BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: lil_jay890 on February 06, 2016, 04:42:47 pm
-
For a while now people have been trying to figure out why there is so little trading volume on the DEX. I've traded forex and stocks for over 10 years and have written dozens of trading bots (Expert Advisors) in the mql language. I've turned $2,500 into $50,000 in 6 months. I've also turned $50,000 into $20,000 in 6 months as well. I think I have a pretty good idea of what traders need and expect from a platform.
1. Shorting in the DEX is cumbersome and confusing
I recently tried to short using the DEX. I borrowed CNY and then sold that CNY for BTS. I ended up getting margin called as BTS fell in price. I'm ok with being wrong about a position, but I'm very confused with the mechanics of how this happened. I also had no idea what my position was worth throughout the trade, and I'm not even entirely sure how much I lost. Shorting needs to be streamlined and simplified. The borrow/sell thing is too many steps and not knowing the positions value during the trade is borderline scary.
2.Is there a way to put a stop loss or take profit order?
Because right now I can't figure out how to do it. This means there is no money management ability. Without the ability to manage a trade, the DEX is unusable for serious traders. There needs to be at a minim stop loss orders. There really should be a way to put trailing stops in as well.
3.Indicators are shaky at best
Right now there are 4 indicators and 2 of them are moving averages. The RSI doesn't appear to be working as the only reading I see on the more liquid markets are 100, 50, or 0. It looks like an EKG witch tells me something isn't working correctly. Not all traders use indicators, but many do.
These are just basic GUI things that are preventing traders from using the DEX. It doesn't even include the inability to use leverage. Just fixing the 3 things above will bring much more utility and liquidity to the dex. I will guarantee it. The people that originally designed the DEX were not traders. They thought poloniex was a good interface to base their platform on. Unfortunately, poloniex is not a good platform. A professional trader would never use Poloniex. Poloniex's platform is modeled off some cheap retail trading platform.
How do we fix this??
Right now we are consumed by petty fee debates and if we should keep calling ourselves DPOS. These things are not that important right now. It's not what will drive mainstream traders to the BTS platform. What is needed is A PLUGIN FOR METATRADER 4. While it isn't the most sophisticated trading platform, it's the most widely used and known. It's also light years ahead of the current DEX. What I propose is that instead of @dannotestein and blocktrades using a worker proposal to fix basic blockchain bugs, rather is work on creating a plugin for MT4. They are already an exchange and have a good understanding of BTS. I know it's not as easy as fixing "bad coding techniques", but getting this plugin for BTS would do more to improve the market cap and utility than anything else.
-
I think this is the type of stuff that should be discussed. I'm not a trader and couldn't help noticing any of that but I'm glad you shared your opinions on it. We need more people like this. More input from traders. Base our work on that and listen to them.
Fee debate isn't as important as this atm, imo. This should be the priority.
-
What is needed is A PLUGIN FOR METATRADER 4.
Discussion of what is needed for this here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19816.0.html
-
What is needed is A PLUGIN FOR METATRADER 4.
Discussion of what is needed for this here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19816.0.html
Bug fixes are important but I agree that tools for pro traders are critical. Plus this could be added feature to entice users to LTM or AM.
-
I think this is the type of stuff that should be discussed. I'm not a trader and couldn't help noticing any of that but I'm glad you shared your opinions on it. We need more people like this. More input from traders. Base our work on that and listen to them.
+5%
-
+5%. It only needs to offer a few premium stocks, commodities and currencies. Integrated into a standard trading platform. A way for newbie traders to gain real exposure but without having to obtain a broker account/ meet kyc requirements. Working out the stop-loss integration might be complicated.
-
@lil_jay890
I agree with you that a MT plugin would be a big milestone for BitShares.
Why don't you write a formal BSIP?
It helped in my case. Back in December, when I started a thread about percentage-based fees, the idea did not get much attention until... I turned it into a formal BSIP. This attracted abit to take on the task of turning it into code.
So it worked like this:
idea -> BSIP -> a coder comes along -> the idea becomes doable -> people start treating the idea seriously -> worker proposal
EDIT: And do it as FBA.
-
EDIT: And do it as FBA.
What is FBA?
-
EDIT: And do it as FBA.
What is FBA?
