建议出块奖励降到0.1bts，干不好的撤掉，不爱干的滚。随便去哪里打打工，都比要死要活赖着做见证人合算的多，外面赚到钱了，对BTS还有感情的，就回来拉拉盘。

这是公有链，愿意成为见证人的多多益善。不能总让努力做事的人当雷锋。提高奖励后同样撤掉干不好的。

Quote

I believe this is part of the cultural difference once again. China and India are similar where it only takes some to move in one direction to have others follow and create a network effect... not so in western markets which is where everyone who has been cheering for the refer program are located. From where @bitcrab is sitting, he really doesn't see any usefulness for it at all because in his market it isn't necessary. Everything he said is right in regards to business as far as China is concerned.

Thing which are specific to local markets should not be implemented at protocol level. Protocol should allow to create referral programs , pay dividends etc, but let local businesses which are oriented to specific markets to implement such things.

not totally culture difference.

in China there are also referral programs in App, one example is DiDi, an App similar to Uber and which has purchased Uber China. at the early stage of DiDi. when you finish one order, the App will generate one short message for you to share with your friends in social network, you can get some discount in your next order if you just shared the message. it works well.

we do not like the current BTS referrer program as:
1.the referrer get revenue directly from the fee paid by referee. referee will think "you promote this to me just because you want to make money from my transaction", this in many scene discourage the referee to join.
2.there's no difference for a referee to sign up using or not using referrer.

so if I need to design a referrer program for China commnuity, at least I'll do change like this:
1. when the referee sign up, he will get 20 BTS from referrer automatically as startup fee.

anyway, there's complex factors for implementing referrer programs succesfully, including but not limit to culture difference. I agree not to implement referrer program at protocol level.

what's the difference between Bitshares and a traditional company?

a key difference is, in Bitshares, almost all the users are at the same time shareholders, BTS is not only the share of Bitshares, but also the token/fuel for using Bitshares service. but in traditional company, this seldom happen, only a very small part of iPone users are at the same time shareholders of Apple.

the price of BTS depend little on dividends, but greatly on the traction to users. a enough low fee is more important to the active users(also shareholders) than some little dividends, dividends don't play an important role in a blockchain platform, there's no dividends in Bitcoin, Ethereum but these communities grow much bigger than Bitshares. 

if we pay dividends by charging more fees, the active users(they are also shareholders) will be hurt,  and finally the ecosystem will also be hurt, maybe some pure shareholders is happy, but how can they bring?

sometimes I feel the word "DAC" is a little misleading, maybe "DAO"(decentralized autonomous organization) is better. I even feel we should forget dividends.

I am very sure that China community will reject any proposal for paying dividends with charging more fees.

if I can, I'll remove the referral program from the platform.

I am not only to push senseful change, but also to reject unnecessary/senseless/reluctant proposals.

in my view, the core point to run Bitshares platform is to attract more people to use the service, attract them to trade in DEX, to pay  with smartcoins or to issue UIAs.

I don't think to attract them by interest or dividends is the right way. however, maybe we can build some kind of service, with which A can borrow assets from B with paying interest(the planned bond market?).

I have some idea to let the non-LTM users enjoy the same transfer/trade fee schedule with LTM, but only LTM are authorized for issuing assets, shorting...etc...but seems referrers do not like this?

up to now this is what I think about this, surely you can continue to explain/persuade, maybe sometime I can change my idea.

 

I agree that the wage of witness now is too low, but I suggest that the income should be adjusted automatically according to the current network load, say"work more, get more".

step by step, we may need to use some criteria other than load - maybe mainly how well it feed price -  to evaluate one witness' performance, it's not easy to do this automatically, we may need to rely on the voting to keep the witnesses who do job well active.

Things like dividends and referrals should not be coded into blockchain. They should be paid by businesses which run on top of blockchain from their own revenue, whatever they think they can give away. Blockchain fees should be very small, just enough to cover expenses which are essential for running blockchain, namely witnesses and workers.

Quote from: bitcrab on January 13, 2017, 03:28:34 pm

I don't know now how much fees the platform can get from users every month, but I think it's very low, too low to worth doing such a dividend distribution.

Yes, that is one of the risks. So we have to further analyze the idea and calculate how many dividends could be paid.

 Another option would be to take a % of the daily worker/witness budget for a payout. But I would prefer more to pay the dividends based on the overall transaction volume of the DAC. So the payout will be different each interval.

it seems your guys hold the idea of  "let's charge more fees and pay more dividends".
in my view maybe the system can be called DAC, but it is very different with a real company, I don't care much on dividends, even no dividend at all is not a problem.however, we need always to make the users happy and make the ecosystem active.

there is a big difference between BTS and a real company share, the price of the latter depends greatly on the dividends while the former does not, we should discuss more on what a business model BTS should or really have but not focus on dividends.