Lowering Transfer Fees

[theredpill]

@fav, Every business do this in order to bootstrap, take look a look this exchange yunbi.com (everything is free for now) once we have the user base we can set the fees UP! I don't understand you people... Is not like this is a frozen parameter.

About the lifetime membership, is gonna work anyway because if you have refereed someone on the ledger is lifetime, that means once we get the fees higher your money is guaranteed, besides of those 0.2% on trades.

If we were a smart startup and have the means we should PAY our users, right now our system have little to zero utility from a user perspective.

[jakub]

the point is - we are not sure where we will find our userbase. So to make the hurdle so high for not so "rich" people it will
not bring them to us.

would it possible to say

a transaction with value <= 1000 BTS you have to pay say 5 BTS
if it is higher the normal transaction fee will be applied

so for the userbase say in Argentina, most of the users has not the need to make lifetimemembership account, but still can use our network. This will not hinder the referral idea.

@bytemaster , will the above idea by Shentist be possible for SmartCoins?
i.e. to have a BTS value threshold below which the transfer fee is very low and above which it is around $0.15 as we have it now.

This way we could:
- create a friendly environment for business based on receiving small tips
- still maintain a solid financial basis for the referral program

Would this require a worker proposal and a hard-fork?

[Musewhale]

good

[gunailei]

i think it is too different to get a conclusion
if team leader luck of intelligence.it would become bad
margin dns and vote make bts lost many user
and high fee would make bts lost more user again
the fact that price almost fall to lowest show we are losting user
if there is no user use it. ,it just a usless code without value.

my last suggestion about fee
adjust fee according to transaction per second
1. if tps <5. fee=2bts
2. if 5<tps<10 ,fee=4bts
3. if 10<tps<20,fee=6bts
4. if 20<tps<40 fee=8bts
5. if 40<tps<80 fee=10 bts
6. if 80<tps<160 fee= 12 bts
7. if 160 <tps<320 fee=14bts
8. if 320<tps<640  fee=16bts
9.if 640 <tps<1280 fee= 18bts
10. if tps>1280 fee=20bts

GOOD IDEA !!!

[BTSdac]

i think it is too different to get a conclusion
if team leader luck of intelligence.it would become bad
margin dns and vote make bts lost many user
and high fee would make bts lost more user again
the fact that price almost fall to lowest show we are losting user
if there is no user use it. ,it just a usless code without value.

my last suggestion about fee
adjust fee according to transaction per second
1. if tps <5. fee=2bts
2. if 5<tps<10 ,fee=4bts
3. if 10<tps<20,fee=6bts
4. if 20<tps<40 fee=8bts
5. if 40<tps<80 fee=10 bts
6. if 80<tps<160 fee= 12 bts
7. if 160 <tps<320 fee=14bts
8. if 320<tps<640  fee=16bts
9.if 640 <tps<1280 fee= 18bts
10. if tps>1280 fee=20bts

[luckybit]

One perspective that I find missing from the fee discussion is the one that can be learned from other successful affiliate systems. The one that I'm familiar with was (years ago) POKER. It's very similar to what we are doing in that:
a) users have to pay high fees and pay often
b) users are primarily attracted by 'liquidity' (availability of other players).

So what happened in the online poker scene was that competition between poker rooms was happening not via low fees but via HIGH fees that the rooms shared with affiliates who in turn shared them with users in the form of bonuses and 'rakeback'.

So I expect all Bitshares affiliates to eventually pay users a substantial percentage of their fees back. From the users perspective he won't be paying any fees, he'll be 'getting paid' for using the BitShares network.

You may think that it's basically a wash, but a better cash flow for affiliates translates to much better exposure of the system to the outside world.

This is one solution I've been thinking about but I think it could work. Referrers could set up lotteries, and other mechanisms, to reward loyal participants.

At the same time people could get paid to view ads, which is ultimately another way of getting paid to play. If people can get paid in enough ways by enough creative mechanisms then the fees wont matter.

[triox]

One perspective that I find missing from the fee discussion is the one that can be learned from other successful affiliate systems. The one that I'm familiar with was (years ago) POKER. It's very similar to what we are doing in that:
a) users have to pay high fees and pay often
b) users are primarily attracted by 'liquidity' (availability of other players).

