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.


Messages - wallace

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
106

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money.

This is not always true.  bitcoin for example has a fee that is always increasing so long as the price of BTC is increasing.  The fees of bitcoin at $1 /BTC were much lower than they are now.

setting a fee now of 20 BTS or $.08, later as price moves up, fee is kept the same 20BTS, but now collecting $.20 fee.  so fee has technically gone up but has also not changed.

I believe there are creative ways of changing the fee structure that will not change the overall collected fees.  for example a percentage based fee would allow for cheaper small transfers and would be more expensive for larger transfers.   the collected fees for a referrer would on average be the same and would allow smaller transactions to remain viable as well as accommodate regional cost of living differences.

i think percantage based fees are hard if not impossible to implement. I think it would be easier to just peg the tx fees to USD

a 1,000 users system is much different from a 10,000 users system, the system value is different, why keep the fee the same?

107
I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

your owner already have a lot of customers, he just don't want to lost it, right?

our problem is we have no users now. we need new users, this is totally different from your example.

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money. So the example still stand.

Lower Fees does not necessarily equal more users too. Whenever an institution makes sweeping changes like Bitshares did, there is an inevitable "freeze" in the user base who try to wrap their mind around the new platform...some, like me, are still trying to import their funds.

No, the fee priced by BTS, not USD, if the BTS price increased, the fee icreased as well, if the BTS price go up, people don't mind to keep the same BTS fee. and if the BTS price is higher enough, we can decrease the BTS fee but actually fee value increased.

I always said we need strategy. firstly we need users, next is to keep it. we have a Competitive product maybe the best in crypto world and we must have lots of way to keep the users.

108
I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

your owner already have a lot of customers, he just don't want to lost it, right?

our problem is we have no users now. we need new users, this is totally different from your example.

109
General Discussion / Re: Now is a good time to tell people about BTS.
« on: November 10, 2015, 03:17:24 am »
last year I told people about BTS. they lost lots of money.

maybe these words will also be correct at this time next year.

that's why I'm afraid to tell people about BTS.

110
I think that adding the referral system to the trading fees is a good idea, so the referral can earn money when one of their referred users trades. However, in the realworld  only maybe 1-2% of all users are active traders, the rest are casual users.

Please tell me, if the transfer fee is set to next to zero - what is the incentive for a wallet/payment provider to refer new users?

Casual users (98% of the userbase) are only interested in using their wallet to transfer money around, much like Paypal. They use their wallet to pay Merchants.

Under the new system, it's almost impossible to sustain a wallet/payment provider business. Only 2% of all referred users by this wallet provider are traders, the rest will only use the "money transfer" option.

In my opinion, we still need a sizeable transfer fees, not nescessary 20 cents, but it should be at least 5-10 cents so a wallet provider has an incentive to run its business.

Also, under the current system, people have an incentive to buy a lifetime upgrade, and the referral gets parts of this too. The fee must be high enough that the user is still incentivized to buy their LT upgrade.

How will we get main stream users when there's no incentive to run a wallet/payment service for the common users? I'm not talking about traders.

for a well-established non-crypto world product, you're right, only 2% users are active traders. but face the reality, we're talking about a crypto world, except the active users in our forum, I would say over 50% users are traders. I know our target is the real world not a crypto world, but we need step by step. we need strategy to sell our product to the real world.

111
General Discussion / Re: make feed price more accurate
« on: November 07, 2015, 05:50:37 am »
 +5%

I think this problem is very important to a BITCNY gateway.

The developer often don't have good oppotunity to get feeback from marketing especially from a gateway. In china the gateway brought a lot of liquidity to the BTS internal market in BTS1.0 and this is the reason why BitCNY was working very good in BTS1.0 and I think you all known this, I'm very appreciate all the thing what bitcrab did, doing and will do. he keep handle the BItCNY gateway in china in very hard condition and almost all BTS user in china was able to convert CNY<->BITCNY 24x7 with very very low fee. there're not much BTS users in china without this gateway.

this is not the first time Bitcrab post his idea in the forum to discuss, unfortunately there's always not much reply

Witness and the owner who provide a price feed App please pay attention to this.

