Quote from: BTSdac on October 21, 2015, 02:11:06 AM
I basically do not oppose pay fee to Tx, not only protect network ,  but more important system should been a healthy that can gain enough money to supply high level service .
but we would consider how high fee can get more .
There is a relationship between fee and number of Tx

Vertical axis is number of Tx , and the horizontal axis is fee , so the area is the how many total fee (include referral program income ) system gain.
the left drawing show , charge high fee ,but a small number of Tx, so the income of system is small
the middle drawing show charge low fee , there a big number of Tx , but the income is also small
the right drawing show charge fit fee ,and the number of TX is a little lower than system capacity ( bts design is 100,000TPS ) , system get Max income

what position we are , I think is left drawing .

agree, whether the reduction in BTS supply really worth being happy should be considered more deeply with the reduction of usages.

I basically do not oppose pay fee to Tx, not only protect network ,  but more important system should been a healthy that can gain enough money to supply high level service .
but we would consider how high fee can get more .
There is a relationship between fee and number of Tx

Vertical axis is number of Tx , and the horizontal axis is fee , so the area is the how many total fee (include referral program income ) system gain.
the left drawing show , charge high fee ,but a small number of Tx, so the income of system is small
the middle drawing show charge low fee , there a big number of Tx , but the income is also small
the right drawing show charge fit fee ,and the number of TX is a little lower than system capacity ( bts design is 100,000TPS ) , system get Max income

what position we are , I think is left drawing .

I'm happy to see this fee stability. Thank you.

The only fee I would like to see lowered is transfer fees , sending value should not cost that much . Initial adopters will be the ones who will be using  BitShares mainly for basic banking . Lets first be inviting . A simple transfer just simply can not and must not cost 40 unit of that cryptocurrency.

very nice job man   +5%

Looks like the price of the LTM is based on the fees payable, I was just lucky i suppose ;oblivious to this post i just purchased a LTM last night at the discounted rate (hour or two before this post), doesn't happen often but i'm glad to be at the right place and the right time for once :)

LTM price at the moment is 20,000BTS, BM also alluded to this fact in the OP

@Bytemaster - i would like to use my LTM to refer new user to Bitshares 2.0 any word on the referral system? is it planned that the following link would work to add my LTM account to  the 'Lifetime Referrer' field for new user accounts i refer?
https://bitshares.openledger.info/?r=btsxking#/create-account

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 08:04:53 PM
By setting the price low you devalue the service we offer.   Raising the price means we know what we offer provides value.

We are setting the price low one particular day per week (maybe our worst/low volume day) so we attract new members... The members that register because they was attracted by our "one day offer" would never make profit for us...
Imagine it like a pizzeria that gives every Tuesday 3 pizzas of the prize of one OR every Tuesday it offers "eat as you can for just $10!"

So 1.we attract new members and 2.we create traffic on a dead trading day & 3.Some become lifetime members since they are now convinced it has value.... :)

PS that would be an opportunity also for micro-trading from basic accounts from the "poor" people... Good marketing!


edit: I just now realized you thought I was proposing to lower the lifetime fee also that  day (absolutely NOT!) :) 

Quote from: liondani on October 20, 2015, 09:47:44 PM

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 20, 2015, 08:35:11 PM
I don't think Liondani means the LTM membership fee is halved but rather the transfer fees are lower on that day so that they match what LTM members pay for transfers.

EXACTLY!

That would be interesting.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 20, 2015, 08:35:11 PM
I don't think Liondani means the LTM membership fee is halved but rather the transfer fees are lower on that day so that they match what LTM members pay for transfers.

EXACTLY!

Quote from: fav on October 20, 2015, 08:25:40 PM

which is why we need a big fat graph showing how many bitshares are burned by the second.

I agree.  (Thought probably daily, not by the second). :P

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 08:04:53 PM

Quote from: liondani on October 20, 2015, 07:26:08 PM

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.)

Not a bad idea, but if it was a predictable schedule then all you would achieve is moving people that would have paid $100 for a LTM to Wednesday when they can pay $50 which will have the effect of making it appear that demand increases dramatically on Wednesday.

I don't think Liondani means the LTM membership fee is halved but rather the transfer fees are lower on that day so that they match what LTM members pay for transfers.

QuoteThere is also the concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

By setting the price low you devalue the service we offer.   Raising the price means we know what we offer provides value.

Yeah but I think we need to attempt to do some research to find out what those levels are. 

QuoteAPPROACH Respondents were asked the following questions:
Q1: At what price would you consider the product to be priced so low that you feel that the quality could be compromised?
Q2: At what price would you consider this product to be a bargain?
Q3: At what price would you say this product is starting to get expensive that you would have to think before buying it?
Q4: At what price would you consider the product to be so expensive that you would not consider buying it?

http://www.marketequations.com/case-study/price-sensitivity-pricing-analysis-services.html

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2015, 08:04:53 PM

Quote from: liondani on October 20, 2015, 07:26:08 PM

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.)

Not a bad idea, but if it was a predictable schedule then all you would achieve is moving people that would have paid $100 for a LTM to Wednesday when they can pay $50 which will have the effect of making it appear that demand increases dramatically on Wednesday.

There is also the concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

By setting the price low you devalue the service we offer.   Raising the price means we know what we offer provides value.

To state it another way, I am sure Apple could increase market share and user adoption by lowering their prices which have industry leading margins built in.   But by doing so they would be undermining their profitability and their share price would suffer.

I think that to gain investors we must show profitability and lowering fees will not allow us to show that.

which is why we need a big fat graph showing how many bitshares are burned by the second.

Quote from: liondani on October 20, 2015, 07:26:08 PM
Like:     " Every Wednesday lifetime fees for everybody!!! Feel how it is to be a lifetime member !!!" 

Pump & Dump Wednesdays! ;)

Quote from: liondani on October 20, 2015, 07:26:08 PM

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.)

Not a bad idea, but if it was a predictable schedule then all you would achieve is moving people that would have paid $100 for a LTM to Wednesday when they can pay $50 which will have the effect of making it appear that demand increases dramatically on Wednesday.

There is also the concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

By setting the price low you devalue the service we offer.   Raising the price means we know what we offer provides value.

To state it another way, I am sure Apple could increase market share and user adoption by lowering their prices which have industry leading margins built in.   But by doing so they would be undermining their profitability and their share price would suffer.

I think that to gain investors we must show profitability and lowering fees will not allow us to show that.

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.

We are just keeping the fees near the $0.20 price that we have been mentioning since we announced BTS 2.0. 

You can expect us to adjust the fees on a regular basis to maintain about that price and anything other than that would be a change.

Lets get some more committee members elected so we can do this more democratically.