So what happened in the online poker scene was that competition between poker rooms was happening not via low fees but via HIGH fees that the rooms shared with affiliates who in turn shared them with users in the form of bonuses and 'rakeback'.

So I expect all Bitshares affiliates to eventually pay users a substantial percentage of their fees back. From the users perspective he won't be paying any fees, he'll be 'getting paid' for using the BitShares network.

You may think that it's basically a wash, but a better cash flow for affiliates translates to much better exposure of the system to the outside world.

[tbone]

I think I've discovered a reasonable explanation why the current transaction fees are perceived by some of us here as too high.
We are generally BTS holders and the reason we hold our BTS is because we feel they are actually worth much more than their current market value.

So we perceive spending 20 BTS (and now even 40 BTS) as a significant expense because we take into account the expected future value of BTS.
In other words, in the not-so-far future 40 BTS might be worth much more in terms of fiat than it is now so it feels very expensive. It feels like the we are forced to sacrifice part of our core investment just to make a transaction.
But a non BTS-holder won't necessarily feel this way.

Does it make sense?

EDIT: So my point is that we need to differentiate between the point of view of BTS holders and BTS users.
We, as BTS holders, are likely to be biased because we value our BTS much higher than the outside world.
For an outsider $0.20 might be no big deal but for an insider 40 BTS is a big deal (especially if you are not a whale and every 40 BTS spent now is perceived by you as having e.g. 0.1% of your investment gone).
So let's make this pricing decision rationally, i.e. by doing a market research among people who have never heard of BTS. Because this is the actual pool of our future users.

I think the fear of rising fees due to rising BTS value over time is just part of the problem.  It seems the bigger issue is the reality that some demographics are simply going to have lower average transaction sizes.  With a flat fee that means they will be charged higher rates to move funds.  That's too arbitrary, and it means we'll lose some users that would have been profitable for the network, even if they may not have been as profitable as others.  And we'll lose some businesses whose model depends on a lower than average transaction amount.  Do we really want to lose some users, let alone businesses that would otherwise build on top of Bitshares?  Aren't we're trying to achieve network effect?

So what's the answer?  We just need to use a percentage-based fee.  This way the fee is automatically dynamic and we don't have to keep changing it.   I think we should seriously consider that.  Of course, we'd have to set a minimum fee to discourage spam.  And we should probably have a maximum fee too. I think these parameters can be set at levels that would be sensitive to the different demographics, but without substantially changing the overall income to the network or the referrer/registrar.  Personally I don't see any reason why we shouldn't set the minimum as low as possible, just low enough to ensure the network doesn't get spammed and doesn't lose money on the lower end transfers. 

As for stealth transfers, we should definitely charge more (these may have to be a flat fee?).  And we should charge more for trades.  Although fees for setting and canceling orders should be set just low enough to prevent spam.  And to encourage liquidity providers, a maker/taker pricing model would be sensible.

[bytemaster]

It seems like there is a lot of debate around the transfer fees and this debate is both good and bad.

I expect transfers to make up a relatively small part of BTS transaction types.  The vast majority of the fees will be paid in the market as people place orders.

Rather than having negative PR of "high fees" we can offer Transfers at a lower fee, while maintaining the higher fees for everything else. 

If the transfer fee for normal users is equal to the BTC transfer fee then we cannot be accused of having "high fees".

If we lower the transfer fee from 40 BTS to 5 BTS then transfers will cost the same as bitcoin.   We can keep blind transfers at a higher price and keep market orders at 10 BTS.

It is just a question of asking ourselves what business are we in.    If we are in the exchange business then transfers can be nearly free because we make our money on exchanges.   

Having something that is "cheap" allows us to advertize  "lowest transfer fees of any crypto-currency".   

Thoughts?

i'm a fan of lower transfer fees as i believe our core business are the exchanges. 40 BTS at current market value isn't a big deal, but as we grow there needs to be a dynamic lowering to keep the fiat-equiv value about the same...

Thats the idea, it can change every day if necessary.

[cylonmaker2053]

It seems like there is a lot of debate around the transfer fees and this debate is both good and bad.

I expect transfers to make up a relatively small part of BTS transaction types.  The vast majority of the fees will be paid in the market as people place orders.

Rather than having negative PR of "high fees" we can offer Transfers at a lower fee, while maintaining the higher fees for everything else. 