FBA = fee backed asset
-
EDIT: And do it as FBA.
What is FBA?
FBA = fee backed asset
Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
-
EDIT: And do it as FBA.
What is FBA?
FBA = fee backed asset
Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..
-
EDIT: And do it as FBA.
What is FBA?
FBA = fee backed asset
Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..
Income after developed such plugin are from the MT4 side. License fee.
-
EDIT: And do it as FBA.
What is FBA?
FBA = fee backed asset
Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..
Could MT4 not generate income through referral fees by users who sign up through MT4? Isn't that the whole point of the referral program.
-
EDIT: And do it as FBA.
What is FBA?
FBA = fee backed asset
Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..
Could MT4 not generate income through referral fees by users who sign up through MT4? Isn't that the whole point of the referral program.
That is the only way I figure an MT4 integration would be able to make money... FBA doesn't seem possible.
Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
-
Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better
-
Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better
Thanks Dad.
I didn't say all the committe members want to, but bitcrab and many of the chinese members have advocated eliminating the referral programs.
-
Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better
Thanks Dad.
I didn't say all the committe members want to, but bitcrab and many of the chinese members have advocated eliminating the referral programs.
They don't actually. If they want to remove referral program, they attempted to change referral percentage. I think they want to change the structure of referral program.
-
Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better
Thanks Dad.
I didn't say all the committe members want to, but bitcrab and many of the chinese members have advocated eliminating the referral programs.
Sounds like you know everything.
Currently, in the committee, there are 3 Chinese members: bitcrab, baozi(alt) and abit(me).
* bitcrab is somehow against applying referral program to China market.
* alt/baozi seems to be neutral to the referral program
* I tend to not remove the referral program.
harvey is ever in the committee and hasn't made any voice.
//Edit:
just noticed that k1 is voted into the committee, who is also Chinese. His ID on bitsharestalk is @BTSdac .
Don't know what's his opinion though.
-
Just going based off this... see item 3. I suppose I should have said some committee members instead of a lot. My mistake.
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.
Bottom line: There is still a fairly substantial risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future. This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.
-
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future. This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.
For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.
So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.
-
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future. This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.
For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.
So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.
If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless. Those fee's are controlled by the committee. Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China. Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.
I'm not doing this just to spread fud... Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive. Just the license will cost 50k-100k. Plus probably another 50k in development time. The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable. That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee.
-
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future. This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.
For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.
So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.
If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless. Those fee's are controlled by the committee. Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China. Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.
I'm not doing this just to spread fud... Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive. Just the license will cost 50k-100k. Plus probably another 50k in development time. The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable. That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee.
How can you judge a certain fee level makes referral program "useless"? Do you think $10 fee per transfer is more useful for referral program?
Can you provide a number how reduced fee kills referral program?
-
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future. This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.
For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.
So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.
If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless. Those fee's are controlled by the committee. Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China. Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.
I'm not doing this just to spread fud... Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive. Just the license will cost 50k-100k. Plus probably another 50k in development time. The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable. That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee.
How can you judge a certain fee level makes referral program "useless"? Do you think $10 fee per transfer is more useful for referral program?
Can you provide a number how reduced fee kills referral program?
You really wan't me to explain how lowering the transfer fee's to 1 bts kills the referall program??
Ok... say mt4 integration cost $100k. Profit from this is based on referrals from people who create a wallet that is used in the mt4 terminal. Right now there are approximately 100k retail trading account in the US. Lets just say on average a trader makes 3 round trip trades a day. Say bts captures 1% of this market. 1,000 traders making 6 trades a day = 6,000 trades. 6,000 * 1bts = $21/day... The time to pay off the 100k dollar debt to implement mt4 would take 4,761 days or 13 years. This makes mt4 integration a non-starter as maintenance costs would probably add another 6 years onto the time it takes to get profitable.
Now lets say that the trader generates 30bts... take 80% of that (24bts) as the return for a trade. 6,000 * 24bts = $504/day. Time to pay off the debt is 198 days. Investors are back in the black in less than 10% of the time all while squishing spreads, adding liquidity and generating real profit for the blockchain. The transfer fee is $0.10, substantially less than what traders currently pay. Why have a race to 0 fee's when there is no reason to do it???
-
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future. This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.
For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.
So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.
