I think that instead of shying away from the algorithm that has proven successful thus far, we should have a blog post that defends it and addresses the FUD that comes from people like Andreas.

I agree with Jakub in that if we rename DPOS, people will see it as a sign of weakness.

There's no reason to abandon it completely. I would just suggest we think of another way to explain our governance to outsiders who may be more interested in the whos and hows of how BitShares is run than in how we address technical blockchain issues.

I agree that the term is dated. The DPOS term is for people who understand the basics of how Bitcoin and blockchains work. The wider audience we want to reach now does not come from crypto and so they may not be familiar with the problems that DPOS solves. Who controls it? How are decisions made? Those may be the immediate questions people ask, especially if they understand that it is decentralized. So we need some term to express that there is a committee, voted in and elected by users, and that committee makes decisions affecting the network. You Libertarians are going to hate me, but I think what we really have here is representative democracy on the blockchain. It's a democratic system and that's quite monumental (a far cry from Bitcoin's mess).

Very interesting thought. Where is the "to the network" money going? Does the BitShares system need it for maintenance, etc.? Because if so, then this suggestion might set up a system where some users are paying for it and some are not. A better wrinkle might be to keep that 20% as a minimum threshold price and then allow your suggested flexibility for the remainder of the referral. Or perhaps this is what you have in mind already.

I would be interested in seeing the reaction of some of our larger referral-dependent businesses, such as @ccedk .

Quote from: abit on February 01, 2016, 10:37:50 pm

Quote from: TravelsAsia on February 01, 2016, 01:37:11 am

If the non-LTM could get a smaller percentage from referrals, it might encourage them to go LTM to get a bigger piece of the pie once they see it working.

This makes some sense.
For example LTM get 80% from referred user, non-LTM get 30% from referred user and unable to claim until upgraded to LTM.

Now it makes sense.

That would be OK with me also. Just maintain some incentive for users to become LTM.

Give him a week or two. Cob's not on the forum all the time.

It is been decided - positivity is what matters most now.
I for sure am at my worst faking it.
For me objectivity is the thing most valuable to me.

Spewing venom is what we don't want. Honesty and objectivity are good.

If you think you have a lot of users who want lower fees, then who are they? There are 11 pages of messages in this thread. I'm guessing (though I have not counted) that at least 20 or 30 different people have posted their thoughts. And it seems like only 2 or 3 posters actually want these low fees. Everyone else prefers to fund the system and help it grow.

Jakub keeps asking for evidence that low fees would attract people. Also, I question whether this poll is anywhere near accurate (I don't think so). If you have more real people who want lower fees, ask them not just to vote, but to post here also and explain why. They can write it in Chinese if they want. Then we'll believe they exist and we'll listen to their reasons.

As @jakub keeps asking you, please present some evidence that lower fees would help, not just the opinion of 2 or 3 loud posters. If there are more members than 2 or 3 who want lower fees, then ask them to post also.

China's going nuts. Getting cray cray now.

Loading up all those red envelopes for New Years.