a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.

这样没用。
投票结果每个小时更新的，你投完票再提回交易所你的投票权重同样会再降下来。
真正需要这么拼命投票的时刻是committee proposal 的review时段，那个时候理事被支持的票数会直接影响proposal是否被批准，离那个时间还早，到时再说吧。
如果这么热心投票的话可以选择云币交易，因为云币冷热钱包都投了国内的理事，还有clayop。天威不要打我。。。

The "1 BTS for transfer" idea comes from the discussion on BSIP#10(persent based transfer fee) in China community.

The budget for working on implementing BSIP#10 is at least 3M BTS, on the other hand, currently the average daily transfer volume is about 300, then each day the network get 300*30*20% = 1800 BTS for transfer, which means based on current transfer volume level it will cost 4.5 years for network to get back the 3M fund.

Then what sense does it make to do such a change? considering the solution is not perfect with some uncertainty.

You may say that after BSIP#10 being implemented we can set a big max limit for smartcoin transfer. but do you mean the shareholders are funding a project in order to being charged more?

You may say that after BSIP#10 being implemented the transfer volume will grow greatly. if that's true, then just lowering the transfer fee to lowest will also lead to great volume growing, without paying for development.

With the discussion going deeper, finally we reach some conclusion:

1.The core idea is, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient and attractive and cheap platform, meanwhile provide chance and tools for every player here to make money.

2.Keeping high transfer fee and meanwhile putting much fund on refining the fee structure is the wrong way, we should move to the right way -  go back to the global lowest tranfer fee scheme.

3.The referral program does not fit Bitshares, we need to eliminate its bad effect.

There are some good referral program design in Internet times, one example is DIDI(a Uber-like company in China), when one user finish one order, he/she share his inviting code to his friends and get some cashback(have been 5-10CNY), and the friend can also save about 5-10 CNY while using DIDI next time with the code. everyone is happy and the marketing is succesful, surely DIDI will pay for this, but it worth to pay.

Comparing to this, the Bitshares referral program is of bad design. in essence it just let the referral pay to the referrer. I don't think there's referral be happy when he/she understand this clearly. and the observed facts showed this referral program does not work.

The other more serious effect of referral program + high fee policy is that it hurt Bitshares' reputation. now in China blockchain/cryptocurrency community, Bitshares is tagged with "greed and uncertainty", it's  difficult to ask one team to do some BTS relevant business. The policy also conflict with the opensource culture.

The most valuable asset we should cherish is the support and trust from the community, if we neglect the feeling of investors and new users but enjoy calculating the thousands BTS of transfer fees everyday. we are picking little but losing big, be friendly to the investors and new users and they will ruturn more.

When I wrote this there are 1,061,001,603 BTS in reserve pool, these money can support a little team several years. we should not worry too much on the "who maintain and develop" question.

Yes, maybe current Bitshares referral program work in some region under some special scenarios, but I haven't saw it work, meanwhile I saw it hurt a big group, so here the point is, we should split the fundamantal service and the upper layer application, the fundamantal service is global and basic and should be cheap enough - yes, transfer of everything and some other basic services are defined as fundamantal service here. on the other hand, deposit/withdraw, FBA, UIA, privatized smartcoin business and more customized service should be defined as upper layer applications, gateways and business partners should develop business and make profits with these upper layer applications,they will compete with each other and the best service provider will make most profit. Then under this fundamantal-upper layer infrastructure every player can play freely and design business model by themselves without disturbing each other.   

So I am considring to create a committee proposal -surely following the defined process- to set the transfer fee to 1 BTS, a simple solution to end the long time debate and open a new start.

Here I raise this poll to collect opinion from community. please let me know how you think.

I know that jakub, xeroc and abit has worked a lot for BSIP#10 and now it's on halfway, if my "1 BTS for transfer" proposal can be approved later, their time will be wasted. I am sorry on this but I believe I am doing the right thing, as from the discussion in the community I don't think BSIP#10 will lead to a satisfactory consequence.