If the transfer fee for normal users is equal to the BTC transfer fee then we cannot be accused of having "high fees".

If we lower the transfer fee from 40 BTS to 5 BTS then transfers will cost the same as bitcoin.   We can keep blind transfers at a higher price and keep market orders at 10 BTS.

It is just a question of asking ourselves what business are we in.    If we are in the exchange business then transfers can be nearly free because we make our money on exchanges.   

Having something that is "cheap" allows us to advertize  "lowest transfer fees of any crypto-currency".   

Thoughts?

i'm a fan of lower transfer fees as i believe our core business are the exchanges. 40 BTS at current market value isn't a big deal, but as we grow there needs to be a dynamic lowering to keep the fiat-equiv value about the same...

[r0ach]

Fees are too high because the referral system incurs a 400% markup from 5 to 20.  Any legit referral system should only incur something like a 5-30% markup max, not 400%.  Bytemaster wrongfully assumes that it's fine to have this dynamic because you can just "become a member" to lower fees, yet the fee for membership system is WIDLY unpopular amongst any average person in crypto you ask.  They're far more likely to just boycott the system entirely rather than pay any membership fee.  The only solution is to lower the subsidy for the referral system drasically, or abolish it entirely.  The current paradigm does not work whatsoever.

Bytemaster only seems to make decisions under the idea of "What will it take to make Bitshares profitable?" instead of "What will it take for people like r0ach to buy bitshares at all in the first place?".  He's acting like he has a captive audience.  That's not even close to the reality of the situation.  If you add some feature that's repulsive to users, nobody is going to be utilizing that mechanism to make the system profitable because nobody will be using the system at all in the first place!  It will just be an unused thing that sits there.

[Method-X]

I think I've discovered a reasonable explanation why the current transaction fees are perceived by some of us here as too high.
We are generally BTS holders and the reason we hold our BTS is because we feel they are actually worth much more than their current market value.

So we perceive spending 20 BTS (and now even 40 BTS) as a significant expense because we take into account the expected future value of BTS.
In other words, in the not-so-far future 40 BTS might be worth much more in terms of fiat than it is now so it feels very expansive. It feels like the we are forced to sacrifice part of our core investment just to make a transaction.
But a non BTS-holder won't necessarily feel this way.

Does it make sense?

  Spot on.

[liondani]

I think I've discovered a reasonable explanation why the current transaction fees are perceived by some of us here as too high.
We are generally BTS holders and the reason we hold our BTS is because we feel they are actually worth much more than their current market value.

So we perceive spending 20 BTS (and now even 40 BTS) as a significant expense because we take into account the expected future value of BTS.
In other words, in the not-so-far future 40 BTS might be worth much more in terms of fiat than it is now so it feels very expansive. It feels like the we are forced to sacrifice part of our core investment just to make a transaction.
But a non BTS-holder won't necessarily feel this way.

Does it make sense?

[jakub]

I think I've discovered a reasonable explanation why the current transaction fees are perceived by some of us here as too high.
We are generally BTS holders and the reason we hold our BTS is because we feel they are actually worth much more than their current market value.

So we perceive spending 20 BTS (and now even 40 BTS) as a significant expense because we take into account the expected future value of BTS.
In other words, in the not-so-far future 40 BTS might be worth much more in terms of fiat than it is now so it feels very expensive. It feels like the we are forced to sacrifice part of our core investment just to make a transaction.
But a non BTS-holder won't necessarily feel this way.

Does it make sense?

EDIT: So my point is that we need to differentiate between the point of view of BTS holders and BTS users.
We, as BTS holders, are likely to be biased because we value our BTS much higher than the outside world.
For an outsider $0.20 might be no big deal but for an insider 40 BTS is a big deal (especially if you are not a whale and every 40 BTS spent now is perceived by you as having e.g. 0.1% of your investment gone).
So let's make this pricing decision rationally, i.e. by doing a market research among people who have never heard of BTS. Because this is the actual pool of our future users.

[julian1]

This is mind blowing.  You can't judge the fees without the referral system working for several months. No other coin has a mechanism to pay merchants to go to the trouble of educating their user base to pay them in crypto.  We do.  That is unique and it is a chance (not a guarantee) that it we succeed where all other alts have failed.

Geo-pricing is just another level of confusion to add to the worlds most complicated product.  Lets not shall we.