112

Imagine people borrow 100m BTS selled(reserved by BTC)

The fact exsits that any user CAN buy those BTS at THAT offered PRICE in polo, and be able to transfer the bought bts to their wallets means that THAT PRICE is REAL.   The risk undertaken by the margin-users (and bore by them) has no bearing on the feed's bts volume-weighted price.


Agree with cube.  The BTS on polo can be bought and transferred anywhere and it is the dominant price.  If it is excluded, the system will be gamed and BTS will be crushed.

not exclude, just reduce the weight. I don't know if you played a margin trade, personally I never trust a margin price. don't tell me this is the real price, it's obsolutely not. btc38 price is not the real price as well due to the 2.0 upgrade is not complete.

and currenlty the Polo have totally over 0.23 billion BTS and BTC38 have over 0.35 billion BTS, they both have larger number users, that's why I agree with alt these 2 exchange fifty-fifty.

113
As I know almost 2/3 trade on Polo comes from margin trade, the price actually is not a real price, it's a premium price whatever higher or lower,  I agree to reduce the weight of polo price.

feed price is very important to our system, we need to take it seriously.

114
General Discussion / Re: Short Term Roadmap
« on: November 04, 2015, 07:43:50 am »
I'm right there with you. Please see my new signature line. Bonfire of the Brownies.

I think I know. When I say "98% love brownies", in the reaming 2%, in my mind,  I include you, me, Empirical1.888 and 2 representatives from the Chinese community. I might be missing a person or two, but I believe I am close enough.

edit:
also making my own version of your signature

I'm also with you Tony.

Good to know that more than 3 people are in their  right mind on this forum.
And btw you are not with me, you are just on the right side of the sanity/insanity line.
[being with me, is considered very bad, 99% of the time around here, so should save yourself from that trouble, whenever possible.]

Make a statement with your signature if you truly believe brownies = bad idea.

copied.

we need agreed sound and disagreed sound, everybody made mistake, BM also made mistake, I like you figured it out.

115
General Discussion / Re: Short Term Roadmap
« on: November 04, 2015, 07:05:20 am »
I'm right there with you. Please see my new signature line. Bonfire of the Brownies.

I think I know. When I say "98% love brownies", in the reaming 2%, in my mind,  I include you, me, Empirical1.888 and 2 representatives from the Chinese community. I might be missing a person or two, but I believe I am close enough.

edit:
also making my own version of your signature

I'm also with you Tony.

116
Technical Support / Re: What are Brownies and how do I get some?
« on: November 03, 2015, 02:23:26 pm »
I have bought and sold several tens of thousand Brownies and made some profit, but I don't like the way it works.

Brownies is a hornor, should not be trade, I don't think it can create value to the whole system.

117
General Discussion / Re: Would you Help BTS Community for Brownies?
« on: November 03, 2015, 09:14:26 am »
I am against paying biger projects than random community help with brownies. That would be like a STATE PAYING BIG PROJECTS. Why? Because the one holding the brownies (fuzzy?) like the state can no know in advance whether the various projects paid are actually effective (run by productive ppl and overall effective for the ecosystem). LInked issue: It is hard for the state / the brownie distributor to supervise / oberseve all the projects paid.

Instead you NEED entrepreneurial intelegence where people risk THEIR OWN MONEY.

THE PURPOSE OF BROWNIE PTS and how they can work is to pay them AFTER the fact when it is obvious whether work done has been effective for the BTS ecosystem. And this is how they always have been used up to now (accept small things like attending hangouts etc).
+5%

We need to focus on our BTS first. Brownies can not bring value to the whole system

118
中文(Chinese) / Re: 比特股比梅长苏还苦逼
« on: November 03, 2015, 08:41:48 am »
做人当做蔺少阁主
炒币当炒江左梅郎

119
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 03, 2015, 05:16:14 am »
Relax this isn't "the bottom". :)

Oh yeah, what is "the bottom"?

if the BTC price keep moving up, I think the bottom is "no bottom"

120
 +5%
What is crazy is to base your margin call price on the more thinner and illiquid market [read easier to manipulate by buying/selling]. The current rules chose the Dax prices/market to do that...
The dax has long ways to go before being more liquid than all BTS markets combined.
I have not understoodnd until now that all this crazy rules were an attempt to achieve exactly this even crazier goal - to use the less liquid market...
ohh my god.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15