buys" this story, but just after the first transfer (or even before making the first transfer) s/he concludes that the system is cool but too expensive. So you explain that it has cost a lot of effort to set up & maintain this system and that's why it cannot be free. And this explanation perfectly fits with "the story" that got the customer interested in the first place.
Then you go on like this:
"But you know what? Here is a special promotion for you. Just for $2 (or whatever) you can upgrade to AM and get all this cool stuff almost for free."
So for me BitShares sells like a good watch offered at a generous discount. Not like a simple payment system to move money from A to B.
BitShares should not be making that decision for every business to pursue. BitShares just provides the platform as cheaply and efficiently as possible with as little friction as possible to allow for every conceivable opportunity/angle/service. Every business can decide how to price their wallet/service to capitalize on consumer psychology, stories and what not.
The approach you describe can be used by any business using this setup. They can set their fee however high they want to maximize that angle. with the extra income they may offer other special promotions of incentives as well, but the point is its not up to me. They do as they wish and will be competing with other bitshares businesses that have lower fees and different offering and the market would decide which offers the better incentives/UX/back story/psychology etc.
-
BitShares should not be making that decision for every business to pursue.
If every business can easily opt out from this "decision" this is not much of a problem.
But I agree, your approach could be considered as more generic.
However I do not agree that every marketing strategy could be replicated this way.
If I wanted to use the in-built subscription model but just sell it at a different price - I could not do it with your setup.
These are my only options:
- use the existing subscription model priced globally by the committee
- skip the subscription model
- build my own subscription model outside the blockchain
-
If I wanted to use the in-built subscription model but just sell it at a different price - I could not do it with your setup.
These are my only options:
- use the existing subscription model priced globally by the committee
- skip the subscription model
- build my own subscription model outside the blockchain
You can, just like today. I can offer up-to 80% off the price of LTM without any cost to me, by giving the 80% I earn from the upgrade back to the user.
-
If I wanted to use the in-built subscription model but just sell it at a different price - I could not do it with your setup.
These are my only options:
- use the existing subscription model priced globally by the committee
- skip the subscription model
- build my own subscription model outside the blockchain
You can, just like today. I can offer up-to 80% off the price of LTM without any cost to me, by giving the 80% I earn from the upgrade back to the user.
OK, that's true.
So maybe ideally we could combine my approach with yours, as the they seem to be quite complementary after all.
I would add this option: for the subscription model, instead of charging $100 and giving back $80, just let the registrar set the price at $20.
And if we had your solution in place, we could enforce the minimum price for LTM at $20 and give it no upper limit.
This way we would have the best features from both solutions:
- if a business was able to sell LTM above $100, it could do so and make more money for itself and the network.
- if a business wanted to sell LTM below $20 or did not want to use subscription at all, it could easily switch to your subscription-less model.
It's quite complex but I think it makes sense.
-
I can see your point but then this comes down to what is Bitshares? Is it a neutral platform or DAC.
1) Bitshares is a platform that is revenue neutral. Profits are made and disturbed by businesses build on top it. Users must invest in those business or just hold and wait for potential increase in BTS price.
2) Bitshares is a made a for profit business and makes profits from users and businesses that use the platform by receiving a fee of every transaction above neutral cost.
@Pheonike
I think this is an important point to keep in mind. As a platform the goal is to just get as many people and businesses on as possible and charge a basic network fee. Whether it's 1 cent or 20 cents BTS owners should just keep it simple and just try to attract as many businesses as possible.
@Xeldal I agree with the general proposition and something like what you suggested is a good long term solution. Also wouldn't it be easier to someone allow business accounts to charge a fee on the blockchain? Isn't that being done for FBA assets already? If fees can be set on an account-by-account basis in addition to assets that might work even better. I think this is a better approach than adding a fee on the GUI because that may open up more vulnerabilities. At least you can verify fees on the blockchain. That way businesses can more easily earn money charging a %-based fee or 20 cents first and use whatever proceeds to fund a referral program.
