Fee Adjustments

[Akado]

An idea:

Higher fees for anonymous (stealth and blinded) transactions.
Reason: It is a "cost" for the network because voting isnt possible when using these tx types.

Thoughts?

Makes sense to have them a little higher than normal transactions, the problem is, we still need somewhat reasonable fees even for the most basic of transactions simply to prevent spam.

[santaclause102]

An idea:

Higher fees for anonymous (stealth and blinded) transactions.
Reason: It is a "cost" for the network because voting isnt possible when using these tx types.

Thoughts?

[alt]

I will continue use BTS wallet as an exchange,and I think it will be a great exchange.
but I will try not to use it for transfer. 
we need to focus on the exchange business, help the gateways. 
and we should give up the payment business(at least in Chinese). I don't want to pay for the higher transfer fee, I don't need to see the damn ad, because I have alipay and so many banks support free transfer.

Ok, if we must keep high fee, I'll look Bts as an exchange.
Hope OL, CCEDK, DACX, TRANSWISER, BLOCKTRADE can do their best.

Fees should remain high enough for Bitshares to have enough revenue to fuel it's components. If you want cheaper fees, use ad revenue to pay for it and go with a freemium model.

[luckybit]

Ok, if we must keep high fee, I'll look Bts as an exchange.
Hope OL, CCEDK, DACX, TRANSWISER, BLOCKTRADE can do their best.

Fees should remain high enough for Bitshares to have enough revenue to fuel it's components. If you want cheaper fees, use ad revenue to pay for it and go with a freemium model.

[alt]

Ok, if we must keep high fee, I'll look Bts as an exchange.
Hope OL, CCEDK, DACX, TRANSWISER, BLOCKTRADE can do their best.

[chryspano]

I have no opinion in this but we must be carefull not to kill the referal system by reducing the fee, feathercoin and worlcoin and a ton of other "coins" had small fees but where are they today? at place 100th of coinmarketcap,  low fees alone are worthless.

[BTSdac]

Even if we can resolve this by just voting, the different perspectives shown in this thread work in people minds to enrich their decisions.

I do agree that we need to be profitable as a DAC and fees play an critical role.
I also don't have the scientific proof that if we lower the fees transfers will climb.

(Maybe there is no high amount of transfers because we are not ready (yet) for mainstream users, and bitcoiners don't like us much (yet) ) 

Having said that $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable.

Im pushing Bitshares for a joint effort of two NGOs and the local crypto community which one the objectives is to provide entrepreneurs from marginal economies with a way to use digital cash. (Its a bigger project ex-Worldbank, ex-UN people working on it)
 
Basically they will be moving an IOU, but $3.2 ARS is too much for the average size of that transactions. ($30-$50)

One of the founders of http://www.rootstock.io/ is heavily involved in the project also, so that platform is on the table also even if its on alpha stage.

Another issue is the order placement fee in the DEX, but i read that with lifetime subscription the fees goes down to something like 2 BTS? So that will be fine to bootstrap the DEX.

I think the transfer is 4 times of trade fee ,it is unreasonable ,
user just transfer bts or IOU  several times  one months , they cannot to update life-time member ,  so they have to pay 0.2$ per transfer ,
it mean bts give up small amount  transfer , small amount transfer cannot bring bts much transfer fee ,but the can bring bts many user ,
user is very important thing .

[ElMato]

Even if we can resolve this by just voting, the different perspectives shown in this thread work in people minds to enrich their decisions.

I do agree that we need to be profitable as a DAC and fees play an critical role.
I also don't have the scientific proof that if we lower the fees transfers will climb.

(Maybe there is no high amount of transfers because we are not ready (yet) for mainstream users, and bitcoiners don't like us much (yet) ) 

Having said that $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable.

Im pushing Bitshares for a joint effort of two NGOs and the local crypto community which one the objectives is to provide entrepreneurs from marginal economies with a way to use digital cash. (Its a bigger project ex-Worldbank, ex-UN people working on it)
 
Basically they will be moving an IOU, but $3.2 ARS is too much for the average size of that transactions. ($30-$50)

One of the founders of http://www.rootstock.io/ is heavily involved in the project also, so that platform is on the table also even if its on alpha stage.