If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless. Those fee's are controlled by the committee. Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China. Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.
I'm not doing this just to spread fud... Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive. Just the license will cost 50k-100k. Plus probably another 50k in development time. The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable. That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee.
How can you judge a certain fee level makes referral program "useless"? Do you think $10 fee per transfer is more useful for referral program?
Can you provide a number how reduced fee kills referral program?
You really wan't me to explain how lowering the transfer fee's to 1 bts kills the referall program??
Ok... say mt4 integration cost $100k. Profit from this is based on referrals from people who create a wallet that is used in the mt4 terminal. Right now there are approximately 100k retail trading account in the US. Lets just say on average a trader makes 3 round trip trades a day. Say bts captures 1% of this market. 1,000 traders making 6 trades a day = 6,000 trades. 6,000 * 1bts = $21/day... The time to pay off the 100k dollar debt to implement mt4 would take 4,761 days or 13 years. This makes mt4 integration a non-starter as maintenance costs would probably add another 6 years onto the time it takes to get profitable.
Now lets say that the trader generates 30bts... take 80% of that (24bts) as the return for a trade. 6,000 * 24bts = $504/day. Time to pay off the debt is 198 days. Investors are back in the black in less than 10% of the time all while squishing spreads, adding liquidity and generating real profit for the blockchain. The transfer fee is $0.10, substantially less than what traders currently pay. Why have a race to 0 fee's when there is no reason to do it???
Why 6000 is fixed?
-
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
-
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
-
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
Price is driven by demand. What the market will bear.
-
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear. It's not. Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10. Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00. This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.
The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
-
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear. It's not. Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10. Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00. This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.
The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
I'm wondering how can you confidently say that numbers. Why up to $1? Why don't care $0.1? Any reasons or just your intuition?
-
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear. It's not. Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10. Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00. This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.
The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
I'm wondering how can you confidently say that numbers. Why up to $1? Why don't care $0.1? Any reasons or just your intuition?
Based on 10 years of real world trading experience and a comparison of commissions charged be several brokers. A trader isn't going to choose a 1 cent platform vs a 50 cent on price alone. It's a nonfactor at those price points. The only thing that will matter at sub $1.00 fees is ease of use, features and security.
Remember these guys are trading thousands of dollars in each trade... 1 dollar is miniscule in their P/L
-
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear. It's not. Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10. Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00. This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.
The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
I'm wondering how can you confidently say that numbers. Why up to $1? Why don't care $0.1? Any reasons or just your intuition?
Based on 10 years of real world trading experience and a comparison of commissions charged be several brokers. A trader isn't going to choose a 1 cent platform vs a 50 cent on price alone. It's a nonfactor at those price points. The only thing that will matter at sub $1.00 fees is ease of use, features and security.
Remember these guys are trading thousands of dollars in each trade... 1 dollar is miniscule in their P/L
Could you explain me why you expect heavy and specialized traders to do *transfers* on a platform heavy focused on *trading* like MT4?
Could you explain me why are you using the "transfer fee* to calculate revenue generated from *trading*?
Could you explain why the registrars of MT4 would care about and look for revenue from *transfers* if they are promoting an advanced platform for *trading*?
Do you know that currently the revenue from transfers fee is only a tiny portion of the whole network revenue? And openledger is not as much focused as MT4 on trading, so I would expect even less revenue from people registering through MT4. (transfer wise)
Could you explain me how the hell guys managing thousands of dollars per trade would end up doing only 6 trades a day?
Could you explain why in your opinion, is not feasible that a lower *transfer* fee could bring much more people in the whole system, generating traction and more liquidity, giving a reason to real traders to start using the platform? (that from their point of view it means trading, not transfering)
IMO you should realize that MT4 registrar should focus on temp their users to upgrade to LTM and not expect traders to do transfers around just because.
MT4 should offers advanced trading features to LTM only to tempt traders to upgrade, as our Dex should.
IMO all your logic on mixing up transfers and trades make no sense at all.
-
You really wan't me to explain how lowering the transfer fee's to 1 bts kills the referall program??