Example. Let's assume the network fee is set at 2 cents per transaction for all assets. If a business account XYZ wanted to use the USD Smartcoin and CNY Smartcoin it could create an XYZ.USD or XYZ.CNY and charge anything.... 0.1%, 0.3%, 1% as long as it's above the network fee. Businesses can later use the net proceeds for the referral marketing features we already have on the system.
-
@Xeldal
After rethinking, I've come to the conclusion that your model does not leave any space for in-built subscriptions after all.
Subscriptions require the base fees to be set a bit higher and offer 80% discount if you buy the subscription.
Whereas your model assumes setting the base fees at the lowest possible level, so no 80% discount is possible from this lowest level.
-
I think this is a better approach than adding a fee on the GUI because that may open up more vulnerabilities. At least you can verify fees on the blockchain.
That's valid point. If the UI decides about the fees, sooner or later the UI will be hacked.
-
If I wanted to use the in-built subscription model but just sell it at a different price - I could not do it with your setup.
These are my only options:
- use the existing subscription model priced globally by the committee
- skip the subscription model
- build my own subscription model outside the blockchain
You can, just like today. I can offer up-to 80% off the price of LTM without any cost to me, by giving the 80% I earn from the upgrade back to the user.
OK, that's true.
So maybe ideally we could combine my approach with yours, as the they seem to be quite complementary after all.
I would add this option: for the subscription model, instead of charging $100 and giving back $80, just let the registrar set the price at $20.
And if we had your solution in place, we could enforce the minimum price for LTM at $20 and give it no upper limit.
This way we would have the best features from both solutions:
- if a business was able to sell LTM above $100, it could do so and make more money for itself and the network.
- if a business wanted to sell LTM below $20 or did not want to use subscription at all, it could easily switch to your subscription-less model.
It's quite complex but I think it makes sense.
I want to be sure I'm on the same page.
There is only 1 mode or model. one requirement. You pay the minimum fee. Period.
When using a 3rd party service/wallet, they may elect to require a fee higher then this minimum.
Any such fee paid over the minimum is subject to the rules of the RP (%split according to referrer/registrar values, vesting etc)
A registrar can charge any amount not less then ~20USD for LTM
Network fee on LTM registration is ~20USD or 20% whichever is greater
If the above is what you have in mind. I have a few questions.
If all LTM are exactly the same in function. Why will anyone pay more then $20 for LTM?
I feel like this was discussed before but I don't know the answer. Is there something that requires users to setup a new account for every service? Will I need to buy a LTM at every service, or can my 1 account with LTM status be used everywhere? I suppose there is nothing preventing a service from accepting outside accounts but if they are using the RP or selling LTM they may be incentivized to force new members to create a newly registered account with them as registrar/referrer.
@Xeldal
After rethinking, I've come to the conclusion that your model does not leave any space for in-built subscriptions after all.
Subscriptions require the base fees to be set a bit higher and offer 80% discount if you buy the subscription.
Whereas your model assumes setting the base fees at the lowest possible level, so no 80% discount is possible from this lowest level.
I may not be clear on what you're saying. The idea is, If a transaction is made with only the minimum fee nothing is returned via RP.
If a fee over the minimum is included, 80% of that amount is returned to LTM via RP.
Are you saying- If the LTM subscription fee is 10,000 BTS, that is a minimum fee so nothing would be returned? Is that what your saying? If so 20% of that(the network portion) can be set as the minimum fee and you can pay whatever amount you want, and 80% will be returned.
@Xeldal I agree with the general proposition and something like what you suggested is a good long term solution. Also wouldn't it be easier to someone allow business accounts to charge a fee on the blockchain? Isn't that being done for FBA assets already? If fees can be set on an account-by-account basis in addition to assets that might work even better. I think this is a better approach than adding a fee on the GUI because that may open up more vulnerabilities. At least you can verify fees on the blockchain. That way businesses can more easily earn money charging a %-based fee or 20 cents first and use whatever proceeds to fund a referral program.
That's an interesting idea. Who sets the accounts fee though and can it be changed? If I use you as a registrar and you set the fee on my account, does this fee apply no matter where I go, or where I use the account? Can you later change the fee to something else? I think if the GUI is hacked we have a lot more to worry about then the attacker changing the fees. I hope I've understood you correctly.
