A tricky proposition indeed.
I like the idea for no fees on very small transactions. But a percentage-based fee on higher value transactions will simply drive users to other blockchains where it is cheaper to conduct business. I oppose this idea.
Bitshares is special because of its low fees -- you don't see the same bot activity on other platforms due to the relatively high transaction costs on those platforms. Increased fees just might kill the growing bot ecosystem, which Bitshares gravely needs.
If the referral system can be improved without disrupting the other factors that make Bitshares great, I'm all for it. But don't kill it with substantially higher fees.
A tricky proposition indeed.
I like the idea for no fees on very small transactions. But a percentage-based fee on higher value transactions will simply drive users to other blockchains where it is cheaper to conduct business. I oppose this idea.
Bitshares is special because of its low fees -- you don't see the same bot activity on other platforms due to the relatively high transaction costs on those platforms. Increased fees just might kill the growing bot ecosystem, which Bitshares gravely needs.
If the referral system can be improved without disrupting the other factors that make Bitshares great, I'm all for it. But don't kill it with substantially higher fees.
I agree in 100% !!!
+ "0 fee" for sharedroping.
Maybe this could be some new type of transaction.
ref system as it is now is useless and not profitable to market. Fees were changed by the fist committee in an attempt to boost adoption, which did not work and they killed any marketing attempts on top of it.Fav is one of the most productive promoters of BitShares. He has bring 320 users in BitShares.
I'm kinda sick and tired of reading "bts great tech but bad marketing" etc. it's essentially our fault for not coming up with something productive + a decent committee to follow up on stuff.
ref system as it is now is useless and not profitable to market. Fees were changed by the fist committee in an attempt to boost adoption, which did not work and they killed any marketing attempts on top of it.Fav is one of the most productive promoters of BitShares. He has bring 320 users in BitShares.
I'm kinda sick and tired of reading "bts great tech but bad marketing" etc. it's essentially our fault for not coming up with something productive + a decent committee to follow up on stuff.
This is huge coming from as single person.
The referral program with current fee probably had the same effect on him that it had on BitDhsres FCX team.
One of the biggest problem we had with the referral system was that we didn't have use case to show. It was then complicated to "sell" BitShares.
Now we have OpenLedger products and ICOs, Blockpay, stealth soon, Echo about to be done, we have an crypto index fund ;), ... we don't have excuses anymore.
We need to find a way to tweek the fee structure without damaging the user experience. Having a the referral system back could potentially solve our bad comercialisation problem.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
I have been thinking about the sharing depending on BTS holding. It's not a bad idea but maybe it shouldn't have a linear relation with the funds.
If you don't consider the BTS holdings, you can potentially bring lots of new users just for the speculative investment into a LTM.
If they need 1M BTS to have a decent share of the fee, the investment changes compleetely.
With that said, there should be some positive aspects of having BTS sleeping. So we should consider an increase of the revenue depending on BTS holdings but no that much that it wouldn't make sense anymore to buy a LTM without huge funds.
Maybe, to qualify you could need LTM and a minimum of xxx BTS. There would be a higher revenue as your capital in bts increase. Too low and ppl will start creating several LTM (maybe not that bad)
Too high and nobody except the whales will create LTM.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
ref system as it is now is useless and not profitable to market.I have to agree with this. ;)
@fav
Why not just make a worker proposal that distributes funds to LTMs as a dividend.
Maybe in BitUSD instead of BTS.
bad idea, most users from China community will complain to pay 100BTS for transferring 100000BTS. forget this please.
bad idea, most users from China community will complain to pay 100BTS for transferring 100000BTS. forget this please.
Maybe we can have tranfers free whatever the quantity (Steem like) and have a cut of 0.1% on every trade on the dex. The dex could provide the money needed to get the referral program back on tracks.
Even in China, I guess you can't find exchanges with lower fee that 0.1% on trades.
Lets think about why the referral program is dead... Is it really because the fee's are low? No, it's because no one can figure out how to build an actual business that utilizes the BTS platform. All that the BTS platform is good for is to create a UIA that you can easily and anonymously scam investors with.... wow, I cant believe the price of BTS hasn't exploded!