Another issue is the order placement fee in the DEX, but i read that with lifetime subscription the fees goes down to something like 2 BTS? So that will be fine to bootstrap the DEX.

[fav]

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.

things are not so simple, suppose user A do 1 transfer one day under 20BTS fee, but do 10 transfers under 4BTS fee, he will generate 2 times revenue to his referrer in lower fee conditions.

and I don't think "We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges" is good idea, we need reasonable fees,  it should be high enough, but not too high to get enough transactions.

in theory. but BTS1 had low TX too, so you can't expect any more than that.

[bitcrab]

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.

things are not so simple, suppose user A do 1 transfer one day under 20BTS fee, but do 10 transfers under 4BTS fee, he will generate 2 times revenue to his referrer in lower fee conditions.

and I don't think "We only need fees to be competitive with centralized exchanges" is good idea, we need reasonable fees,  it should be high enough, but not too high to get enough transactions.

[Troglodactyl]

I would set the fees back to their initial 2.0 values at least until the rising value in BTS has them back around 20 cents and then reevaluate whether to update them to maintain that level.  I don't think people can be expected to pay as much to use the network until its value and utility are recognized, and that recognition requires that people feel free to experiment with the network.

I will likely create a committee member eventually, but the last few weeks I've been short of time and haven't caught up on all of that yet.

[Thom]

And BM never addressed puppies question. What sense does it make to increase the fees for publishing price feeds? It just erodes witness pay. Granted they get back 80% of it but if publishing feeds is only possible through voted in witnesses with LTMs why not minimize their costs?

[fav]

total costs of bts2/ numbers of transaction =per transaction  cost

now  total costs of bts2 is stable 

but  numbers of transaction  is very very very low
I  guess  the numbers of transaction   is less than price feed

It is totally  waste！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！

proof it.

check some random blocks on bitsharesblocks.com and tell me there is a significant number of txs.

block 200.000 - 200.005 zero TX
block 300.000 - 300.005 zero TX

BitShares never had many transactions in my opinion.

[sudo]

total costs of bts2/ numbers of transaction =per transaction  cost

now  total costs of bts2 is stable 

but  numbers of transaction  is very very very low
I  guess  the numbers of transaction   is less than price feed

It is totally  waste！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！

[Chris4210]

I also think that the ~40 bts right now are to much for transaction fees. That can cost you a lot of money in the longterm and makes micro transactions completely impossible.

Are these 40 bts also charged for UIA transfers? Does that mean that a Miles& More Network needs to pay 40 bts everytime they want to send some credits to their users? that will be costly...

I would welcome a pool for the next mumble and ask the most active shareholders about their opinion. After that we can take the witnesses to vote on that topic.

Since the bts value is so low, we can also lower to fees for now. I do not see a problem to rise them back to 40 bts in the future.

cheers

[Empirical1.2]

how many "Shareholders" are complaining? five? six?

Don't forget about this thread... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19159.60.html

Alt, Empirical1, Liondani, Elmato, R0ach, lzr1900, BTSDac,  wuyanren, delulo? (percentage fees preference), Giant Crab, Sudo, Pal, Noisy,  xiahui135? , luckybit, moon, free, Spartako (Wants 5 BTS for 'small transaction), Saleh.


The only argument that's made sense  to me so far is that we are competing to a degree with centralised exchanges. How many charge to move money? What do they charge?

A lot don't charge for withdrawals or deposits and their fees start at 0.1% often with a small minimum so you would have to be trading >50 000 BTS at a time for us to be cheaper. I think the majority of new traders and new people to BitShares will be moving or trading amounts that are on average lower than this.
 

[fav]

how many "Shareholders" are complaining? five? six?