-
Benefits:
.........
BitShares is more Capitalist and less Socialist
This is funny. How bitshares being more capitalist is a benefit to users? How can bitshares be more capitalist, than it is now?
-
tl;dr : 8)
Less socialism, more capitalism.
fewer taxes, more freedom
less grub grub grub, more pew pew pew
Oh, boy. You messed everything up. Capitalism is exactly about grub grub grub, never pew pew pew. This is how bitshares is set up. Political flame is offtopic though, but you started it in your OP, so I feel invited to continue it.
-
I think bitshares operating as a for profit business is a turn off to other business as it adds to baseline cost.
Instead I think bitshares should operate as a non-profit neutral platform for business to make their own profit.
Collect what is necessary to pay operating cost and that is it. IMO.
Why would anyone want to develop and maintain BTS as a non-profit platform?
The one thing that BitShares is really good at is a strong incentive structure for maintaining and expanding the chain. I absolutely don't get why we would want to kill that off.
To drive the price down obviously. Some people think a BTS should be much cheaper.
-
Maybe the referral program can be paused if the network reaches above a certain sustainable market cap? Currently the referral program is really the only thing Bitshares has. There is no other way to earn Bitshares and very little liquidity for trade activity so what do you want to get rid of the referral program for?
-
I want to be sure I'm on the same page.
There is only 1 mode or model. one requirement. You pay the minimum fee. Period.
When using a 3rd party service/wallet, they may elect to require a fee higher then this minimum.
Any such fee paid over the minimum is subject to the rules of the RP (%split according to referrer/registrar values, vesting etc)
A registrar can charge any amount not less then ~20USD for LTM
Network fee on LTM registration is ~20USD or 20% whichever is greater
OK, once again I misunderstood you idea but I hope I got it right this time.
(I thought you meant two modes working in parallel, but now I understand you propose to have just one mode)
The only problem that remains is this: if I wanted to offer a LTM subscription but sell it below $20, I could not do this, could I?
I'm not saying it's a major flaw, I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.
And the other problem is this: what prevents me from modifying and recompiling the desktop GUI to avoid the fees?
If all LTM are exactly the same in function. Why will anyone pay more then $20 for LTM?
For the same reason people pay different prices for similar airline tickets, when the quality of service is more or less the same.
I feel like this was discussed before but I don't know the answer. Is there something that requires users to setup a new account for every service? Will I need to buy a LTM at every service, or can my 1 account with LTM status be used everywhere? I suppose there is nothing preventing a service from accepting outside accounts but if they are using the RP or selling LTM they may be incentivized to force new members to create a newly registered account with them as registrar/referrer.
I guess you can move your LTM accounts from service to service, I cannot see a reason why you could not.
Thus you don't need to buy LTM at each service provider.
I may not be clear on what you're saying. The idea is, If a transaction is made with only the minimum fee nothing is returned via RP.
If a fee over the minimum is included, 80% of that amount is returned to LTM via RP.
Are you saying- If the LTM subscription fee is 10,000 BTS, that is a minimum fee so nothing would be returned? Is that what your saying? If so 20% of that(the network portion) can be set as the minimum fee and you can pay whatever amount you want, and 80% will be returned.
Never mind. I did not have a clear vision of your concept when I asked those questions.
One point though:
- the current approach is this: we charge high fees by default and then offer discounts.
- your approach is this: we charge low fees by default and facilitate adding profit margins for businesses on top of that.
That turns the whole thing upside down.
Looks like major changes in the Graphene code-base would be needed to achieve that.
-
IMO this proposal will require a major code-base upgrade, a snapshot and a full-scale migration of accounts (similar to the upgrade from BitShares 0.9.x to BitShares 2.0).
(I'm not an expert in this area, so this is just my speculation that needs to be confirmed by someone more competent - @abit ?)
-
The only problem that remains is this: if I wanted to offer a LTM subscription but sell it below $20, I could not do this, could I?
I'm not saying it's a major flaw, I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.
Why should you be able to steal the only revenue the network has from ltm-fee ?!
And the other problem is this: what prevents me from modifying and recompiling the desktop GUI to avoid the fees?