"But wait... we are a decentralized exchange and that is our product and its really cool!"... News flash, when you buy bitUSD or bitGLD or bitBTC you don't own any real dollars, gold or bitcoin. You own a derivative that is backed by an ultra low cap and low liquidity crypto currency. A crypto that you have to send to an exchange and pay a bunch of fee's in order to get actual usable currency. BTS is decentralized on the surface... but to get in and out, most people have to go through some centralized entity. Plus you can make the claim that proxies have way too much power and thus add additional centralization to the system. If the exchanges got together, they could easily control all of BTS. I feel most people here know that, but choose to sweep that massive bts design flaw under the rug.
Basically bts seems cool and useful on the outside but when you look deeper at it, you realize its just a complicated, low liquidity, faux-decentralized, scammers dream platform. Having a well designed and robust referral system wont garner new users, when bts doesn't excel at filling any niche role. It does a bunch of things in complicated clunky ways.
referral program is not suitable to BTS business scene, and it has done bad to the whole ecosystem, we have paid great effort to minimize the bad effect. please do not go back.
as default, China community will reject all proposals for increasing fees if it is not a must. we need not to waste time on discussing these kind of issues.
So, to recap ... the problem is not that we can't find a solution to have the referral problem back, the problem is that part of the community think that the referral was a bad idea.
My perspective is the next one. What would it cost to create a website like this one : www.bitsharesfcx.com and translated everything that it contains ? I can tell you ... a lot !!! I know the time we spent on it
Well, I did it for free because I strongly beleive that the referral program would pay me back some day if I kept my effort going and facilitate the french comlunity it's understanding of BitShares.
How can this kind on amazing motivationnal result can be a bad thing ?
I stopped 90% of my efforts on this dirrection because there is no incentive anymore.
I don't see how paying people with a promess to make money later is bad for BitShares. I think is brilliant and doesn't cost much now and will cost a little more later when BitShares will be able to affort it.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
It is an amazing way to have people working on promoting Bitshares without paying them, just on the perpective to win money if BitShares takes off and their referred users start using it.
if I can, I'll remove the referral program from the platform.
I am not only to push senseful change, but also to reject unnecessary/senseless/reluctant proposals.
in my view, the core point to run Bitshares platform is to attract more people to use the service, attract them to trade in DEX, to pay with smartcoins or to issue UIAs.
I don't think to attract them by interest or dividends is the right way. however, maybe we can build some kind of service, with which A can borrow assets from B with paying interest(the planned bond market?).
I have some idea to let the non-LTM users enjoy the same transfer/trade fee schedule with LTM, but only LTM are authorized for issuing assets, shorting...etc...but seems referrers do not like this?
up to now this is what I think about this, surely you can continue to explain/persuade, maybe sometime I can change my idea.
I have already given my thoughts in telegram regarding the LTM. I think by implementing a shareholder balance that is only accessible to LTM which enables balances to partially back bitassets in the system while paying back a dividend/interest would be a much clearer value proposition for the LTM to sell it to a wide audience in crypto/trading. This would be a major fork.. but it would solve the bitassets liquidity issue and give people a new reason to want to buy bitshares... not to mention the refer program having a second life without increasing fees etc to give it value. Oh... not to mention I suggested the shareholder balance be the voting balance... eliminating the exchanges security issue.. and making dedicated holders the voters... but that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
You idea should have it's own thread and be discussed.if I can, I'll remove the referral program from the platform.
I am not only to push senseful change, but also to reject unnecessary/senseless/reluctant proposals.
in my view, the core point to run Bitshares platform is to attract more people to use the service, attract them to trade in DEX, to pay with smartcoins or to issue UIAs.
I don't think to attract them by interest or dividends is the right way. however, maybe we can build some kind of service, with which A can borrow assets from B with paying interest(the planned bond market?).
I have some idea to let the non-LTM users enjoy the same transfer/trade fee schedule with LTM, but only LTM are authorized for issuing assets, shorting...etc...but seems referrers do not like this?
up to now this is what I think about this, surely you can continue to explain/persuade, maybe sometime I can change my idea.
