Looks like someone figured out to manipulate the CMC price which is where metaexchange gets our feeds from.

The likely candidate is the BTS/EUR market on CCDEK which is showing a huge price, and probably skewed the weighted average they use.

This has cost us a lot of BTC. If the manipulator is reading this, please consider returning the funds to us, we will issue a full BTS refund and you will be doing the community and METAFEES holders a favour.

BTS/BTC   sell   0.0000068   199900 BTS   0.00407796 BTC   Dec 24, 13:05:58 (UTC)
BTS/BTC   sell   0.00002118   246241.34362 BTS   0.01564617 BTC   Dec 24, 12:20:44 (UTC)
BTS/BTC   sell   0.00002133   46000 BTS   0.00294354 BTC   Dec 24, 12:15:44 (UTC)

http://cryptofresh.com/u/metaexchangebtc

heluwa-1 sent 200,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,980 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 246,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,917 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
metaexchangebtc sent 25,800 BTS to heluwa-1 block 2,057,885 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 25,800 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,834 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
cass sent 46,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,807 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
cass sent 100,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,721 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
cass sent 45,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,698 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 53,900 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,567 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
metaexchangebtc sent 26,460 BTS to heluwa-1 block 2,057,482 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 275,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,423 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 245,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,050,593 - 8 hours ago - 32 BTS

More?  @cass?

It appears 'heluwa-1' traded much through metaexchange in the past months: http://cryptofresh.com/u/heluwa-1
Btc38 may know who is him.

Quote from: abit on December 23, 2015, 10:29:04 am

1. I think your proposal in  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20709.msg267842.html#msg267842 is lack of incentive/method to UIA issuers which want to earn some money in payment business .

What incentives do we have now?
The only one I can think of is this: set CER at such a level that paying the transfer fee in UIA is more expensive than paying in BTS.

I did not say that we have incentives for the issuers now. So better to add some. For example a profit split between referrer and issuer. However, it's best if referrers and issuers come to discuss this, I'm more a user or a developer.

Quote from: bitcrab on December 23, 2015, 02:26:09 am

Bitshares have a long way to go to get competence comparing with Paypal, please do not raise the fee first, but raise the competence first.

Let's assume that 2% is the maximum fee people are willing to tolerate when they transfer money.

The above assumption gives us these conclusions:
- With the current flat transfer fee of 30 BTS, we only support transfers above $5 (~1,500 BTS) and effectively send people away if they want to transfer anything less.
- With the percentage-based solution, we will support transfers above $1 (~300 BTS). So we will cover a very important segment between $1 and $5.

Any major payment system on this planet (including Bitcoin, PayPal, debit cards, bank transfers) supports payments between $1 and $5.
But we don't. We seem to know better.

We want to compete as a payment system, but are happy to ignore the most important customer segment.
In the real world such a product has no chance to survive.

No business (certainly not mine) is going to build a payment system around the current flat fee structure.
This needs to change, it cannot stay this way unless we want to kill the referral program or give up being a payment system.
Percentage-based fee structure is the only solution capable to reconcile those two.

Guys, I'm trying to fix a major flaw.
Why does nobody care?

1. I think your proposal in  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20709.msg267842.html#msg267842 is lack of incentive/method to UIA issuers which want to earn some money in payment business .
2. I'm curious why rare people in referral business come out to comment on your proposal. (Btw I'm also curious whether there is someone from referral business in the committee).
3. Perhaps we could use FBA to attract people who really care about this issue. Say, with a percentage fee schema, 20% or 80% of fees (deduct the basic network fee) go to FBA holders.

恭喜恭喜。
请问IOU.CNY现在支持哪些商户？未来会拓展哪些商户？
是否考虑支持bitCNY兑法币？
是否考虑承兑TCNY？

no one would like to contact "Huangniu" just to save 1CNY.

Right. As I said if there is "high difference".
And I agree that we should concern competence first.

@bitcrab keep bts transfer fees low but other assets high would encourge p2p trading to avoid the high fee. In China it's called "Huang Niu"

//edit: asset-specific fees will benefit market makers       if the differences are big and demands are high, as users always look for lower cost.

Quote from: bitcrab on December 22, 2015, 03:41:17 pm

I still prefer my suggestion, your method can be applied to BitAssets.
this is not only a problem of small or big transfer.

if there's one way to help me to pay to a US bank account from China, then maybe 0.5% fee is OK.

but now transfers of BTS are not so useful yet, not so useful as BTC yet. transfer of BTS are mainly deposit/withdraw to/from exchange, user always compare the fee with other cryptocoins, is 30 BTS not expensive for a 50000 BTS transfer? I think everyone feel it is expensive, not because 30 BTS is too much, but because it is much higher than other coins. 

BitAssets is a little different, perhaps it can be used as payment tool for merchants, so higher fee can be accepted. and can give chance to referrers.

for UIA and privated smartcoin, I think the issuer need to decide how to develop the business, if they feel referrers can help, they can share fees with them, otherwise they can define low transfer fee to attract users. issuers need to have this kind of freedom. issuers always need to pay a lot to bootstrap the market but the high fee always plays a role to drive the users away, this is absurd.

referrers can also be issuers to make profits.

This is what I effectively propose:
- you need to pay 6 BTS for transferring 50 BTS (12% fee, instead of the current 60% fee)
- you need to pay 300 BTS for transferring 50,000 BTS (0.6% fee, instead of the current 0.06% fee)
If you say an increase from 0.06% to 0.6% (on bigger transfers) in exchange for a reduction from 60% to 12% (for smaller transfers) is a bad deal for you - indeed, we are not able to reach an agreement.

I feel that charging a (high) percentage fee for transferring BTS (the core ASSET) is very strange. No other coin does this.