Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
will the browserclient have blocktrades.us and metaexchange.info integrated?
Yes, actually it will have a fiat deposit integrated.
It is against the TOS and they know your identity.What stops everyone from just referring themselves?
What stops you from signing up as an affiliate with Amazon and buying stuff through your referral link?
That is great news but it still doesnt solve the attack vector problem. It appears the vesting will only deter, but not completely prevent registrars from offering a certain % cashback. They can always issue a bond/UIA or more likely acquire off blockchain capital funds to finance their ability to offer at least some % cashback. What this means is that registrars who cannot afford to do this will have to look for other ways to provide an attractive value proposition in order to attract users and referrers.
I think the system as currently planned is a good starting point. Start conservative and tweak later.
What stops everyone from just referring themselves?
Correct, you now effectively have a "paid by the job" paradigm instead of your old "paid by the hour" one
By making the referal fees liquid you undo the attack defense.
which attack vector do the vesting balance prefent? I don't get it yet.
Someone can create a wallet and sign people up for free (auto refund registration fee). I'm not convinced this would be a problem in practice. I say go with no vesting and if it ends up being more than a purely theoretical problem, implement vesting.
It would definitely be a problem in practice because you wouldnt necessarily have to refund the full $80. Any amount refunded would give an edge over other registrars. It might start out with "get $10 back" or "get $20 back" but eventually competition would push it higher and higher until we have a situation like I describe above (two posts back.)
Yeah I can see that happening but why a year of vesting? One or two months should be enough to prevent this. It's more a psychological scare tactic to prevent this practice from manifesting. One year seems extremely arbitrary.
I think 60 days would be sufficient. Long enough that there is no potential draw for attracting customers. Nobody wants $20 or $50 or $80 back in two months. If its not instant, its not going to attract. There still will exist the potential for a registrar to front their own funds and offer some amount of instant cashback, but that could happen regardless of the vesting period.
By making the referal fees liquid you undo the attack defense.
which attack vector do the vesting balance prefent? I don't get it yet.
Someone can create a wallet and sign people up for free (auto refund registration fee). I'm not convinced this would be a problem in practice. I say go with no vesting and if it ends up being more than a purely theoretical problem, implement vesting.
It would definitely be a problem in practice because you wouldnt necessarily have to refund the full $80. Any amount refunded would give an edge over other registrars. It might start out with "get $10 back" or "get $20 back" but eventually competition would push it higher and higher until we have a situation like I describe above (two posts back.)
By making the referal fees liquid you undo the attack defense.
which attack vector do the vesting balance prefent? I don't get it yet.
I think the entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..
it's up to the marketers
it's only possible if we had a secure system to prevent cheating.
Hence it must be based on incurred fees.
I think the entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
I don't disagree with most of that, and those are great example uses. I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with what I said or just the comparison with Paypal, but you acknowledge that the referral program provides an incentive to merchants as well as the reduced fees compared to what some are paying now, but seem to be saying merchants still need some additional financial incentive on top of that? I think that's enough of an incentive, and I think customers also need an incentive.
Its a chicken and egs scenario and that makes it difficult, for sure. But they may use it initially for sending money to friends and family, especially with gateways being launched. Hopefully some online shops will start accepting it before too long, and new options such as recurring payments will help with that as will the referral program if those shops think Bitshares may appeal to their customers because they can get paid for introducing them. It will be a slow process at first but it will accelerate as more customers bring more shops on board and more shops introduce more new customers.
