We cannot let a baby to earn money ,about high fee

[dirnet]

I agree with this point of view 

[Musewhale]

We give such suggestions and reasons.
I think BM will make the best decisions.

[Akado]

We should learn from UBER。To think about how to get more users，Instead of thinking about the money on the user.

That's what the referral program is for and it will take it's time. For now the only thing we could do is producing more liquidity i guess. See Nubits bots.

[wuyanren]

We should learn from UBER。To think about how to get more users，Instead of thinking about the money on the user.

[xiahui135]

In the first half of the year, I think we have to lower the charges, to get more customers

The level of fees is not the key

In the past year, our fees are very low, only 0.1bts, but we do not have the user

my good friend, According to your point of view

Should we be further reduced to 0.001bts? LoL:

It is naive and extremely wrong to attract the user's opinion by reducing the fees.   [emoji14] [emoji14] [emoji14]

Low fee maybe will not attract new users.
But high fee surely will not.

Bts 1.0 is not attractive because of the bad experience. People can not manage to use it.

[wuyanren]

Before the CNY transaction is very active, and now the basic no one deal

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Well.. all someone needs to do is submit a worker proposal.. community vote for it.. and we can have it.

Who is this thread directed at? If someone can do the work and submit the proposal that accomplishes it.. it can be done in the next hard fork.

Rather sure its not just a dial we can turn up or down. So if the bitshares community will pay for it we can have it.

[luckybit]

A well funded referral program can bring in new users through marketing. Max Wright is who we should be listening to when it comes to referral marketing because he is a community leader in that space.

But! Any exchange which is currently centralized can switch to decentralized and bring thousands of users over night. They need an incentive to do that.

[liondani]

Are all transactions equal or do some transactions contribute more to revenue than others?
If all transactions are not equal then insignificant transactions could boost the TPS artificially and ruin the metric.

That is why in my version of a similar idea I propose the metric be based around profitability statistics. TPS is based around resource utilization which does matter but it's not the only thing that matters and it can be possibly gamed by bots. It also could create an incentive for people to not want TPS to ever reach a high number?

Instead if it's based around profitability, and fees go down as BTS 2.0 becomes more profitable, there is incentive to make BTS 2.0 as profitable as we can as quickly as we can.

 

[kenCode]

adjust the fee according to TPS value
1. if TPS<=5.                   fee=2bts or $0.01
2. if 5<TPS<=10 ,             fee=4bts or $0.02
3. if 10<TPS<=20,            fee=6bts or $0.03
4. if 20<TPS<=40             fee=8bts or $0.04
5. if 40<TPS<=80             fee=10 bts or $0.05
6. if 80<TPS<=160           fee=12bts or $0.06
7. if 160 <TPS<320          fee=14bts or $0.07
8. if 320<TPS<=640         fee=16bts or $0.08
9.if 640 <TPS<=1280       fee=18bts or $0.09
10. if 1280<TPS<=2560  fee=20bts or $0.10
11. if TPS>2560                fee=40bts or $0.20

I like it. Just like having a dynamic Witness count (instead of fixing it at 17), having a dynamic fee structure makes sense as well.
 

Only then we should worry about the fees. Not now.

I disagree. People need to see the fees up front and then not have to worry about us messing around with it down the road. Mass adoption comes through trust, built over time.
 

it doesn't matter if you have the most advanced technology in the world, if it's of no pratical use. It's not because it's something revolutionary that people will start to use it, if it's not dummy proof.

I agree 100%. BitShares is awesome technology, but getting our parents (or even teens for that matter) to understand it (and want to use it) are a whole different story. These days the UI/UX is what will wow them. Look at Apple.
 
edit: just fyi, i'm so pro-dynamic and anti-static because nature is not static. it is constantly evolving and growing.

[iHashFury]

Do we have stable on/off ramps for CNY, USD and EUR?

I buy a lot of products from China and sell them in the EU. I would like to pay in CNY via bitshares and have my suppliers transfer bitCNY directly to their Chinese bank.

I would also like direct EUR to bitEUR all on the GUI.

So could we give the fees argument a rest and work on simple (in wallet) on/off ramps

[gunailei]

We don't need users?
We don't need orders?
Users use BTS 2.0 until the whole of the exchange(polo btc38 ...) close down?
We can only wait for a long time?
We wait a long time .....no new users.....and....BTS 3.0  4.0  5.0  6.0???

Why most BTS exchange in POLO and BTC38?
BTS2.0 is a super exchange, most BTS need trading in BTS2.0 .
Otherwise BTS2.0 no advantage!

[wuyanren]

bts1.0 of the time, because the user experience is too bad, leading to a decrease in customers. I do not object to high fees, I just think that in the first half, can lower the cost, so that more people can experience the advantages of low-cost BTS. So as to develop a habit

[BTSdac]

Here is a radical idea, how about negative fees aka negative interest? This would function just like dividends would, so that people instead of paying a fee would get paid to make transactions?

Of course BTS 2.0 would have to operate at a deficit but at least we'd get the new users right? Even if they are bots?

A radical idea indeed, but how would you prevent gaming the system by spamming bots?

transaction is not fee,
0.1`bts fee in bts 1.0  ,no one gaming the system by spamming bots , do you think there have man to gaming the system at a higher level fee

[Akado]

In the first half of the year, I think we have to lower the charges, to get more customers

The level of fees is not the key

In the past year, our fees are very low, only 0.1bts, but we do not have the user

my good friend, According to your point of view

Should we be further reduced to 0.001bts? LoL:

It is naive and extremely wrong to attract the user's opinion by reducing the fees.   

I agree with this, the lack of users is not because of high fees. It's because of controversial times we had in the past. I think it's not fair to blame it on the fees or justify people don't use BitShares because of that. It doesn't make sense. We don't have user's in the first place lol you can only say that if we had users and most left because of the fees.

We could reduce fees for placing and cancelling orders, that, I agree, but not after a successful transaction/trade. At least that's not the reason why we don't have new users and we should know that. This is new, give it time to develop, what BitShares needs is not lower fees, it's utility, if we have real world ussage, a motive to be used, people will use BitShares. Only then we should worry about the fees. Not now.

BitShares needs utility, not lower fees. It's stupid to blame it on the fees tbh. Why you may ask? Because it doesn't matter if you have the most advanced technology in the world, if it's of no pratical use. It's not because it's something revolutionary that people will start to use it, if it's not dummy proof.