Ok... say mt4 integration cost $100k. Profit from this is based on referrals from people who create a wallet that is used in the mt4 terminal. Right now there are approximately 100k retail trading account in the US. Lets just say on average a trader makes 3 round trip trades a day. Say bts captures 1% of this market. 1,000 traders making 6 trades a day = 6,000 trades. 6,000 * 1bts = $21/day... The time to pay off the 100k dollar debt to implement mt4 would take 4,761 days or 13 years. This makes mt4 integration a non-starter as maintenance costs would probably add another 6 years onto the time it takes to get profitable.
Now lets say that the trader generates 30bts... take 80% of that (24bts) as the return for a trade. 6,000 * 24bts = $504/day. Time to pay off the debt is 198 days. Investors are back in the black in less than 10% of the time all while squishing spreads, adding liquidity and generating real profit for the blockchain. The transfer fee is $0.10, substantially less than what traders currently pay. Why have a race to 0 fee's when there is no reason to do it???
Is it just me, or are you failing to grasp the difference between transfer fees and trading fees?
-
Could you explain why in your opinion, is not feasible that a lower *transfer* fee could bring much more people in the whole system, generating traction and more liquidity, giving a reason to real traders to start using the platform? (that from their point of view it means trading, not transfering)
@Bhuz , it's you who want to change the exiting rules, not lil_jay890.
So logically it's up to you to prove that "lower transfer fee could bring much more people in the whole system" and give us an estimate of the magnitude of this change.
We've had this discussion for 3 months now, but the fact is none of you has brought a single piece of evidence supporting your assumptions.
We are going in circles.
I agree that the current level of the transfer fee is quite arbitrary, there was not much research done when it was set initially by BM.
But whatever it is, it gives some sort of badly needed stability to the business environment. This stability is not sacred but it's very important and if we want to dismantle this stability, we need to have a good reason for that. If the reason is your "gut feeling", then this is not a good reason for many people and you get a lot of resistance.
On the other hand, asking you to come up with a "good" reason is a tall order. That's why I've been trying like mad to come up with a solution that will allow you to test your gut feeling predictions on your own customers, while other businesses can continue to enjoy the current stability. This thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21366.0.html) is my latest attempt.
-
Could you explain why in your opinion, is not feasible that a lower *transfer* fee could bring much more people in the whole system, generating traction and more liquidity, giving a reason to real traders to start using the platform? (that from their point of view it means trading, not transfering)
@Bhuz , it's you who want to change the exiting rules, not lil_jay890.
So logically it's up to you to prove that "lower transfer fee could bring much more people in the whole system" and give us an estimate of the magnitude of this change.
We've had this discussion for 3 months now, but the fact is none of you has brought a single piece of evidence supporting your assumptions.
We are going in circles.
I agree that the current level of the transfer fee is quite arbitrary, there was not much research done when it was set initially by BM.
But whatever it is, it gives some sort of badly needed stability to the business environment. This stability is not sacred but it's very important and if we want to dismantle this stability, we need to have a good reason for that. If the reason is your "gut feeling", then this is not a good reason for many people and you get a lot of resistance.
On the other hand, asking you to come up with a "good" reason is a tall order. That's why I've been trying like mad to come up with a solution that will allow you to test your gut feeling predictions on your own customers, while other businesses can continue to enjoy the current stability. This thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21366.0.html) is my latest attempt.
The point here, in this thread, is that lil_jay890 is using transfer fee to calculate trading revenue.
He is saying that a change in transfer fee will affect a business based on a trading platform with a userbase focused on heavy traders.
This is just non sense and illogical.
Stick to the discussion here.
-
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear. It's not. Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10. Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00. This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.
The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
I'm wondering how can you confidently say that numbers. Why up to $1? Why don't care $0.1? Any reasons or just your intuition?
Based on 10 years of real world trading experience and a comparison of commissions charged be several brokers. A trader isn't going to choose a 1 cent platform vs a 50 cent on price alone. It's a nonfactor at those price points. The only thing that will matter at sub $1.00 fees is ease of use, features and security.
Remember these guys are trading thousands of dollars in each trade... 1 dollar is miniscule in their P/L
Could you explain me why you expect heavy and specialized traders to do *transfers* on a platform heavy focused on *trading* like MT4?
Could you explain me why are you using the "transfer fee* to calculate revenue generated from *trading*?
Could you explain why the registrars of MT4 would care about and look for revenue from *transfers* if they are promoting an advanced platform for *trading*?
