Also though it seems we can't do percentage fees for a while.

It's also important not to think of the lowest fee in terms of profitability/referral programme in isolation. It may be that to get a customers business, which may be very valuable overall, we need to give them a good deal on the few low value transactions they make vs. putting them off.

QuoteA loss leader (also leader) is a pricing strategy where a product is sold at a price below its market cost to stimulate other sales of more profitable goods or services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_lead

Quote from: Shentist on October 20, 2015, 07:13:27 PM
yeap, it was a democratic decision made by the commitee members in 4 minutes if you read the post in the top.

So you have a proposal to be a commitee member?

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 05:56:27 PM
I think we need more information on how fees effect demand.

If lowering the fee by 80% only increases demand by 1% then it is a dumb move.   

If we never TRY higher fees we will never have an opportunity to see how it impacts demands.

We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges.

can we pick up a day in the week where we promote lifetime membership!!!

Like:     " Every Wednesday lifetime fees for everybody!!! Feel how it is to be a lifetime member !!!" 

and reduce every Wednesday the fees for basic user's to lifetime fees.... ;D
In that way you will also see how much demand it is for lower fees and what transaction will happen more... (transaction, orders etc.)

Is there any way to see the proposals on the blockchain?

yeap, it was a democratic decision made by the commitee members in 4 minutes if you read the post in the top.

Is there a reason that price feed fees were increased?  Did we just raise all fees.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 05:56:27 PM
I think we need more information on how fees effect demand.

If lowering the fee by 80% only increases demand by 1% then it is a dumb move.   

If we never TRY higher fees we will never have an opportunity to see how it impacts demands.

We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges.

We don't really have a great basis for measuring demand other than feedback from shareholders in countries where the fees may effect demand.

So far we've had feedback from Poland, China, Argentina and Greece that all say the minimum fee is too high. They're also not saying for them personally but in terms of adoption in their market and some like Elmato are very well placed to make that assessment. (Being someone who promotes BTS  to South American customers and has a product, LimeWallet, which would benefit from the referral programme, so would presumably welcome higher fees if he thought they were sellable.)

So far I've seen no shareholders outside of Western economies (US/Western Europe) who may not even be our key demographic and historically haven't been, saying the fee is acceptable.

I'm someone who believes in very high fees for anything that's optional. So for anything resembling premium names, I say TRY way too high fees and come down. If you can't afford it you can still use BTS but just not premium names.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 05:56:27 PM
I think we need more information on how fees effect demand.

For fees if we can't do some form of a percentage based system easily, perhaps we can still do some market research to gather more information.

Ideas - A survey where shareholders give their location and their input on min/max fees.
- Find out which hour everyday the least transactions occur in and turn that into a 'happy hour' where fees are vastly reduced and monitor whether behaviour changes to make use of lower fees.
- Try low fees for a week then high fees and monitor difference in demand.

As I've said, if 1/10 customers will pay $0.1 but 5/10 will pay $0.05 then the cheaper fee is far profitable assuming equal running costs.

Even if the numbers we're equal , I.e 1/10 will pay $0.1 but 2/10 will pay $0.05. The cheaper option is still the winner because double the amount of customers would be up to double the demand for BTS and BitAssets, even though transaction fee income is equal.

Quote from: Pheonike on October 20, 2015, 06:20:31 PM

You can always lower the price, but its difficult to increase the price because don't like to pay more for something. Best to start high then lower based on volume.

^ This  +5%

You can always lower the price, but its difficult to increase the price because don't like to pay more for something. Best to start high then lower based on volume.

if you lower fees in general there's no need for lifetime accounts. no lifetime accounts no marketers. no marketers, have fun with your low fees, you'll never see more users.

I think we need more information on how fees effect demand.

If lowering the fee by 80% only increases demand by 1% then it is a dumb move.   

If we never TRY higher fees we will never have an opportunity to see how it impacts demands.

We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 05:24:33 PM
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 think we should reduce the fee,
there is no base to charge high fee now,
bts system has small. please do not compare with paypal
usd in paypal can buy most of goods in word
but what bitusd can do? buy goods? how many glad to accept bitusd
I doubt me now!
bm please make community choice how many fee,
please do not try to control bts
it would harm community and bts and aslo include you.

let btser select how high fee. byvoting

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 05:24:33 PM
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.

hmm I get that. Maybe a long term goal like you said on mumble...

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.

reduce fee!