After reading this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26072.0

I'm ok with it, thanks for the initiative.

I know that was voted in, but why?

I mean these markets need liquidity, that was the reason for lowing the fees way back, remember?

Now that volume is starting we fuck up?

What about the people (myself included) that are building businesses models around current fee schedule?

BAD move guys, please lets consider reverting that back.

Is that really serious? Are you guys using the reserve funds to operate in the market?

Do I need to remember you that the whole point of SmartCoins is not to have someone with KEYs trying to set the price of the market?

I'm again very disappointed with the BTS community and committee for allowing this.

Seems to me like you don't want BTS to succeed... When things start to work out correctly someone comes with some BS to fuck it up.

This and that new fucking 0.1% fee set arbitrary on BitCNY and BitUSD smartcoins are the new middle finger from BTS to the business models that were being built around it.

Please if somebody can please point me out to the proposals for all this.

I have to say thanks to @xerox because I read a comment from him yesterday saying that the stealth proposal was already approved and have not return. Then I get angry and sold my at 750 range. Thank you xerox.

I've been working on something for BTS that is not ready do disclosure just yet. But with the recent unfold of things on BTS is gonna take me even more time and efforts, but I'm always loved a challenge 

I'll let you know when the time comes.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about take a look at this

Quote from: theredpill on December 27, 2015, 05:00:48 pm

Quote from: theredpill on December 23, 2015, 09:32:26 pm

What are the differences between future fees or vested dilution? Help me?

1 - Future fees are not known, probably a lot more.

2 - Future fees causes political issues, for instance, the community could decide that the stealth should be the default transfer method and charge more for non stealth transactions, the people or group of people holding stealth FBA would say NO!.

3 - Future fees complicate things, create systemic risks with some people or group owning some network features.

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants. And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all worker costs on advance.

4 - Future fees are a lot easier to pass through the democratic process.

What else? Am I missing something?

Can anyone on the driver seat please help out here, @Stan @xeroc @bytemaster? Maybe there something I'm not seeing.

Good bye everyone, I'm going to move my money and efforts of this project, I would like to compile a list of people here that still believe on the initial values of the project, please send me a PM if you do not agree with this FED like system as well.

for now I think:
@merockstar, @Xypher, @abit, @morpheus, @jakub, @bitcrab, @Harvey, @ebit

Quote from: abit on December 31, 2015, 01:51:03 am

Why are you still voting for STEALTH

because i want STEALTH so i can import the rest of my monies without tonyk and those like him spying on muh financials and i want all of the features that are waiting for STEALTH to be implemented.

Yes sure me too, but not like this, please take a look at this

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20751.msg268539.html#msg268539

No end user will ever have to understand FBAs. only investors and developers may want to investigate

Sure, buy BitShares everyone! Is a decentralized company where the revenue stream is divided between subsystems that you just don't need to understand.