[Empirical1.2]

The problem is not lack of recommendations, the problem is lack of users.
lack of users is because of we never have a usable wallet.
now, seems we'll have a usable wallet, but you change the fees to such a high.

I doubt who will use such a High-End service.
I have followed many users who register by openledger, can't find even 1 transaction.

for the guys who wish higher transfer fee, I want ask you, how many transfer fees you will contribute?

Yes it seems a lot of people in Asia, South America, East Europe & Africa won't use BTS. 

I would also be interested in seeing average size of transfers.

I think people used to send and receive lots of small transfers without even thinking about it. Now they might wait and make bigger transfers. So I think BTS may earn less from $0.2  fees, than from $0.05 fees and also get used less and also appeal to less potential customers...

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.

Let's remember that people in those countries don't have an access to a global payment network that they can use freely. Transfers are cheap only in the national banks / payment networks. And of course the fee will go always higher when payments are made with other than national currency.

Bitshares has several different currencies, it's fast, it has stealth transfers, anybody can open account without any bureaucracy, etc. We should concentrate on the things that make Bitshares valuable and useful and not care so much about lower fees. Customers will always want cheaper stuff, no matter what, so it's usually pointless to ask them if they do want lower fees – of course they want!

Customers don't always want cheaper stuff, because at a point it impacts perceived quality. You do however need to do research to find out what they're willing to pay.

In this case, remember all the people advising for lower fees are shareholders not just customers. If they thought customers would pay high fees they would he happy because BTS income and adoption would go up and their BTS shares would increase in value. They are mostly approaching their fees position from a business perspective.

BM expressed some interest in Liondani's idea though which if implemented could give us some basis for measuring demand.

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.

[Musewhale]

It is important to make a profit.

Yes, it's a profit. But I think it's mostly for WORKERs, not for the network. See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19305.0.html

vps, time, energy, room charge, Clothes, Food
WORKERs need a lot of money, We can't hope to let him work for free, That's not sustainable.

Otherwise, they will leave the network, to work for others to earn money
Crypto Currency, is a noble dream, But also had to consider the survival

As for the specific charges, I do not have enough professional advice
But I think it's necessary to be profitable.

[Samupaha]

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.

Let's remember that people in those countries don't have an access to a global payment network that they can use freely. Transfers are cheap only in the national banks / payment networks. And of course the fee will go always higher when payments are made with other than national currency.

Bitshares has several different currencies, it's fast, it has stealth transfers, anybody can open account without any bureaucracy, etc. We should concentrate on the things that make Bitshares valuable and useful and not care so much about lower fees. Customers will always want cheaper stuff, no matter what, so it's usually pointless to ask them if they do want lower fees – of course they want!

That said, I'm still a little bit skeptical about the fee structure what we have now. It might be too much. But let's try it for a while and see what happens.

[sudo]

so many  0 transaction blocks
3s blocks interval
is that  economical?

[sudo]

No active users   No  futures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sudo]

The problem is not lack of recommendations, the problem is lack of users.
lack of users is because of we never have a usable wallet.
now, seems we'll have a usable wallet, but you change the fees to such a high.

I doubt who will use such a High-End service.
I have followed many users who register by openledger, can't find even 1 transaction.

for the guys who wish higher transfer fee, I want ask you, how many transfer fees you will contribute?

 

[alt]

The problem is not lack of recommendations, the problem is lack of users.
lack of users is because of we never have a usable wallet.
now, seems we'll have a usable wallet, but you change the fees to such a high.

I doubt who will use such a High-End service.
I have followed many users who register by openledger, can't find even 1 transaction.

for the guys who wish higher transfer fee, I want ask you, how many transfer fees you will contribute?

[botfund]

It is important to make a profit.

Yes, it's a profit. But I think it's mostly for WORKERs, not for the network. See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19305.0.html

[Musewhale]

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.

Or the administrator of the experience, standing tall, may be Harvard graduate

[Musewhale]

It is important to make a profit.