I believe this is part of the cultural difference once again. China and India are similar where it only takes some to move in one direction to have others follow and create a network effect... not so in western markets which is where everyone who has been cheering for the refer program are located. From where @bitcrab is sitting, he really doesn't see any usefulness for it at all because in his market it isn't necessary. Everything he said is right in regards to business as far as China is concerned.
He also made the point about LTM being the only ones being able to create assets etc.. and wonders why this isn't enough to promote LTMs. Offhand I would say because the market of users who are going to do that are very small to something like trading. Being a DEX that is the most obvious value.. being able to create a UIA is only for particular use case I think.
I have already given my thoughts in telegram regarding the LTM. I think by implementing a shareholder balance that is only accessible to LTM which enables balances to partially back bitassets in the system while paying back a dividend/interest would be a much clearer value proposition for the LTM to sell it to a wide audience in crypto/trading. This would be a major fork.. but it would solve the bitassets liquidity issue and give people a new reason to want to buy bitshares... not to mention the refer program having a second life without increasing fees etc to give it value. Oh... not to mention I suggested the shareholder balance be the voting balance... eliminating the exchanges security issue.. and making dedicated holders the voters... but that has nothing to do with the OP topic.
I believe this is part of the cultural difference once again. China and India are similar where it only takes some to move in one direction to have others follow and create a network effect... not so in western markets which is where everyone who has been cheering for the refer program are located. From where @bitcrab is sitting, he really doesn't see any usefulness for it at all because in his market it isn't necessary. Everything he said is right in regards to business as far as China is concerned.
QuoteI believe this is part of the cultural difference once again. China and India are similar where it only takes some to move in one direction to have others follow and create a network effect... not so in western markets which is where everyone who has been cheering for the refer program are located. From where @bitcrab is sitting, he really doesn't see any usefulness for it at all because in his market it isn't necessary. Everything he said is right in regards to business as far as China is concerned.
Thing which are specific to local markets should not be implemented at protocol level. Protocol should allow to create referral programs , pay dividends etc, but let local businesses which are oriented to specific markets to implement such things.
So what's the answer? Maybe registrars should have the ability to waive their 80% share so the user never has to pay the full amount to begin with, all they have to pay is the $20 and the registrar would not have to do anything, and would not have to wait 3 months to get any money back. This would at least address the problem with the $100 price being way too high for non-western communities. @bitcrab could possibly that work for you?
let me repeat 3 times:I'm trying to be constructive here. Could explain why you think it's a bad idea ? I mean, why is not a good idea to use it to give back valuebto the referral program and what would be your solution otherwise.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
let me repeat 3 times:I'm trying to be constructive here. Could explain why you think it's a bad idea ? I mean, why is not a good idea to use it to give back valuebto the referral program and what would be your solution otherwise.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
We have to find some kind of agreement between eastern and western.
Repeating 3 times what you think doesn't make it a better idea nor contribute effectively to the brainstorm.
let me repeat 3 times:I'm trying to be constructive here. Could explain why you think it's a bad idea ? I mean, why is not a good idea to use it to give back valuebto the referral program and what would be your solution otherwise.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
We have to find some kind of agreement between eastern and western.
Repeating 3 times what you think doesn't make it a better idea nor contribute effectively to the brainstorm.
I can see there is some trading on the BitCNY:BTS but I don't feel that the whole chinese crypto commuity is amazingly seduce by the fact the we don't have % fees on the DEX. It's still very very low volume !let me repeat 3 times:I'm trying to be constructive here. Could explain why you think it's a bad idea ? I mean, why is not a good idea to use it to give back valuebto the referral program and what would be your solution otherwise.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
forget to add 0.1% on treades in DEX.
We have to find some kind of agreement between eastern and western.
Repeating 3 times what you think doesn't make it a better idea nor contribute effectively to the brainstorm.
the answer is always China.
but so far no one provided some number proving how much impact china has to BitShares in terms of adoption and revenue. Is Asia even relevant to the success of BitShares? Or is this maybe some personal agenda by a committee member to protect their business?