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 - JohnR

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
46

As far as trading fees are concerned. Network fees for trading are WAY too low. Market fees (on gateway assets as well as bitAssets) are too high.


I agree with this completely.  The main point I'm trying to get across is that bts:bitUSD & bts:bitCNY are by FAR the most actively traded pairs.  If we want to a have an impact we should focus on variable/marginal fees there.  Since there is already a market fee, already within committee (community) control it seems intuitive to me to start there.  Note the network fee is a flat fee, and since the overwhelming majority of exchange trading pairs have low order creation I'm not sure it will have a huge impact.  Clockwork has a lot of experience here (not to mention put a lot of energy/thought into the matter) so I do support raising network fees while we consider how best to use bitasset market fees.  I can understand not wanting to formally apply some of the current market fee to network integrity (reserve pool).  I'm indifferent between that and simply raising network fees/lowering bitasset fees. 

I do not want to subsidize private gateways either.  I don't immediately see how charging low network fees is bailing out private gateways.  They are basically CEXs leveraging the BTS infrastructure.  In that sense I do see your point - although 'free-riding' is probably the more accurate term.  Probably a longer conversation about how we can better align the incentives there.

One cool thing about increasing the network's cut on transaction fees is .... wait for it ... the users are not affected. They pay 100% anyways. The only ones impacted are basically
* openledger, who claimed that referral fees are not their business
* cryptobridge, who seems to make money by listing fees and trading
* other frontends that may come with their own assets just like OL and CB
* bitshares europe, which sofar only has referral fees as income (as it's owner, I would rather see BitShares grow than hold back rational business decisions out of pure and stupid greed)

I am glad we all seem to agree on this.  A more equitable split between the network and the referrer will make all of our efforts more effective.

47
Xeroc I think 50/50 makes sense as a starting point.  That would more than double the income from network fees and referrers still retain a strong incentive to splash their ref links and bring on new users.

Your point of concern about trading fees I think is on everyone's mind here.  That's why I suggest leveraging some of the current asset variable fee towards maintaining the network.  I understand the original intent of the asset fee was to increase liquidity on those two asset in a neutral way, managed by committee.  That's a good objective.  But is it worth 10x the capital flow than accrues to the network?  Put more simply: is committee offered liquidity on two bitassets worth ten times more than all witness and worker proposal pay which power the entire platform?  To me it is clearly not worth the discrepancy.

Paliboy, are you suggesting unwinding prior accounts or making account names renewable on a going-forward basis?

48
Clockwork,

The equivalent result could be had by apportioning some of the 0.1% variable fee from committee trading to reserve pool.  I agree that network fees are very low.  At the same time I would like to see trading across many assets and not concentrated in a few UIA gateways.  My concern is crowding out some of the more obscure/low volume tokens when we are already charging more than 10x the network fee on a couple trading pairs.  Does that make sense?

If you disagree, or think that's too complex I understand.  It sits a little strange with me to debate raising network fees when net fees are already rather high on our most prized trading pairs.

Regarding 2, yes I know some accounts have a lot at stake there so I would like to see a community discussion.

49
I would like to build on the solid research already published by Clockwork (https://steemit.com/bitshares/@clockwork/bitshares-fees-the-fee-schedule-and-dex-profitability) and Abit (https://steemit.com/bitshares/@abit/bitshares-block-chain-historical-data-search-analysis-and-visualization

I was interested with Clockwork’s observation that the BitShares reserve pool is running at a chronic deficit.  So far as the community desires fiscal balance and sustainability, it’s clear we must decrease expenses (witness/worker proposals) or increase income (revenue from fees).  Decreasing expenses significantly is short-sighted because BitShares has a lot of growth ahead and doing so would be akin to cutting the legs from under ourselves.  So naturally we should have a conversation about increasing network operations and or the fees associated with those operations.

I am against raising networks across the board before considering how the bitUSD/CNY variable fee can be used to support the health of the network (witness/worker proposals).  As shown below, fees are already rather high, even by centralized exchange standards.  For some of the more popular trading pairs, users face fees over 0.3% in total.  With only a small fraction of that actually going to support the core infrastructure of the platform.