[tonyk]

how many unique users  bitshares really have?

about 3000...of them the one that matter are... 97

PS
and the number 97 of course includes fuzzy boy with his 14 month old back up wallet, with a metric ton of bitUSD in it, that he could never open in the last 9mos.

[sudo]

how many unique users  bitshares really have?

[bitcrab]

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.

do not agree.

to compare BTS(actually here it refers Bitshares system) with luxury goods is not reasonable.

luxury goods is specfic, only the richest people can pay for them, and they buy these goods for showing their rich and taste, so really sometimes the more expensive, the more they like.
but how about BTS? do you also define BTS as luxury goods? if yes I think 90% of current users should leave.

BTS is also different with iPhone.

the margin cost to provide 1 transaction is low, however the margin cost to produce 1 iPhone is high.
one may only need one iPhone, but will pay for coming transactions every day.

Alipay are free for transfer, Paypal charge fee for transfer, Can we then say Paypal provide more valuable service than Alipay?

[bitcrab]

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.

[BTSdac]

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 .

[donkeypong]

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

[bitacer]

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.

[Moon]

very nice job man   

[GChicken]

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

[liondani]

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!)  

[bytemaster]

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.

[liondani]

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!

[Ander]

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).

[Empirical1.2]

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....
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.

 

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.

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

APPROACH 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

[fav]

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....
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.

[Tuck Fheman]

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

Pump & Dump Wednesdays!

[bytemaster]

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....
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.

[bytemaster]

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.

[Empirical1.2]

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.

A 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

[lakerta06]

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?

[liondani]

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....
In that way you will also see how much demand it is for lower fees and what transaction will happen more... (transaction, orders etc.)

[monsterer]

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

[Shentist]

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

[puppies]

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

[Empirical1.2]

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.

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.

[DestBest]

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 

[Pheonike]

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.

[fav]

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.

[bytemaster]

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.

[BTSdac]

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

[santaclause102]

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...

[bytemaster]

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.

[BTSdac]

reduce fee!

[chryspano]

这么高的手续费，你自己玩去吧。
I transfer 100000bts,cost me 40 bts fee
I transfer 1 bts,cost me 40 bts fee,too.
why don't adjust by the amount

spam protection I think

[santaclause102]

这么高的手续费，你自己玩去吧。
I transfer 100000bts,cost me 40 bts fee
I transfer 1 bts,cost me 40 bts fee,too.
why don't adjust by the amount

I'd suggest percentage based fees where the increase in fees decreases exponentially (not sure i expressed that accurately but what I mean is: liniear growth of the fee first and the higher the tx volume is the less does it increase). The result would be that there would either be a limit regarding total tx fees or the fee would hardly increase the higher it gets. I m not a mathmatician

See the general proposal here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=17721.0

[phillyguy]

这么高的手续费，你自己玩去吧。
I transfer 100000bts,cost me 40 bts fee
I transfer 1 bts,cost me 40 bts fee,too.
why don't adjust by the amount

"our stated targets of $0.20 per transfer"

[wuyanren]

We must have a lower fee to promote the active market, such as a 1BTS

[lzr1900]

这么高的手续费，你自己玩去吧。
I transfer 100000bts,cost me 40 bts fee
I transfer 1 bts,cost me 40 bts fee,too.
why don't adjust by the amount

[bytemaster]

In other words, for the next 4 minutes life time memberships are 50% off!

[tbone]

We have put through a proposal that will adjust the fees to keep them in line with our stated targets of $0.20 per transfer and will continue to adjust the fees to maintain this target as the price of BTS changes.

All fees will scale equally so the relative costs will be the same. 

This is welcomed news.  I think the "fees are too high" crowd was somewhat driven by fear of the fact that fees would get out of control as the price goes up. 

By the way, can you please address the market history issue in the thread linked below?  Thanks.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19038.msg247717.html#msg247717

[bytemaster]

We have put through a proposal that will adjust the fees to keep them in line with our stated targets of $0.20 per transfer and will continue to adjust the fees to maintain this target as the price of BTS changes.

All fees will scale equally so the relative costs will be the same.