Author Topic: Worker Proposal Review  (Read 48145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Sounds good. It might be good if the receiver pays the fees but the referral income goes to the senders referrer.

What, what what? How is this working, exactly?

I think now when Bob sends to John, Bob pays the fee and Bob's referrer gets the income but they are considering changing it...

Quote
transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.  This means merchants will see the fees (which will be much less than credit cards) but users will not.


If we change to Bob sends to John, John pays the fee and John's referrer gets the income then we change the incentives a bit from signing up regular users (medium senders) to signing up merchants (high volume receivers) 

However if we change to Bob sends to John, John pays the fee, but BTS sees it was sent by Bob and & gives Bob referrers the referral income, then it still keeps a bit of the incentive to sign up regular users.  While if John upgrades to an LTM those fees go to John's refferer so there is still a big incentive to sign up merchants and upgrade them. 

Provided the minimum transfer size is greater than the maximum transfer fee. I think it works.

I don't know though, there could be a simple reason why this dumb  :-[

So before John's upgrade the Bob's referrers get the fees (well cut of them). After John's upgrade his  referrers get the same fees.
Bob will never upgrade, that part is clear. But why will John do it? Is it a 2 level  marketing? If you mean they get just 80% of his upgrade fee ->
For the Bob's referrer - finding customers that shop at non upgraded merchants (assuming the upgrade makes sense for merchants and is 100 bucks? is not very...profitable business)

« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 02:55:23 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Back to proposal #2:

I do not agree that giving the committee members their own personal "slush fund" is a good idea. Regardless of whether there is some direct voting system involved in spending these funds (which doesn't seem to be outlined in the proposal), it seems to add another needless level of complexity in determining how BitShares spends its reserve pool/income from fees. Not to mention it could undermine the whole system of checks & balances we are trying to achieve with DPOS 2.0.

So that said - regarding volume based fees on SmartCoin trading -  what if keep the 80/20 split with the referral program (so that this is not further undermined), but we automatically take the network 20% and liquidate at the feed price? Would this be too much of a burden on shorts?

If we did this, it would allow the network to receive all of its fee income as the core BTS token. It could all go back into the current reserve pool, and we would not have to deal with giving the committee members (an unpaid "political" position) the burden/responsibility of figuring out how to spend the network's funds. This would continue to be solely the responsibility of workers, by popular vote.

 +5%  I never really understood this committee thing.

I thought only witnesses get paid, the network keeps the rest and if you want any of it you need to get a worker proposal voted in. I don't know where needing a committee falls into that.
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Back to proposal #2:

I do not agree that giving the committee members their own personal "slush fund" is a good idea. Regardless of whether there is some direct voting system involved in spending these funds (which doesn't seem to be outlined in the proposal), it seems to add another needless level of complexity in determining how BitShares spends its reserve pool/income from fees. Not to mention it could undermine the whole system of checks & balances we are trying to achieve with DPOS 2.0.

So that said - regarding volume based fees on SmartCoin trading -  what if keep the 80/20 split with the referral program (so that this is not further undermined), but we automatically take the network 20% and liquidate at the feed price? Would this be too much of a burden on shorts?

If we did this, it would allow the network to receive all of its fee income as the core BTS token. It could all go back into the current reserve pool, and we would not have to deal with giving the committee members (an unpaid "political" position) the burden/responsibility of figuring out how to spend the network's funds. This would continue to be solely the responsibility of workers, by popular vote.
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Sounds good. It might be good if the receiver pays the fees but the referral income goes to the senders referrer.

What, what what? How is this working, exactly?

I think now when Bob sends to John, Bob pays the fee and Bob's referrer gets the income but they are considering changing it...

Quote
transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.  This means merchants will see the fees (which will be much less than credit cards) but users will not.


If we change to Bob sends to John, John pays the fee and John's referrer gets the income then we change the incentives a bit from signing up regular users (medium senders) to signing up merchants (high volume receivers) 

However if we change to Bob sends to John, John pays the fee, but BTS sees it was sent by Bob and & gives Bob referrers the referral income, then it still keeps a bit of the incentive to sign up regular users.  While if John upgrades to an LTM those fees go to John's refferer so there is still a big incentive to sign up merchants and upgrade them. 

Provided the minimum transfer size is greater than the maximum transfer fee. I think it works.

I don't know though, there could be a simple reason why this dumb  :-[

 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 02:39:32 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.

Of course we are interested. But this is a fucking painful process. While trying to bring funds to bitshares last week, I checked many options. I even found a bitcoin ATM in a grocery store next to my block. What a useless machine. Coinbase looks to be the only suitable way to buy bitcoins, but then you need to convert them to BTS on another exchange with almost zero liquidity. So, to deposit funds to exchange you need to go to another exchange and another exchange. Is not this ridiculous?

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Sounds good. It might be good if the receiver pays the fees but the referral income goes to the senders referrer.

