I would support percentage based transfer fees (with a minimum to prevent Spam and a maximum to remain competitive).

I would not support any temporary lowering of fees or any reduction of fees other than moving to percentage based.

We do not want to get in to a race to the bottom.

This sounds best to me also. Lower fees alone are not going to attract a ton more users suddenly. Percentage-based fees make the most sense to me.

Well stated. In my guess, PeerTracks and its first product (we probably will know the name this week) attract many non-crypto people and their money with on-ramp service. We will say that it was a great opportunity to buy MUSE under 0.1 cent.

Yes, seriously. I'm still speechless that the market values MUSE at anything less than $10-15 Million. I'd still be buying it at that price; the concept is worth ten times that. At current prices, I'm buying truckloads with every paycheck.

Quote from: cob on January 09, 2016, 04:57:53 pm

Yes, "Fancy news" coming in a less than a week.

People are tired of alt coins that amount to nothing. Artistcoins are interesting because it allows traders to buy coins in one central location that have individual rewards and something tangible backing it.  Artistcoins are basically a crypto trader paradise.  It's a small part of the market, but it would be one to help increase the MUSE value which gives us some leverage on being added to exchanges as well as increasing MUSE value enough where worker proposals make sense.

Let's face it; PeerTracks has the most viral potential of anything crypto has ever seen. 7 out of 10 people you talk to in crypto automatically have a strong reaction to BitShares. They've heard of it and they either love it or hate it; that's why we need to reach other markets there. But PeerTracks/MUSE doesn't have that baggage; it should be attractive to almost anyone in crypto (and beyond). People are going to love this.

The free market gains some competition. I love the simplicity and focus. Right on!

I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.

Picture of guy with gun

As funny as pictures can be, we must remember that this is a non-violent community. We solve problems through dialogue and consensus, not through use of arms. Non-violence is the most powerful weapon.

@clout

You are being ridiculous for faulting Bitshares for not attracting large banking partners. No decentralized cryptocurrency has been able to do that, yet Bitshares should have been able to.... give me a break. 

Have you missed all of the recent articles that all of the large banks are all developing their own private blockchains? Sadly, Identabit is going nowhere. Banks want 100% of the pie and 100% control. It is the sad reality of the matter.

You're talking about the big banks. And largely, I agree. They'll take one look at our DPOS proposal debates and say 'no thanks'. They sure as hell won't put their back end on this blockchain while it's under decentralized control. BUT if enough smaller and mid-sized businesses give it a try, recognizing how much money it saves them and all the advantages it holds, there is a real chance that: (a) we add sufficient scale to start growing, and (b) that stability, which must be longer term in terms of governance (and not just one change after another, as we've seen in recent years/months), then that may attract some larger organizations. Our witnesses and committees and whoever the hoo-ha's are will be a lot less inclined to make changes on a whim when all of us have a vested interest in letting the system grow and prosper, which can only happen with stability and predictability. In my mind, there's a big difference between those BIG banks and everyone else.

I've gotten a couple of those notifications, too. Even if they could get into my e-mail, they'd find that I have nothing on Freebies except for whatever crapcoins I've been sent and chosen not to bother redeeming.

Sounds like an Open Ledger problem. We have all the best names first.