Witnesses would not accept your transaction if it do not have *at least* the fee that the network requires for that operation.
You still could, on the other hand, overcharge the fee if you think it is too low for your business.
-
The only problem that remains is this: if I wanted to offer a LTM subscription but sell it below $20, I could not do this, could I?
I'm not saying it's a major flaw, I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.
Why should you be able to steal the only revenue the network has from ltm-fee ?!
I think I've put it quite clearly: "I just want to make sure I understand it correctly".
Witnesses would not accept your transaction if it do not have *at least* the fee that the network requires for that operation.
You still could, on the other hand, overcharge the fee if you think it is too low for your business.
I know all this.
But my question was this: what prevents me from recompiling the desktop GUI to avoid the extra fees added on top of the fees required by the network.
In case of OpenLedger this hack would mean getting 80% off the transfer price.
-
Why should you be able to steal the only revenue the network has from ltm-fee ?!
And BTW the motivation might not be "stealing from the network".
If I have a customer who would buy LTM but only if it cost $10, not $20, it's still better for the network to take this deal than to get nothing at all.
So it's not so black-and-white as you imply.
-
Why should you be able to steal the only revenue the network has from ltm-fee ?!
And BTW the motivation might not be "stealing from the network".
If I have a customer who would buy LTM but only if it cost $10, not $20, it's still better for the network to take this deal than to get nothing at all.
So it's not so black-and-white as you imply.
The network set the price. If you agree with it you can buy it, if not, you don't.
Would you sell me a new iPhone for 100$ only because I will not buy it for 800 but I could for 100?
Sure if Apple gives one to you for free... But why apple should?
Why the network should? We are going to decide the price, other will decide if buy it or not.
-
Why should you be able to steal the only revenue the network has from ltm-fee ?!
And BTW the motivation might not be "stealing from the network".
If I have a customer who would buy LTM but only if it cost $10, not $20, it's still better for the network to take this deal than to get nothing at all.
So it's not so black-and-white as you imply.
The network set the price. If you agree with it you can buy it, if not, you don't.
Would you sell me a new iPhone for 100$ only because I will not buy it for 800 but I could for 100?
Sure if Apple gives one to you for free... But why apple should?
Why the network should? We are going to decide the price, other will decide if buy it or not.
Yes, I agree. I just wanted to illustrate that the word "steal" does not fit here.
It could easily turn out that if we had set the minimum price at a different level, the network's income would have been substantially bigger.
So it's not a matter of "stealing". It's a matter of finding the optimal pricing strategy.
We should not treat the current minimum price as something sacred. It's just a choice we've made.
-
Maybe the referral program can be paused if the network reaches above a certain sustainable market cap? Currently the referral program is really the only thing Bitshares has. There is no other way to earn Bitshares and very little liquidity for trade activity so what do you want to get rid of the referral program for?
If the referral program is truly the only thing bitshares has, there is no reason to have bitshares. I think bitshares is a good deal more then just the RP.
You can earn BTS by buying them, develop a smart contract or FBA, and collect a fee. You could also provide a service that people want. They're plenty of way to earn BTS outside the RP.
No one, at least not in this thread, is advocating getting rid of the referral program.
what prevents me from recompiling the desktop GUI to avoid the extra fees added on top of the fees required by the network.
In case of OpenLedger this hack would mean getting 80% off the transfer price.
Ah, I see. Yeah that's a good point. Web-base wallet wouldn't have that problem but full-nodes that require open source would. Services would either avoid having desktop clients or make them closed source. That might be another reason to go with an account fee set at the blockchain level.
IMO this proposal will require a major code-base upgrade, a snapshot and a full-scale migration of accounts (similar to the upgrade from BitShares 0.9.x to BitShares 2.0).
(I'm not an expert in this area, so this is just my speculation that needs to be confirmed by someone more competent - @abit ?)
I think the change is actually fairly simple and certainly would not require a full-scale migration, but I am also not really qualified to make that determination. For the most part every aspect of the current RP can remain and function just as it does now. The only bit that needs a change is where the RP looks for its fee. Instead of taking 80% from the base fee. It simply takes 80% of whats paid over the base fee.