We need reasonable fee rate

[bitsharesbrazil]

I think the transfer fee is nice less than 1 cent right?
The fee for trading just need to be better than most centrilized exchanges..... Competitive, a incentive, not ridicolous lower because the point is being decentrilised...safety........ That is why i think smartcoin is the point, the value is in bts n smartcoins......we need to need bts without being racist with other assets that helps to promote dex
I really love bts blockchain

[testz]

I dont understand the math, but i think people should have a cheaper way to trade n transfer than bitcoin, bitcoin fee expensive, exchanges not that cheap.....so considering this do the math n try to get the liquidity

You comment old topic, the fee already lowered. All fees you can check here: http://cryptofresh.com/fees

[bitsharesbrazil]

I dont understand the math, but i think people should have a cheaper way to trade n transfer than bitcoin, bitcoin fee expensive, exchanges not that cheap.....so considering this do the math n try to get the liquidity

[clayop]

IMHO, people buy lifetime membership not only because they want to decrease the fees, but also they think our product is valuable and they are going to use our system for the rest of their life.

High fee is certainly generate more profit per transaction. However, if people think this high fee system is not attractive, that is due to high fees other people will leave, they won't buy lifetime membership.

[xiahui135]

High fees mean that BTS will not be used for certain high-volume, low-value transfers... aka: micro-payments.

To compare the difference between high-fees and low-fees simply compare the number of transfers on BTS 1.0 to BTS 2.0.   We don't have enough data yet to do a meaningful comparison, but it would be a good start.

I would venture than 90% or more of the transfers are TO/FROM exchanges for amounts greater than $20 and thus less than 1% is going to fees from transfers.

The question isn't "what does it cost", but "what is the value provided". 

The fees are only high for non-lifetime members.   The fees are CHEAPER than BTC for lifetime members.   

So if someone has demand for over 625 transfers they can buy in "bulk" by getting a lifetime membership, which is what we want users to do.

This means the real argument is whether or not lowering the price for users who only do a few transfers will increase the number of users by enough to compensate for the losses from those who are OK with the fees.

Transferring connect people.  90% of transfers are form\to exchange are problem we have to solve. The team build the 2.0 system is to attract people to use it.

Also the fee is expensive for life-time members. 2 bts fee to place an order is expensive when we will place and cancel orders frequently.

I suggest lower the transfer\place and cancel order fee. The only limit is the system capacity. so a low fee like range form 0.001 bts to 100 bts is ok, according to the tx/s.

As the referral program, it is an excellent idea.  we can raise the order match fee to make up the low fee of transfer.   Like 0.05% fee for normal users, and life-time member accordingly is 0.01%.  Or 50 bts per success-match for normal users, and accordingly 10 bts per success-match for life time members.

[bitcrab]

Daniel, I understand that we need to get revenues from customers to make BTS sustainable, however how to charge really matters.

China and US are different, you can see that eBay and alibaba have different charging policies, users in China used to enjoy free/low fee fundamental services, even 8BTS fee is hard to accept for them, however, I believe many of them would like to pay 10000BTS to buy a lifetime membership. right, even the transfer fee is 5BTS they also want buy a lifetime membership.

having checked the discussions, I feel the regional based pricing may solve the problem, it is possible a solution by most of the community members and get most consensus.

as I replied in another thread, the regional based pricing can be like this:

set 5BTS as a minimum transfer fee, transfer of BTS, CNY and some other assets need only to pay this minimum fee.
transfer of USD and some other assets need to pay $0.2. 
placing/cancel orders: 5BTS

I think this can be accepted by most users and make the referral program senseful at the same time.

[bytemaster]

The previous post assumes that the product being sold is transfer services.   If the product being sold is BTS then the transaction fees are not the only source of "revenue".

So there are two ways to sell BTS.   

1. You should buy some because it is cheap to USE and manipulate
2. You should buy some because it earns a profit every year

However, when it comes to user issued assets there is almost no gain in value to BTS as a result of that assets use.   

[bytemaster]

I would venture than 90% or more of the transfers are TO/FROM exchanges for amounts greater than $20 and thus less than 1% is going to fees from transfers.

The fees are only high for non-lifetime members.   The fees are CHEAPER than BTC for lifetime members.   

So if someone has demand for over 625 transfers they can buy in "bulk" by getting a lifetime membership, which is what we want users to do.

