Quote from: Xeldal on November 16, 2015, 03:42:30 pm

Quote from: rgcrypto on November 16, 2015, 03:24:13 pm

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

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.

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.

Quote from: cube on November 05, 2015, 03:57:16 am

Quote from: alt on November 05, 2015, 03:37:41 am

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.

Quote from: wallace on November 04, 2015, 07:05:20 am

Quote from: tonyk on November 04, 2015, 05:25:20 am

Quote from: donkeypong on November 04, 2015, 05:14:22 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.

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.