Change or not? Let voting decide.

不能再拖下去了，越拖问题越难解决。
明天去英文社区发帖，发投票。
再之后理事会讨论。
需要的话不排除邀请大户投票。
目标：转账手续费改1BTS.

@abit 请冷静，我相信所有发言的人都是对事不对人的。如果最后造成你的一些努力白费，我也会感到很难过，但我如果觉得选择正确，我会坚定地走下去的。

我说得直接一些，按百分比收费就是BTS2.0高手续费这个错误决策前提下的伪优化需求。

我们现在面临的问题：钱包为什么一直没有客户？
那要看看哪些情况下可以吸引客户，我觉得诱因从高到低如下：

1.应用产生的强需求：比如跨国汇款、gamble、事实竞猜。因为历史缘故（如1.0钱包不给力、2.0转账费高、策略重点偏向引荐人这种空泛的方向）这些应用至少现在还没成型，但以后发展起来肯定是吸引客户最主要的手段。我09年开始用京东，因为它满59免运费而且第二天就能送达，它在手机支付不发达的年代支持货到刷卡、它自营的东西有保障。这些都是京东融了钱真实用给客户的。如果京东一开始收我100元快递费，现在变成收我20元，我会因为这个去投向它的怀抱？

2.提供新客户买单费用：如注册、体验转账送红包等（这个更没影了，不向客户收费算不错了，这都做不到）。这种模式可以快速吸引客户，但没有第1点的保障流失率会很高。

3.吸引BTS的投机者。想炒这个币，部分客户还是会体验一下钱包做得怎么样的。本来3秒转账是个亮点，尼玛一看转一发要30BTS，给人坑爹的错觉，不玩了。所以连我现在一般两个月开一次钱包领取冻结的余额转时代，减少操作频次。其实30bts没多少钱，就是数字敏感，感觉不爽。

@abit我佩服你的技术。但是你提出的方案其实是建立在高收费和引荐人制度这种YY出来的理想主义错误模式下的。而且，重点是我感觉你和BM他们一样陷入了一个认为底层功能可以改变现状思维怪圈。想着法子做底层功能增发，吸干本来就没剩多少的市值。

300万的BTS说实话不多，但是“增发”给市场带来的失望预期肯定不止这些。我们现在仅有的“用户”只剩第3种了，还要吓跑他们吗？

我的结论是：统一降低手续费，杜绝一切非必要的增发。至少我们把第3种客户发展起来，巨蟹他们的应用才有成长的土壤啊。

非常同意。
我也不觉得花不起300万BTS，但是花在这种“错误决策前提下的伪优化需求”上面，感觉只是让系统更加畸形。

收到，谢谢。

"买终身会员更划算"多少是一个假象，因为玩BTS并不是刚需，很多人看到这种让人蛋疼的收费结构就直接不玩了。
我没看到什么证据支持推荐人在这里作用很大的结论，fav费了半天劲也就那样吧。而且，我觉得有志帮BTS开拓的人有很多种获得收入的方法，FBA，UIA，privatized smartcoin, 这些方式跟推荐收入比起来，最大的好处是收入来源于更上层的应用，而不是来自底层的基础服务，没那么多副作用。而且玩家有自由去定制自己的收费服务，互不影响。
我前面支持百分比是因为我觉得这样可以鼓励小额转账，我从未想过要用此方法来增加系统和推荐人收入，从一开始我就坚决反对把max limit定得过高（是的，30BTS在我看来就已经很高了）。

AFAIK, the MAKER project on ethereum plan to issue stable currency with BTC as collateral, how can they do this? is the same way possible on Bitshares?
and in NXT there are also MULTIGATEWAY that bridge BTC and NXT platform, which makes the  BTC in NXT close to real BTC, any thing can be learned from?
one problem in Bitshares is how to supply enough smartcoin, if BTC can be introduced as collateral, things will be much better.