This means the real argument is whether or not lowering the price for users who only do a few transfers will increase the number of users by enough to compensate for the losses from those who are OK with the fees.

fees are not cheaper than BTC for lifetime members.
0.0001BTC = $0.028 < $0.2*20%.
don't tell me BTC has inflation, inflation are for each holder, whether you do transaction or not.
and lifetime members need wait for the cashback.
and lifetime members need to pay the fees to upgrade.

high fees will make unexpected trouble, for me, 41 new accounts are created for CDP after import, to close these accounts I need to pay many BTSs. not sure whether other unexpected trouble will come.

as Elmato said, $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable. for my project - the gateway transwiser.com, it is still viable, but I feel I need to do some change, I need to get at least 2 lifetime members and change some rules, even so I think some customers will leave because the high fee.

according to the design of the referral program, most of the members should be common members and they contribute to the referrer, common users should have an acceptable fee so new user can use BTS for a long time before deciding to upgrade to lifetime members. they should not be forced to decide to upgrade or to leave in short time.

BTS1.0 is hard to use, so it do not attract mainstream enough, now BTS2.0 is awesome and have more chance to get adopted, it will be regret if the high fee scare potential customers away.

 I feel lower fees will make the referral program work more well, but I have no scientific proof, let's observe and reason and adjust accordingly.

Giant Crab, I am very sympathetic to your position.   We all want businesses that can charge low fees so we can gain users.

So lets actually crunch some numbers to see what kind of income we need to make BitShares sustainable. 

The VALUE of a lifetime membership is based upon the expected number of transactions times the cost per transaction.   If BTS were used like paypal or dwolla that on average each user makes 2 transfers per week, but the average is only that high because some users do 100+ per day while the vast majority do a couple transfers per month.   So a paypal-like user using BTS to actually buy things will make at most 20 transfers per year.  At Bitcoin pricing that is a total of $0.40 of income to the network per year.    At BTS pricing that is $4 per year. 

The total cost to operate the network (pay the witnesses) is $65,000 per year.   This would require 157,680 users at BTC pricing.

We know the average cost to acquire a user is much higher.  Paypal and Dwolla paid $10 or more per user to acquire.   BTS has similar costs to acquire users.   If each one of these users costs $10 to acquire and earning $0.40 per year from them is all we can expect then the network will not be able to grow.

This means that we need expected revenue from a new user to be high enough to justify spending money to find the users.    Some people want to build businesses on top of BTS and thus BTS transaction fees are seen as an expense / friction to their business.   Ultimately these businesses need to make money on their own.  If we assume BTS had 0 transaction fees, those businesses would still need to acquire customers at a cost of $10+ per customer.   Those costs would still need to be passed on to the customer or the business will fail.

Centralized businesses can monetize their customers via ads or other systems.  The blockchain cannot.   If a business can generate the income necessary to cover the cost of acquiring users then it can pass some of that income on to the blockchain to cover the blockchains cost of acquiring new users. 

What this means is that if users sign up via your service, that you will be receiving 80% of their fees and that you can refund all of it back to your users.  It also means you can create a UIA and set a CORE exchange rate that is very favorable (subsidizing the users fees). 

The conclusion is that these "potential businesses" that are not viable at BTS fees or via some of the workarounds described above are not viable in the first place.   The number of users they will garner will be small unless there is enough revenue generated from each user to easily pay BTS fees and more.   

[bitcrab]

I would venture than 90% or more of the transfers are TO/FROM exchanges for amounts greater than $20 and thus less than 1% is going to fees from transfers.

The fees are only high for non-lifetime members.   The fees are CHEAPER than BTC for lifetime members.   

So if someone has demand for over 625 transfers they can buy in "bulk" by getting a lifetime membership, which is what we want users to do.

This means the real argument is whether or not lowering the price for users who only do a few transfers will increase the number of users by enough to compensate for the losses from those who are OK with the fees.

fees are not cheaper than BTC for lifetime members.
0.0001BTC = $0.028 < $0.2*20%.
don't tell me BTC has inflation, inflation are for each holder, whether you do transaction or not.
and lifetime members need wait for the cashback.
and lifetime members need to pay the fees to upgrade.

high fees will make unexpected trouble, for me, 41 new accounts are created for CDP after import, to close these accounts I need to pay many BTSs. not sure whether other unexpected trouble will come.

as Elmato said, $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable. for my project - the gateway transwiser.com, it is still viable, but I feel I need to do some change, I need to get at least 2 lifetime members and change some rules, even so I think some customers will leave because the high fee.

according to the design of the referral program, most of the members should be common members and they contribute to the referrer, common users should have an acceptable fee so new user can use BTS for a long time before deciding to upgrade to lifetime members. they should not be forced to decide to upgrade or to leave in short time.

BTS1.0 is hard to use, so it do not attract mainstream enough, now BTS2.0 is awesome and have more chance to get adopted, it will be regret if the high fee scare potential customers away.

 I feel lower fees will make the referral program work more well, but I have no scientific proof, let's observe and reason and adjust accordingly.


 

[fav]

High fees mean that BTS will not be used for certain high-volume, low-value transfers... aka: micro-payments.

To compare the difference between high-fees and low-fees simply compare the number of transfers on BTS 1.0 to BTS 2.0.   We don't have enough data yet to do a meaningful comparison, but it would be a good start.