Fees in context:
Hypothetical fees incurred on 100 bitUSD round-trip trade for BTC and back         
              BTS Network Fee  bitUSD Variable Fee     Private Gateway Fee
OpenLedger   0.01156           $0.10                  $0.20
GDEX            0.01156           $0.10                  $0.10
RuDex           0.01156           $0.10                  $0.05


The private gateway fees are off the table for this discussion.  What is immediately noticeable is how much greater the bitUSD variable fee is than the network fee.  Of course, the difference is less on smaller orders and greater on larger orders.  Still, considering bitUSD/CNY have shown robust trading activity this is a data point that the market can bear significantly higher fees than the flat network fee.

When the bitUSD/bitCNY variable fees were originally introduced I was against them.  Notwithstanding the results of the liquidity market operations (the explicit intention of the additional fee) I have come around to realize a much bigger point.  The demand for trading bitUSD has proven rather inelastic with respect to the transaction fees. 

Elasticity is a short-hand economics term meaning how much market participants will alter their behavior in response to a given change.  E.g. alcohol and cigarette taxes are considered the most efficient taxes because they do not alter behavior significantly – people who smoke will likely continue to smoke whether the cost of a pack amounts to two USD or three.  The upshot here is that bitUSD is a unique token and the market demand for trading remains robust despite the increased fee.  If we want to increase the reserve pool, we should consider tapping some of the current fees levied on bitUSD/CNY or increasing network fees slightly on those assets alone.

A second observation is the 20/80% referral vesting mechanism.  Even a strong increase in network activity/revenue will have a muted effect so long as only 1/5 of the revenues are actually returning to the reserve pool.  I understand the original reasoning for such lucrative referral structures.  I also think it’s worth having a discussion whether this structure has yielded the results the community feels is worthy of such a high price to pay.  This is the most immediate way to increase the force multiplier of network activity.  At the same time I recognize this may be a sensitive topic because people may have planned according to this current 20/80 program.

So my calls for discussion are:
1) What do you think of augmenting the fee structure on bitCNY/USD to increase the flow to the reserve pool from the trading of those assets? 
2) What do you think of slightly modifying the ratio between referrer vesting and reserve pool income?

50
Thank you abit.  That means a great deal coming from such a public and respected individual as yourself.

51
Already good feedback provided above.

I express my support for this solid work done so far by the BBF and look to support in the future.

52
Honored to have your feedback and support xeroc, clockwork, and sschiessl

I appreciate the important role that both proxies and the committee play in the BTS ecosystem.  Having many proxies representing diverse factions of holders increases the decentralization of power as well as improving voting participation and efficiency.  I see the logic in recommending to become a proxy.  As you know, the proxies interaction with the governance protocol is only affirmative at this time.  Proxy can add their vote or remove their vote if they already support.  If the proxy had more ability to express both affirmative and negative votes I would reconsider campaigning as a proxy.

I prefer an opportunity to make a direct contribution on technical governance.  Rolling up the sleeves to measure and modify efficient fee structures on DEX is the kind of nerdy activity I am looking for.  I will study the economic state of the native DEX and share all conclusions and recommendations   

I do not mind saying that I have a strong preference for smartcoins and believe fees should encourage their prosperity and fecundity.  I look forward to joining your discussions about details like network fees.  And I am optimistic about the future of BitShares and look forward to working the great team of decentralized and talented people in this governance community.

53
Fav, a valuable opinion at that.  Thank you for the perspective.

54
Just a quick reality check: how do you imagine the work in committee and what tasks do you think they need to perform?

Fav,

I will be completely honest with you.  I am not the most experienced person around the BitShares blockchain.  I was not around for AngelShares or the genesis block.  As I said in the OP, I have been learning since I joined BitShares last summer.  So when I imagine work on the Committee, I imagine just that: a lot of work learning from the more senior members.

