Author Topic: A marketing idea? Whitepaper? Strategy? request? Either way I think its is gold.  (Read 38698 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Globally Distributed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
I think the entire idea, overall, is a great one.  Ultimately, I think that companies should be the ones running delegates too....providing services and, indirectly, marketing efforts. 

The idea of marketing delegates is confusing to me (this is even considering that the beyond bitcoin delegate is considered to be a marketing delegate by many).  As far as earning a small % off of every referral for 20 years...that is way too much.  I can see, perhaps 3-5 years.  Otherwise you end up with a bunch of monopolies coming in and using bitshares to continue being monopolies, with very little chance anyone will hold them accountable.  They will collude with others to ensure only the delegates of their choice get into power and then you can see how that entire cycle will go.  And before someone says "people can just exit the system"...just look at the US Dollar and how long it is taking people to exit that system. 

Just some thoughts on both the positives and negatives, or at least what I perceive them to be :)

Fuzzy,  I agree with you.  However, I don't think Max is suggesting more marketing delegates.  He's proposing a system where each TITAN name has two identifiers ... MLM Participator and non-MLM Participator, and on top of that an incentivized MLM system driving bitAsset adoption. It would not add to dilution, btw.

Edit ... new thought .. Talk about creating millions of jobs ... Yes Max!
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 02:48:49 pm by Globally Distributed »
"People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA

kudos robrigo

Offline bitmarket

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
    • BitShares TV
To someone elses point, I do not see why fees should increase at all.  I would like to learn why you think they should.  remember digital currency is very divisible.  The 0.5 bts fee can be divided many ways.

1.) I like the idea of an affiliate program but much less the multi tiered MLM style. See point 2

2.) it would change people's perception of us and I believe that for many this will be towards the negative.

I agree but two things jump to mind.
1) Haters gonna hate, and
2) Money talks and bullshit talks.

3.) as you wrote in Bitshares 101 the barrier to entry is high at the moment and I don't see this working well  until we have a stable mobile wallet. I just upgraded to 8.0 and it took almost a whole day which include countless crashes.
Agreed.  A quality product is always the most important thing.  As a marketer I cant control that. That is in the hands of the gods (read Dev team). As the product improves the power of this and any other marketing strategy will too.
Host of BitShares.TV and Author of BitShares 101

Offline fuzzy

I think the entire idea, overall, is a great one.  Ultimately, I think that companies should be the ones running delegates too....providing services and, indirectly, marketing efforts. 

The idea of marketing delegates is confusing to me (this is even considering that the beyond bitcoin delegate is considered to be a marketing delegate by many).  As far as earning a small % off of every referral for 20 years...that is way too much.  I can see, perhaps 3-5 years.  Otherwise you end up with a bunch of monopolies coming in and using bitshares to continue being monopolies, with very little chance anyone will hold them accountable.  They will collude with others to ensure only the delegates of their choice get into power and then you can see how that entire cycle will go.  And before someone says "people can just exit the system"...just look at the US Dollar and how long it is taking people to exit that system. 

Just some thoughts on both the positives and negatives, or at least what I perceive them to be :)
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline bytemaster

Quote
I just upgraded to 8.0 and it took almost a whole day which include countless crashes.

That is very odd because I did the upgrade in 30 minutes with no crashes and a complete re-download of the blockchain.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline cusknee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cusknee
No doubt this could speed up mass use of our product and in principal I am for it. This provides great incentive for people to organize meet ups and giveaways as you outlined. Obviously the positives are many and so on the side of caution these are my reservations.

1.) I like the idea of an affiliate program but much less the multi tiered MLM style. See point 2

2.) it would change people's perception of us and I believe that for many this will be towards the negative.

3.) as you wrote in Bitshares 101 the barrier to entry is high at the moment and I don't see this working well  until we have a stable mobile wallet. I just upgraded to 8.0 and it took almost a whole day which include countless crashes.



Offline Globally Distributed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
I don't like to be pessimistic about this, but the bigger goal of a DAC is to be profitable for shareholders. With this change you either need to raise the transaction fee or accept higher delution (because less fees are burned)
However, I see this make sense if it was a timely limited action or there was some kind of mechanism that allows users to opt-out for 2xtransaction fee ..

Anyway, I like this idea, and I thing there is a old thread about something similar somewhere in the forums.

Can you elaborate?  I can't see how this requires us to raise transaction fees ... how are less fees burned?  It would require a new mechanism to pay the $20 out to the network, upline 1 and upline 2, but we would still take the 0.5 bts fee on each $20 sign up.
ignore my post. I missunderstood the OP!

