Quote from: bitcrab on January 29, 2016, 12:19:18 pm

the problem is how to define fee model for each asset. how about this:
1. apply A model to BTS.
2. issuer of every other asset can select which model to apply, for
public smartcoins, committee will decide, to me it's OK that all the
public smartcoins, including BitCNY to be applied model B.

but I worry this will also cause debate in some scenarios, for example,
if I issue privatized smartcoin TUSD and apply model A. as BitUSD is
applied model B, so maybe some people will complain unfairness that TUSD
get competitive advange than BitUSD.

any thoughts?

My thoughts: This is excatly what @abit is doing in his proposal. So I
recommend you don't claim this as your idea and instead support abit's
worker proposal to get this done!

AFAIK, there are difference between this and abit's proposal, in abit's proposal, all the smartcoins, including all privatized smartcoins will be applied model B.
this difference is important, it's possible for me to support abit's proposal, but before that I need to check with him for details of the fee stucture and do modification if necessary.

and even finally a consensus be reached, we still need to determine the flat fee parameter,  and at frist step apply this to all assets, and then wait for abit to realize his proposal.

Quote from: lafona on January 29, 2016, 05:22:42 am

Quote from: merivercap on January 28, 2016, 11:56:07 pm

6.  What if we:

a. Determine the lowest sustainable fee structure that will pay for witnesses and a reasonable amount of software development and maintenance in the long run.  This will be the network fee.  It can be in dollar/yuan terms. 

b.  Create a flexible fee structure so that certain Smartcoins (bitUSD,bitEUR), UIA's, Privatized bitAssets, FBA's can charge an additional fee to pay for marketing costs and utilize the existing referral program as is.  We can allow other Privatized bitAssets (TCNY) or Smartcoins (bitCNY) to charge no additional fee and find a way to market itself with no money and no referral program... or possibly find outside VC money for marketing somehow.

What do you guys think?

This seems like a potential way to resolve this. I think it would be beneficial for Asset owners/creators to be able adjust the fee structure for their assets in order to better cater to their customers or marketing approach.

Already thought about this.
I am ready for more developments.

this is considerable, as there are really business culture difference among different regions, in China referral program is just a trouble maker, but maybe it works in US and western europe. so as I asked before, is it possible that Bitshares become a platform that businessmen can develop their business of different types upon it with great convenience, and meanwhile without enslaving users/shareholders or disturbing each other?

to design different charging model may make sense, suppose we have 2 model for charging transfer fee:A: charge only the flat network fee. B. percent based fee, referrer can get the division accordingly.

the problem is how to define fee model for each asset. how about this:
1. apply A model to BTS.
2. issuer of every other asset can select which model to apply, for public smartcoins, committee will decide, to me it's OK that all the public smartcoins, including BitCNY to be applied model B.

but I worry this will also cause debate in some scenarios, for example, if I issue privatized smartcoin TUSD and apply model A. as BitUSD is applied model B, so maybe some people will complain unfairness that TUSD get competitive advange than BitUSD.

any thoughts?
 

boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.

Quote from: fav on January 28, 2016, 07:46:35 am

just a heads up to all OBITS hodlers, by voting for Bitcrab, you're actively helping killing off obits / revenue based models.

Quote from: bitcrab on January 28, 2016, 06:08:57 am

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.

let me remind you that without referral income, OL makes little profit, effectively killing OBITS purpose.

Seriously, @bitcrab who the hell are you and why should I vote for a "person" with no name, no face, or way to come get your ass when you f*ck over everything I am working on?

show your ass first please.

If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.

what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?

Quote from: tbone on January 28, 2016, 03:02:44 pm

If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door.  That is terrible behavior.  You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.

This. bitcrab is using exchange funds to get people with his 'agenda' voted into the committee and is now staging to do a hostile takeover.  Not to mention that the committee was mislead by him once already, I really hope that users wake up and remove bad actors like him for the stability of the network. This is not good.

regarding the force settlement issue, I have explained clearly in this post:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20397.msg263064.html#msg263064
regarding the exchnage voting issue, I also give many explanation in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20920.msg270837.html#msg270837

everyone here can judge by themselves, no need another to tell them one people is good or bad.

try to replace "$" with "BTS".