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.


Messages - Ander

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ... 234
496
General Discussion / Re: Lowering Transfer Fees
« on: October 21, 2015, 10:03:51 pm »
Imo, poloniex should become a lifetime member.

If they do, they could start charging their customers 5 BTS to withdraw instead of 20, or whatever it is.

497
General Discussion / Re: Lowering Transfer Fees
« on: October 21, 2015, 10:03:07 pm »
I would urge the community to keep transfer fees in the US the same.  I think regional pricing is a good idea. 

As someone who is building a real US-based payments business on top of Bitshares the transfer fees are important to keep the business sustainable.   Otherwise it will probably take hundreds of millions of VC money, hundreds of millions of users, 10 years to even get the cash flow in the black, much less pay back the cost of capital.  Free or close to free is not a great business model unless you plan to show a 30-sec video ad before you send every payment.  I'm certainly not interested in pursuing a business like this.  I would argue without the payments side, the exchange side is far less valuable. 

We shouldn't compete with other cryptos on cost.  Bitcoin and other cryptos are already essentially 'free'.  But ask yourself how are business that build on those ecosystems going to grow?  What is the revenue business model of anyone who builds on other cryptos?  I would tell you most have no sustainable business model. 

We can do well with peer to peer payments, but this should be a secondary focus because the perception and reality for the mainstream public is that payments are already free.  I would even recommend Venmo, Square cash, traditional online bank transfers via email/phone # as much better solutions for the average consumer.  I'm saying this as a competitor to those payment solutions.  We are naturally going to need and get a good % of unbanked, anti-bank, be-your-own-bank crowd that don't like traditional solutions and the fees aren't going to be a deal breaker.

We should be focused on merchants.  They are desperate for a solution because they have to pay 3 - 8% transaction fees,  annual/monthly fees,  hidden fees,  and deal with the headache of chargebacks.   When I tell merchants the cost for them is  20 cents  they are immediately sold.  The question I get from merchants is why and how are we so cheap?  I got a question from a merchant (who actually worked in payment processing before) about if we are going to be around in the future because 20 cents doesn't sound sustainable for any payment business.   I agree.   I assume if we want we can structure payments so that merchants are 'paying' the cost so that should allow users to feel like they aren't paying anything in transaction fees. 

I think low transfer fees will also render the referral system ineffective.   There would be very little reason to upgrade memberships and people won't be incentivized by getting a few cents trickling in each month from referrals.

 +5%
I am with this guy.

That makes sense.  And I would like to see as much bts burning as possible because it makes it a more attractive investment.  So maybe we shouldnt reduce them.

498
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: October 21, 2015, 09:09:50 pm »
Massive amount of shorting going on right now.

They'll have to cover later.

499
Islandking if you are going to buy back in, now is the time, while the shorts are suppressing it hard on polo, and 1400 area is the right price.

Dont buy anywhere expect polo or ccedk though, the others are not reliable and havent completed upgrade to 2.0.

500
General Discussion / Re: Lowering Transfer Fees
« on: October 21, 2015, 08:32:38 pm »
I like the idea of lowering transfer fees but keeping trading fees higher.

501
General Discussion / Re: 328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0
« on: October 21, 2015, 08:21:37 pm »
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?

On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what  Empirical said becomes more true.


Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.

Is that what this worked does?  That sounds like the worst idea ever.

Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.

502
I think what happened is that at release, which wasnt 100% bug free, some whales took the opportunity to dump 10s of millions of BTS that they had bought lower down in the previous weeks.  This margin called a bunch of traders who were using poloniex to margin in anticipation of the good things coming in 2.0, so that pretty much killed the good feelings that traders had developed towards BTS in the runup to the release.

Now the whales are continually shorting millions of BTS on polo and keeping it suppressed way below the btc38 price.  Its been more than 100 sats lower on polo that the equivalent CNY price on btc38, for days now, because they can pretty much short unlimited amounts of BTS and get away with it.  (BTS holders are loaning out millions of BTS at incredibly low rates which lets them do this, and since all the BTS bulls got broken by the post-release crash no one has any money left to fight them).

503
Probably.

Bter didnt disable withdrawals in time and got a ton of worthless 1.0 dumped on them, so even if they werent running a fractional reserve before, they definitely are now.

A bunch of people who think they own BTS on bter will eventually find out that they have no BTS.

504
it's a refund worker...
it doesn't really change anything, just explicitly sets the floor for returning unused budget to the pool, which was never being taken out so far
https://bitshares.org/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/

400k from the reserve fund which was not being spent is now being withdrawn and returned to it each day. This is the "floor" that will pick up the scraps from whatever projects users want to fund.

If you don't like it, reject it. But there is no point to reject it, literally does nothing to the value of BTS, and no one is getting paid from it -- it just makes it easier for when the community does approve workers for there to be this "floor"

Can you explain what it would mean if it was voted for versus voted against? 

505
General Discussion / Re: 328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0
« on: October 20, 2015, 08:48:01 pm »
Someone post once the supply reduction hits a million.

506
General Discussion / Re: Fee Adjustments
« on: October 20, 2015, 08:35:37 pm »

which is why we need a big fat graph showing how many bitshares are burned by the second.

I agree.  (Thought probably daily, not by the second). :P

507
General Discussion / Re: 328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0
« on: October 19, 2015, 09:07:14 pm »
How can we speed this up?

Get more trading happening on the bitshares exchange.
Every trade burns some BTS.

508
General Discussion / Re: 328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0
« on: October 19, 2015, 08:56:56 pm »

Where can we verify what BTS supply was at the start of 2.0? So that we can show others.

I am not sure, but the first four numbers were 2,533,.... 

509
Perhaps svk's time would be better spent putting the new block explorer into the webwallet - its half way there already. We just need graphs for supply etc.

Personally I would really like to just be able to look at the state of Bitshares from any computer, regardless of whether I have Bitshares installed on it.

Also its important for anyone out there to be able to see the supply, so that you can show them that it is now decreasing.

510
When is bitsharesblocks.com going to be updated to show 2.0?

Thanks.

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ... 234