I am aware that this is not paid position. I also am aware that I know little about committee work from the backend/blockchain side.  I believe that I do have knowledge to help people such as Clockwork and all of the Committee members to improve stability of the blockchain, fees, and reserve pool.  Joining the Committee is not just a position; to me it is about being a good steward for the blockchain on behalf of the people who use it everyday.

I am just a humble guy from Michigan.  But I found some great people in this community.  I will do whatever is asked of me in order to contribute value to this community.

If you would like to speak more in-depth about a specific concrete issue (e.g. network fees on MPAs) I would be happy to do that in another thread.

55
Today I formally announce my intent to join the BitShares Committee. 

As a reminder: the Committee is approved by stakeholders and formally tasked with setting policy for the BitShares blockchain including:

Transaction and trading fees;
Blockchain parameters, such as block size, block interval; &
Referral and vesting parameters such as cash back percentage and vesting periods.

I discovered the Graphene-based chains last summer.  I was hooked.  I watched every public video with Dan Larimer talking about the potential for BitShares to revolutionize finance (BitShares TV: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChtICzF0ZEhhgoMA8YWhULw/videos is a great resource for those new to the platform or interested in its beginnings).  For months I could not shake the question of why BTS had yet to have a bigger impact.

This lead me to become more active in the community.  Joining the Discord and Telegram channels where I met great individuals like Kimchi-King, Fav, and Fuzzy.  On BitShares hangouts and in the chat rooms I listened to the community and began taking more upon myself to contribute.  I identified two areas where I could bring value: network infrastructure and legal perspective. 

As many of you know Bittrex, halted trading in BTS in the fall of 2017.  This opened my eyes to the serious challenges facing a DAC like BitShares.  In many ways BitShares is vulnerable to adversaries in the real world who have not the time nor interest in understanding what we are doing here.  I believe this network can thrive and prosper within the current system of national boundaries and jurisdictions.

My platform principle is the support and sustainability of smartcoins on the DEX.  Native trust-less assets with autonomous and sound collateral ratios (e.g. bitUSD) remains one of the core advantages BitShares holds over the rest of the crypto world.  I will strive to foster innovation for new smartcoins and collaboration and support for existing smartcoins.

I hope to join the Committee and help the community make the most of every person working to make BitShares realize it’s full potential.  Thank you.

56
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Smaller Worker Funds
« on: June 27, 2018, 04:01:14 am »
Great idea.  I think with smaller amounts, an executive manager is an acceptable compromise between decentralization and autonomy.

57
Stakeholder Proposals / Smaller Worker Funds
« on: June 27, 2018, 01:33:32 am »
I spoke with Kimchi-King about this today.

Worker proposals are critical for getting things done around the BitShares DAC.  BitShares may be missing out on good work for the network with vote requirements as high as 300 million bts.  My suggestion is to have a lower bullpen of workers with lower vote requirements and lower amounts of funds.

Consider you want to print and spread flyers featuring all the great information about BitShares in your local town. This is exactly the type of action that would benefit each holder of bts and can be rewarded with treasury bts. This individual is unlikely to organize a coalition of bts voters to reach the 300 million or so bts votes required to pass a worker proposal. If the supplies for this activity cost only $10 then the individual is faced with the choice of eating the cost themselves (as many on the chain do now) or giving up the activity completely (unknown how many BitSharians were lost as a result of this structure).

What do people think of this idea? 

How could this be implemented in the best way.  Long term (with community support of course) probably a separate pool in the interface and everything.  Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

John Robert

58
This is great to hear Kevin.  Everyone, kimchi-king is a discord mod and was very helpful when I first discovered Bitshares.  Huge asset for the community who deserves everyone's support.

59
Would be happy to publish price feeds (and of course submit for white-list) but I would like to study the pricing mechanism you use.  Is there anyway to view this?

60
First of all - I think this is a great project that is not getting nearly the attention it deserves.

I would love to help arrange more price feeds for greater stability of these coins.

Is this how you've done all the other tokens you listed (with donations)?  I have associates very interested in working with you in a business capacity on this project.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6