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.
ThisIf you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.
what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
BM said in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $.005-.01. You can't advance a serious proposal without knowing this number. Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about fees in terms of BTS considering its volatility.
I would urge you to consider the percentage-based fee (with USD or CNY max/min) as this can meet the varied goals (reduces fees but not too dramatically, covers network costs, spam deterrence, and enables micro-transactions). Yes, there is a dilution cost, but it's not substantial and I do believe @abit agreed to have the payments vest. Finally, what do you think of a possible compromise where the max fee can potentially be set lower for CNY than USD?
I really hope we can get this behind us very soon. As @JonnyBitcoin has been urging, we really need to get on with the business of improving liquidity for BitAssets and it would be great if we could all put our heads together for the common good.
a boss open a store and sell product A.Isn't the $20 representative of a lifetime of product A where product A is a transaction fee? sorry if I've misunderstood.
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.
I think the percentage-based fee solution is a sensible compromise.Perhaps you are right jakub. I really appreciate everyone's efforts to get this right. The passion is truely inspirational. It gives me a great deal of confidence that we'll find the right balance. I just Want to avoid damage to an existing business model that is utilising existing parameters and is responsible for really great productivity before results have a chance to bed in.
We can keep low transfer fees where they are needed the most (i.e. for small transfers) and at the same time preserve the referral program in areas where it makes most sense (i.e. for bigger amounts).
We'll be announcing the actual worker proposal very soon, most probably today.
Compromise is certainly possible.....a well considered approach to refinement of the referral structure that takes into consideration the impact on existing efforts/businesses I would support.....but I'm not seeing the magic formula here yet.Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"
This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.
Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.
It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.
I guess you don't pay attention. I have always been a proponent of the referral program. In my last post I said we NEED the referral program. And I did NOT say it isn't working. In fact, I'm pretty sure it IS working. I just said that the tiered structure is complicated and counterproductive on MULTIPLE levels, which it is. And there's no reason for that. As Ronny said, it's about the residuals anyway. We would lose nothing, and only gain, if we switched to a residual only referral model. Let's wise up here.
And to the other side (@clayop, @bitcrab, etc.), I'll say this: Common sense dictates that if you incentivize a behavior, you will likely get more of it. Of course nothing is guaranteed. But it should be obvious that you simply CANNOT judge the effectiveness of the referral program after such a short amount of time, especially considering that we don't even have liquid BitAssets yet. You are NOT being reasonable by trying to remove the referral program.
Guys, we need to compromise here. I have VERY high hopes for Bitshares and have invested a LARGE sum of money. But I'm losing patience with the inability to compromise, and my shit load of BTS will move on to greener pastures if we can't figure this out and get on to the business of creating liquidity for BitAssets. Seriously, this is ridiculous.
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"
This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.
Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.
It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.
