I think the data apparently shows that the 49 exchanges ahead of us don't charge for non filled orders apparently?
Apple launched an iPhone during a time when no one wanted a smart phone. Their phone was more expensive than other phones. Why did people buy their phone?
Their hardware was more expensive than other hardware yet cheaper to make. Why do people buy Macs?
What matters is not what others are doing, but what you can do. Sometimes you can do things others can't because you're doing it different or because you're not those others.
The data we need is data which tracks metrics. A/B testing can reveal a lot. For example if you offer optional ads as the alternative to high fees and most people choose the ads, and or the marketing is not effective, then I would agree. At the moment we have no data because marketing has not even started yet people want to defund it. Shouldn't you first let it run for a few months before determining something needs to be changed?
People are complaining about fees the same month Bitshares 2.0 launched, before the referral program is set up, before marketing has become active. Let it become active and then complain otherwise it looks like a political complaint. If you launch and we find that marketing isn't working very well, or isn't effective, then we would know maybe the cost isn't worth it but what if marketing is very successful and the cost is worth it?
With no metrics to show anything you have a campaign which isn't data driven. So what is driving the desire for lower fees?
Presumably there's a reason they all the follow the same formula & also charge a percentage for trades that are matched. (Which I know is complicated for BTS to do short term)
There is no reason. People who want to trade will trade on any exchange which lets them trade. As long as the fees are reasonable for the demographic and not higher than the highest exchange out there which can compete to do the same thing.
Unlike an ordinary crpyto-exchange, Bitshares does things no other exchange can do. Fees in my opinion should start out high and be slowly reduced over time if referral marketing shows it is not effective but if you don't even have a chance to try it out then you're asking for a reduction in marketing prior to launch which could diminish the chances of success of Bitshares for no gain.
I don't see it as a loss if Bitshare starts out marketed to people who can afford the fees. It works for Apple. Many people in China cannot afford the iPhone 6 even though they make it.
& the feedback has been coming from active traders who are also shareholders in BTS and want to see it succeed. So I don't class that as propaganda/politics.
Their opinions matter, but their opinions aren't based on any evidence, statistics, or data. It's not a data driven opinion. We all have opinions but if we don't test referral marketing how do we know the fees are too high?
Also if you lower the fees in one place you have to raise them in another, yet I see people saying we should make Bitshares 2.0 completely free or to compete on fees. I'd like micropayments too, I'd like developing countries to use the currency features too, but I recognize you need liquidity or none of that will work.
The way to get liquidity is to have marketing appeal to people who can afford to pay the fee. If you can't afford 20 cents per trade then honestly Bitshares isn't going to have what you're looking for. If you want to trade with no fees you can go use Robin Hood and trade real stocks. If you are a high net worth or sophisticated investor I highly doubt you care about 20 cents. If you're going to trade a significant amount of money, as in thousands of dollars, I doubt you care about 20 cents.
Bots care about this but if you look at Chinese exchanges, with lots of bots trading, then maybe you have an explanation for why the fees are seen as too high? But if you use bot appropriately you should be able to hold the peg or make money in Bitshares with the high fees.
So why not just keep the fees high? I don't see what demographic is going to care about the difference between 0.05 and 0.2 usd when trading $50,000 worth of assets a day.
Either way it's a challenging task, charging enough somewhere to make the referral programme lucrative which I believe is needed & making fees competitive with centralised exchanges which I believe are presently our competition. (Though I know you don't think they are. Which is fine, we agree to disagree.)
I don't think Bitshares 2.0 should compete on fees with centralized exchanges. Let them have the cheaper fees and let people make a risk assessment on whether the risk of getting hacked is worth it. After all, they can just trade on centralized exchanges even if Bitshares somehow had zero fees, and there is no evidence that traders choose an exchange based on the fees and not based on security.
I've never once chosen an exchange based on the fees. I care more about the security. After security I care about what assets are on the exchange. After that then I care about fees.
Bitshares can have the sort of exotic assets where it wont even matter to people what the fees are. In fact it might even be a good idea to hide the fees so its not in their face as too high, and just charge for it in the background.
Topic: Let's Lower Trading Fee (Read 10189 times)
