Show Posts
271
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Committee Member] - johnr's proposal to join the BitShares Committee
« on: July 19, 2018, 07:56:20 am »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?
Increasing the network's cut is my ideal starting point too. I believe 20% is way too low. At the same time , I believe it will be difficult for the community to accept (especially those that invested in LTM accounts on the premise of 80% cashback) hence why I focused on base fees first.
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.
Ignoring bitUSD/bitCNY for a moment which I also would like to see market fees reduced for since it's a "community" owned asset through the committee (which blurs the lines a bit...it might be so but it's not really equivalent to reserve profits), the rest of the gateway assets are business owned.
Are we seriously suggesting that the network should charge ridiculously low fees so that someone else's for-profit business remains competitive? I'm sorry but I don't see why *I* or xeroc or any other committee member should spend hours studying fee schedules and operation breakdowns etc. trying to "fix" stuff just so that a gateway can make more profit (or incur less loss). If they can't figure out a way to increase their userbase & stay competitive , I really don't see why the network should bail them out by charging less than 1/8th of a cent so they can charge 0.1-0.2%
(This is also the point where I remind you that committee work is unpaid
)As far as paliboy's suggestions are concerned.
Committee asset fee income != reserve pool. I will gladly entertain the suggestion that escrow workers come to an agreement with the committee so that they can always trade worker pay BTS to bitUSD or bitCNY at a fair price if the market doesn't provide enough liquidity. I will not accept treating fee income as part of the reserve pool though.
It's not asset creation that brings in a lot of funds but rather asset issuance (as gateways transfer UIA IOUs in and out). That is a fee that should probably be not raised (or even lowered) as it should not be such a big part of the reserve pool income and it is also a large cost gateways need to cover (by setting higher market fees). So I would gladly lower their costs there if that means agreeing to lower market fees.
I don't think we should be touching accounts. They work fine as they are. Just increase fees there because people make more accounts than they need (>1.1m accounts created for 30k active users). Faucet improvements in account creation would help. Large number of accounts also puts unneeded strain on the chain.
Large account creation income does not mean it's a profitable operation. It means that the ratio of fees / op is wrong and that other ops are much cheaper than they should be.
