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 - bench

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 23
106
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 04, 2019, 10:00:47 am »
Quote from: xeroc on September 04, 2019, 07:24:58 am
Here is the thing: The worker was proposed in a certain way (defined in the worker proposal).
Changing terms in the middle is not good business. If you want to have it 0%, it may be viable long term, but a subsequent worker needs to propose it that way.
This worker and its parameters are set in stone.
Can you provide numbers for the income by reducing registrar from 15% to 0?

What percentage is non-LTM signup and LTM-referrral signup?

107
Stakeholder Proposals / [Worker Proposal] PalmPay + BiTSy iOS Version
« on: September 03, 2019, 11:54:24 pm »
PalmPay is a point of sale app, which allows any business to accept multiple cryptocurrencies at zero costs.

The app accepts BTC, LTC, DASH ... and converts/stores those in BTS or bitAssets.

The iOS Version for PalmPay and the corresponding wallet BiTSy is one of the most asked features in community.

Worker costs:
- BiTSy wallet  iOS port = 8k$
- PalmPay iOS port = 30k$
- Reserve = 4k$
- Marketing = 2k$

The funds are paid back with the 0.2-0.3% market fees by burning at least the equivalent amount of BTS, when PalmPay was accepted in the Apple Store.

108
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 03, 2019, 01:59:14 pm »
@binggo
This BSIP was for OL gateway coins designed. This has nothing to do with bitAssets market fees.

109
General Discussion / Re: suggestion on new OMO fund
« on: September 03, 2019, 01:21:39 pm »
Quote from: bitcrab on September 03, 2019, 10:48:37 am
how to use these BTS? just leave them there? or burn them as someone suggested?

I think we should use the funds, to finance our important workers:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29586.0

Lack of funds for important developments, is now the highest risk part. Because of the high refund400k worker vote, we need to take other options now.

110
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 03, 2019, 12:14:10 pm »
Quote from: ioBanker on September 03, 2019, 09:25:27 am
Please mention the BSIP so we can push for it
The initial version is limited to market fees and not flat BTS fees:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/133/files#diff-6ff5a943ba1c6c4da49be09c93482041


111
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 02, 2019, 09:08:29 pm »
Quote from: Customminer on September 02, 2019, 08:29:45 pm
There was a recent fee structure rebalancing proposal, but it was rejected IIRC. Could request the committee does that too. 👍
Taker fee could be 3 times higher than maker fee, but BSIP is not yet implemented.

112
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 02, 2019, 07:25:45 pm »
Quote from: Customminer on September 02, 2019, 04:48:30 pm
RE Changing the fee taken, why not propose changing the redistribution of fees from 80:20 so that the network gets more?
Network gets more, faucet gets less. Problem increased!

When the main faucet is not sustainable with the new referral system, we should update our fees.

113
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 02, 2019, 01:27:47 pm »
Quote from: clockwork on September 02, 2019, 01:14:14 pm
erm...openledger takes 50%

This is an old value, OL takes now 0%!

114
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 02, 2019, 11:30:38 am »
Quote from: xeroc on September 02, 2019, 11:24:02 am
Tell me, if registering accounts cost BTS, and the faucet doesn't earn BTS from referral reward, how long do you think this can be self-sustained? (ignoring the expense for hosting the faucet even).
I need to tell you, if registration costs BTS?

The onboarding account does still earns 80% from BTS and market fees for every non-LTM signup, when registrar = 0%. This is not enough to cover the 2 cents registration fee and worker costs?

The bts++ team is generating 5 figures only from the market fee share per month!

115
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 02, 2019, 11:12:54 am »
Quote from: xeroc on September 02, 2019, 10:12:29 am
I suppose you miss the fact that those 15% are supposed to go back to the reserve funds .. and that's what happend in the past already.
I did not miss the fact, that the extra revenues go the the reserve pool. The registration cut is a appendix, which is not needed anymore and does sabotage the referral system.
OL is using this to gain more voting power.

The registration cut does not make any difference for the non-LTM signup, but makes a difference for the LTM/referral system. 

116
Stakeholder Proposals / [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 02, 2019, 01:04:13 am »
At the moment the onboarding.bitshares.foundation takes 15% as registrar.
To stay competitive with OpenLedger the registrar should also be set to 0%.

Registrar cut was introduced to cover costs for signup, but with low signup costs and new referral system (market fee share), this is not needed anymore.

117
General Discussion / Re: AVG2907 dumping price massivly ?
« on: September 01, 2019, 07:09:41 pm »
Quote from: binggo on September 01, 2019, 12:20:42 pm
First step：
Implement this BSIP：https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/161

Third step:
Implement these BSIP:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/164
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/194
Why are you so ignorant ? Adding a penalty to margin positions with a margin call fee, does the exact opposite. Suppresses price further.

The solution is already in front of you, but you are blind:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182

118
General Discussion / Re: AVG2907 dumping price massivly ?
« on: September 01, 2019, 11:24:06 am »
Quote from: Thul3 on September 01, 2019, 10:16:58 am
Yes thats why a OMO fund on DEX only has no sense as attacks are being executed on CEX.
At least not in the current form. Which modifications should we do?

119
General Discussion / Re: smartcoin evolution
« on: September 01, 2019, 12:13:04 am »
How we can improve our smartcoins:

1. Optimize price feeds by including DEX volume metrics
2. Increase liquidity
- OMO
- CEX/DEX arbitrage (DEXbot)
- margin position liquidity pool

120
General Discussion / Re: AVG2907 dumping price massivly ?
« on: August 31, 2019, 06:28:18 pm »
Quote from: binggo on August 31, 2019, 11:56:43 am
LOL
Is this your argument ?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 23

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 23 queries.