I would venture than 90% or more of the transfers are TO/FROM exchanges for amounts greater than $20 and thus less than 1% is going to fees from transfers.

The question isn't "what does it cost", but "what is the value provided". 

The fees are only high for non-lifetime members.   The fees are CHEAPER than BTC for lifetime members.   

So if someone has demand for over 625 transfers they can buy in "bulk" by getting a lifetime membership, which is what we want users to do.

This means the real argument is whether or not lowering the price for users who only do a few transfers will increase the number of users by enough to compensate for the losses from those who are OK with the fees.

  thanks for the reasoning.

go to bitsharesblocks.com and check random blocks, tell me if you see more than 1 tx if any.

[bytemaster]

High fees mean that BTS will not be used for certain high-volume, low-value transfers... aka: micro-payments.

To compare the difference between high-fees and low-fees simply compare the number of transfers on BTS 1.0 to BTS 2.0.   We don't have enough data yet to do a meaningful comparison, but it would be a good start.

I would venture than 90% or more of the transfers are TO/FROM exchanges for amounts greater than $20 and thus less than 1% is going to fees from transfers.

The question isn't "what does it cost", but "what is the value provided". 

The fees are only high for non-lifetime members.   The fees are CHEAPER than BTC for lifetime members.   

So if someone has demand for over 625 transfers they can buy in "bulk" by getting a lifetime membership, which is what we want users to do.

This means the real argument is whether or not lowering the price for users who only do a few transfers will increase the number of users by enough to compensate for the losses from those who are OK with the fees.

[Moon]

nice , bm should take a look

[jakub]

We need to let the users enjoy to transfer/trade, if users hate to transfer/trade there's no way to build a well formed ecosystem, and nowhere to generate profit.

The essential question here is this : why do users "hate to transfer/trade"?
There are two possibilities:
(1) They already have a reason to transfer/trade but the transaction fees make them think twice and as a result most of them end up not doing it.
(2) They don't have a reason to transfer/trade in the first place.

If (1) is true we should definitely lower the fees.
If (2) is true we should FIRST give the users a reason to transfer/trade and ONLY THEN consider situation (1)

This is pure logic.

To give people a reason to transfer/trade we need two things:
(a) liquidity (for trading)
(b) merchants actually selling products & services for SmartCoins (for transfers)

To achieve (a) we need:
- good  trading UI
- stable & clear & well explained rules for shorting

To achieve (b) we need:
- the referral program practically working (so that merchants are attracted with extra income)
- the recurring & scheduled payments practically working (so that merchants have a unique functionality unavailable elsewhere)

[fav]

here's the current discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19296.0.html

I would recommend you to make a committee account and vote to change the fees.

[bitcrab]

present my opinion at first:

1. the fee should be high enough to protect users from spamming blockchain.
2. the fee should be low enough to encourage users to transfer/trade without too much worry.
3. the referral program is ok, however the fee rate should be determined based on more research and consideration.
4. $0.005~$0.04 for each transfer should fit.

the referral program is built to balance CAC and LTV for a well formed business model, this is really interesting idea however more details need to be checked exactly while implementing it.

the LTV comes from the fees the new users pay, it depend on the transactions the users complete and the fee for each transaction. below diagram shows clearly that not high fee rate, but medium fee rate bring the highest LTV.


so is $0.2 for each transfer high or low? to get a conclusion need some research, however now what we can see is the very low transaction volume, users are discouraged to transfer,clearly.



we need to let the users enjoy to transfer/trade, if users hate to transfer/trade there's no way to build a well formed ecosystem, and nowhere to generate profit.

I found below sentences in Bitshares blog, seems it explains the logic behind the high fee policy:

"While low fees are important, undervaluing the service provided is counter productive. For this reason, BitShares charges a price that is much higher than competing cryptocurrencies but much lower than traditional exchanges and payment networks like Dwolla or PayPal."

if low fee means undervaluing the service provided, then I do not agree the logic presented above, apparently BTS is awesome and referral program is ok, but as shown above, high fee not necessarily bring high revenues, PayPal charge high however Alipay are free but they both provide high value service, users from China, North America hate high fee and I think US users do not hate low fee,in Internet service area it's trend to charge low in fundamental service but charge high in advanced service, and create new ways convert traffic to revenue.

recently, many show their happiness for the reduction in BTS supply, however I fall in different feelings, these days in BTS relevant QQ groups the most frequently sent expression is "hug together and cry", many users show their disappointment and confusion, very rare transfer occured after the launch of 2.0,  I think not only users in China, but also users around the world, including US users feel alike, otherwise the very low transaction volume can not be explained.

all these factors should be considered, and research need to be done to find the right fee rate to make a balance. in my opinion $0.2 is too high, $0.005~$0.03 is more reasonable, medium and acceptable, and seems to generate the highest revenues, hope more data can be collected to suggest.