Do you know that currently the revenue from transfers fee is only a tiny portion of the whole network revenue? And openledger is not as much focused as MT4 on trading, so I would expect even less revenue from people registering through MT4. (transfer wise)
Could you explain me how the hell guys managing thousands of dollars per trade would end up doing only 6 trades a day?
Could you explain why in your opinion, is not feasible that a lower *transfer* fee could bring much more people in the whole system, generating traction and more liquidity, giving a reason to real traders to start using the platform? (that from their point of view it means trading, not transfering)
IMO you should realize that MT4 registrar should focus on temp their users to upgrade to LTM and not expect traders to do transfers around just because.
MT4 should offers advanced trading features to LTM only to tempt traders to upgrade, as our Dex should.
IMO all your logic on mixing up transfers and trades make no sense at all.
You are correct. I meant trading fee's, not transfer fee's. If trading fee's are left alone or increased, using the referral program to support MT4 implementation is still viable. I'm not sure if the committee members who wanted to lower the transfer fee's also wanted to lower the trading fee's. I may have incorrectly assumed they wanted to reduce both sets of fee's.
As far as your question of why someone who trades with thousands of dollars would only trade 3 times a day. That's an average i'm taking based on my experience and the time I have spent with other traders in various trading groups. There are people who trade millions of dollars and maybe only make 1 or 2 trades a week. The amount of capital a trader has doesn't dictate the amount of trades a trader makes.
The whole point of this thread was to talk about why there is a lack of liquidity on the DEX and how it could be addressed in a low risk way. MT4 would drive much more liquidity to the bts platform, but the only way I can see it being implemented and profitable would be if the referral program could be used to generate income.
-
You are correct. I meant trading fee's, not transfer fee's. If trading fee's are left alone or increased, using the referral program to support MT4 implementation is still viable.
Do you see an FBA that take the revenues from the trading_fee and account_upgrade?
It may work.
I'm not sure if the committee members who wanted to lower the transfer fee's also wanted to lower the trading fee's. I may have incorrectly assumed they wanted to reduce both sets of fee's.
At present, the % trading_fee is up to the issuer of the asset, so committee have no power outside bitassets.
Moreover, at present, the trading fee are not subject to the referral program (committee have nothing to do with this), but there are two proposed change about it:
-BSIP#4 "Distribute Market Fees on Core Asset to Referral Program" and
-BSIP#6"Market Maker Incentivization"
I still think we should also and mainly consider to have a global % trading fee that apply as basic % trading fee that every issuer owe to the network. (it could be very low, since it apply to both side of every market)
(at the end of the day the platform allow the issuer to create his asset and manage all the trades, the platform gives him a trading engine, so imo make sense to have a global fee for it)
Anyway, with the last Fee Schedule, the committee actually would like to *activate* the % trading fee on bitassets (atm there is only a fee for create and cancel order, but not a % trading fee)
So the committee would like to do just the opposite of what you thought, I guess.
As far as your question of why someone who trades with thousands of dollars would only trade 3 times a day. That's an average i'm taking based on my experience and the time I have spent with other traders in various trading groups. There are people who trade millions of dollars and maybe only make 1 or 2 trades a week. The amount of capital a trader has doesn't dictate the amount of trades a trader makes.
I see, I am not a trader so I just trust you on this point.
Maybe things are a little bit different for those who provides bot?
But at the end of the day, with % trading fee, is not really important the number of trades, but the volume actually.
The whole point of this thread was to talk about why there is a lack of liquidity on the DEX and how it could be addressed in a low risk way. MT4 would drive much more liquidity to the bts platform, but the only way I can see it being implemented and profitable would be if the referral program could be used to generate income.
I would like to see a plugin for MT4 too.
Personally I would see the biggest revenue stream from the account_upgrade operation. Moreover if the shareholders like the idea of restricting some features only to LTM.
-
I agree with lil_jay890 ideas +5%
-
Bump. We have here someone who has experience giving valuable input, this cant be ignored.
We want to improve, we have People who know how stuff should be giving advice anf it gets ignored and buried
Who else do we want helping other than an experienced trader?
@noisy this can be useful for your tests! I suggest contacting him
-
Bump for more input.