What, what what? How is this working, exactly?
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
A dollar denominated pay is fair for everyone, both the founding team and the shareholders. They get their assured payment and the shareholders know that the current price has not been manipulated by them to grab extra BTS. I wonder what is the reason that they do not want to accept that.

Yeah obviously shareholders choose dollar denominated pay. I'm sure that won't be a problem as the jobs are priced in dollars & that's how BM is promoting it.

Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements.  Just $90 per day.

If BTS goes higher shareholders got a good deal. If BTS goes much lower then we're pretty f**** anyway :)

As for the price for the work, I'm not really able to judge what it should cost. Unless BitSapphire is still around, I'm not sure who else could do it.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 02:16:57 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit

What I think is people need to be able to do something with their money in 2.0 They can keep their money safe, ok, that's good, but what else?

What people need the most is an easy way of bringing fiat money into/out of bitshares. Right now, being in US and having wages payed in USD, the only way to bring money into bitshares is to buy bitcoins first through coinbase, or bitcoin ATM, or some other shitty way, because there is no good and reliable way to do this. Then you need to exchange your bitcoins to bitashares assets through another centralized exchange on a market with almost no liquidity. At each stage you suffer fees and slippage and waste your time. This is absolutely not ok.

If you want to bring money into Bitshares bring value into the tokens and they'll be worth more. You don't actually need to buy the tokens for them to acquire more value.  Let Bitcoin be the token people buy with cash, but then you have Safecoin, you have Storj, you have Ether, and a bunch of tokens which can be backed by apps or by resources, so you don't even need to do anything other than earn them directly.

Of course having money go in and out in USD is convenient but it's not necessary, it's just convenient. Not every exchange has USD. In fact I would think you should look more to China and Europe than to focusing on USD. People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Please specifiy if I'm correct understanding this:

The document states:

Quote
Specifically, some businesses building on top of BitShares as a payment network (rather than exchange) depend upon transfer fees to generate their revenue.   Because this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.  This means merchants will see the fees (which will be much less than credit cards) but users will not.

Sounds good. It might be good if the receiver pays the fees but the referral income goes to the senders referrer.

A high percentage of merchants would get LTM's, giving a large incentive to sign merchants. The smaller percentage of merchants/high receivers not on LTM's would generate income for marketers who signed up regular users.

Most merchants still want the services of a payment processor. (Who lets them accept crypto and pays them fiat into their account.)

So consider calling a processor like Coinify (Who accepts 16 cryptos and serves 7500 merchants) & ask about BTS integration and feedback on the fee structure. (GoCoin is also a large payment processor who accepts Doge & LTC and has 10 000+ merchants)
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
We want take on other exchanges. Well, i am not a trader, but rather a saver so this post isnt about the intricacies of the trading page. I'man average joe and i suggest that first impressions count. It seems to me usability is one of the main issues. Adam Levine said exactly that in his opening comment.

Let me remind you of the look and feel of the hosted web wallet : https://wallet.bitshares.org

Login page



Trading



Backup



My own opinion is whilst the Devs have givenus something truely great in Graphene, i'm not sure the front end is polished.I know some people like it, but i just dont think it looks as polished as someone like Coinbase. Put a poll out there to non-bitshares users and ask what the perception is in terms of usability. I think we have taken a giant leap forward in terms of the backend, but not in terms of the GUI. (sorry ;)

I would really like to see this addressed in 3.0 ;)

Offline NotSmart

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
I for one can't believe Cryptonomex is going to get rid of the licensing for only 10mil bts. 

Thats because you are unable to realize that the current climate is a non-starter and it results in their own significant holdings becoming more and more worthless with every passing minute. They need to have the startups who want to provide services to get it for free, otherwise nothing is going to happen.


A dollar denominated pay is fair for everyone, both the founding team and the shareholders. They get their assured payment and the shareholders know that the current price has not been manipulated by them to grab extra BTS. I wonder what is the reason that they do not want to accept that.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 01:35:45 am by NotSmart »

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
You guys are crazy... I for one can't believe Cryptonomex is going to get rid of the licensing for only 10mil bts.  And they are going to develop the API for 3rd parties to use on different trading interfaces.  This is insanely good.  Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Offline theredpill

Then if the asset paid is not BTS the network could automatically auction that asset to the better bid in lets say 10h period and then split the money to the referal program
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 12:15:09 am by theredpill »

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile

What I think is people need to be able to do something with their money in 2.0 They can keep their money safe, ok, that's good, but what else?

What people need the most is an easy way of bringing fiat money into/out of bitshares. Right now, being in US and having wages payed in USD, the only way to bring money into bitshares is to buy bitcoins first through coinbase, or bitcoin ATM, or some other shitty way, because there is no good and reliable way to do this. Then you need to exchange your bitcoins to bitashares assets through another centralized exchange on a market with almost no liquidity. At each stage you suffer fees and slippage and waste your time. This is absolutely not ok.

Offline Pheonike


This is Bitshares,  we don't believe in "Simple".