Wait ... My apologies ... maybe I misunderstood the OP!

I did not see that fees get transferred to upline 1 and 2 for 20 years.  And I think that you may be right .. we can't deliver the fees to them in the current state without doubling the fee.  ... To your point, there may be a way around this if we put our heads together.


*Edit* This is very exciting, Max... BitShares MLM is like a DAC in itself. 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 02:20:35 pm by Globally Distributed »
"People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA

kudos robrigo

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I don't like to be pessimistic about this, but the bigger goal of a DAC is to be profitable for shareholders. With this change you either need to raise the transaction fee or accept higher delution (because less fees are burned)
However, I see this make sense if it was a timely limited action or there was some kind of mechanism that allows users to opt-out for 2xtransaction fee ..

Anyway, I like this idea, and I thing there is a old thread about something similar somewhere in the forums.

Can you elaborate?  I can't see how this requires us to raise transaction fees ... how are less fees burned?  It would require a new mechanism to pay the $20 out to the network, upline 1 and upline 2, but we would still take the 0.5 bts fee on each $20 sign up.
ignore my post. I missunderstood the OP!

Offline davidpbrown

 +5%

It's a good idea but elements of it could be mistaken as being close to pyramid/ponzi, where the promoter is considered to suck value from the fresh blood. New users might resent being bound for 20 years? If the fee was not within the usual transaction fee, they might feel they were being scammed and just create a new wallet to bypass the overhead?

I would be tempted to limit it to something significant to the promoter and trivia to the new user - 20% of the fees for a year.. or better the cost should come out of what the transaction fee would be anyway; so the delegates lose out and pay the promoter; that lower payment would encourage promoters to find really valuable new accounts.

So, the cost of this should come from what delegates are willing to pay promoters - and not from the new users. 20 years loss in fees seems like a lot.. I guess the advantage is it binds those people in but the period could be shorter for that too. My instinct is to avoid complexity and long term binding commitments that you might regret later for reasons that might include that the balance of those payments are considered off target relative to their real value.

It's certainly a good idea to push marketing's focus towards real actual change in the userbase and avoid the payments through dilution. The only worry might be that real useful PR and marketing that cannot claim the benefits might miss out but if those involved are rewards in other ways, perhaps they won't mind?

So, that is: pay from the transaction fee and not any overhead on new users; avoid the pyramid sharing of those fees for several generations or tiers; and pay a short term burst of real reward, rather than a long term commitment.  +5%
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
As far as implementing this though... Would this be something we want before 1.0 or maybe a version afterwards?

ASAP. more users = faster adoption. in my opinion

Offline Globally Distributed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
I don't like to be pessimistic about this, but the bigger goal of a DAC is to be profitable for shareholders. With this change you either need to raise the transaction fee or accept higher delution (because less fees are burned)
However, I see this make sense if it was a timely limited action or there was some kind of mechanism that allows users to opt-out for 2xtransaction fee ..

Anyway, I like this idea, and I thing there is a old thread about something similar somewhere in the forums.

Can you elaborate?  I can't see how this requires us to raise transaction fees ... how are less fees burned?  It would require a new mechanism to pay the $20 out to the network, upline 1 and upline 2, but we would still take the 0.5 bts fee on each $20 sign up.
"People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA

kudos robrigo

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
MLM is awesome.
However the $20 upgrade is not MLM but a pyramiding.

I prefer no $20 upgrade, all users can refer and make commission from their referral's transaction fees for a lifetime.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I don't like to be pessimistic about this, but the bigger goal of a DAC is to be profitable for shareholders. With this change you either need to raise the transaction fee or accept higher delution (because less fees are burned)
However, I see this make sense if it was a timely limited action or there was some kind of mechanism that allows users to opt-out for 2xtransaction fee ..

Anyway, I like this idea, and I thing there is a old thread about something similar somewhere in the forums.

Edit: ignore my post. I missunderatood the OP!
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 02:08:31 pm by xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ »

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Love this idea! Affiliate marketing can be a very powerful tool, and just looking around the internet you can see people will sell almost anything as long as they get the referral commission.

As far as implementing this though... Would this be something we want before 1.0 or maybe a version afterwards?

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=15193.msg196847#msg196847 hope it was not too late. maybe someone has time to attend and make sure this question goes through

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
I proposed this in November - generating referral link from within the client.   Earn (part of) the fees of whoever signs up via your link.