Even if we can resolve this by just voting, the different perspectives shown in this thread work in people minds to enrich their decisions.

I do agree that we need to be profitable as a DAC and fees play an critical role.
I also don't have the scientific proof that if we lower the fees transfers will climb.

(Maybe there is no high amount of transfers because we are not ready (yet) for mainstream users, and bitcoiners don't like us much (yet) ) 

Having said that $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable.

Im pushing Bitshares for a joint effort of two NGOs and the local crypto community which one the objectives is to provide entrepreneurs from marginal economies with a way to use digital cash. (Its a bigger project ex-Worldbank, ex-UN people working on it)
 
Basically they will be moving an IOU, but $3.2 ARS is too much for the average size of that transactions. ($30-$50)

One of the founders of http://www.rootstock.io/ is heavily involved in the project also, so that platform is on the table also even if its on alpha stage.

Another issue is the order placement fee in the DEX, but i read that with lifetime subscription the fees goes down to something like 2 BTS? So that will be fine to bootstrap the DEX.

Margin is called any time the HIGH BID is less than the CALL PRICE.    In other words anytime the highest offer to buy the collateral and pay off the debt is below the call price.

Percent based fees are slightly more complex to implement universally, especially with user issued assets for which the network has no idea what the value being transferred is.

I've seen lots of "hooray referral system" posts like it's the new cure for cancer.  I have the exact opposite thoughts about it.  Before any pro-referral people post in opposition, let's define exactly what the referral system is.  It's an artificial increase in transaction fees to subsidize the equivalent of a bunch of Avon ladies. 

Artificially increasing transaction fees is the last thing you would ever want to do in a cryptocurrency.  One of Bitcoin's main selling points was low transaction fees.  Now people are suddenly pretending like transaction fees don't matter.  Sure, you may now end up with some additional people trying to spread Bitshares, but most people view cryptocurrency as a zero sum game where the act of using it is just making someone else rich at their own expense.  This isn't far from the truth since any currency that exists whether it's fiat, gold, or crypto is all a pyramid scheme in nature.

Dan talks about how he doesn't like coercion, but the referral system obviously is where you're trying to swoop up people under your influence into a system to enrich yourself.  An example would be an employer forcing employees into Bitshares as a payment processor.  The employee now has to pay some arbitrary fee to become "a member" or pay large transaction fees instead.  Currency doesn't need any more pyramid scheme aspects than it already has.  Besides the fact that it's philosophically an abomination, it makes Bitshares less competitive in the free market vs other coins that will have lower fees.

Unless Bitshares became huge, it's not like many people are even going to pay the member fee anyway.  It just drives people to other coins due to big transaction fees.  If Bitshares became world reserve currency, probably everyone on earth would pay it, but the only function it serves then is an additional pyramid scheme aspect on top of the already pyramid nature of all currencies.   Whether you're trying to make a profitable business or a more "fair" world, it's probably bad on both fronts.