Trying to make an Agreement on Lowering Fees

[clayop]

@bytemaster - New Committee Members need support so these issues can be resolved

Absolutely needed.
We need at least six open positions. Now we only have two.

[pc]

FYI, our competitor's fee rate

Bitcoin: $0.03
Ethereum: $0.01
Nubits(?): $0.01

Fees at this price point are unsustainable.

This is the same policy Banks are using to take your money.
ie. Come and bank with us and we will offer you all these free services!

I urge you all to read the small print!

10% fractional reserve
Daily withdraw limits
High international transfer fees

You could list lots of advantages BitShares has over banks.

As for other coins, I prefer a say in the future of my wealth. Control is much more important!
@bytemaster - New Committee Members need support so these issues can be resolved

Straw man argument - BTS will never have fractional reserve, daily limits or high international fees. Please stop that.

The prices quoted by clayop are absolutely sustainable. We need more volume, more liquidity and more TX's. We can handle much higher volume without increasing our cost.
Lower fees -> more users -> more merchants -> more trade volume -> more liquidity -> more traders -> more income
Higher fees -> guess what?

[iHashFury]

FYI, our competitor's fee rate

Bitcoin: $0.03
Ethereum: $0.01
Nubits(?): $0.01

Fees at this price point are unsustainable.

This is the same policy Banks are using to take your money.
ie. Come and bank with us and we will offer you all these free services!

I urge you all to read the small print!

10% fractional reserve
Daily withdraw limits
High international transfer fees

You could list lots of advantages BitShares has over banks.

As for other coins, I prefer a say in the future of my wealth. Control is much more important!
@bytemaster - New Committee Members need support so these issues can be resolved

[clayop]

Right and what will a costumer do here now? Absolutely nothing because you don't have a product or a service to use. At the moment, IMO, BitShres will gain nothing from lower fees because users simply have nothing to do on the platform. They dont have liquidity to trade. Who brings liquidity? Businesses. How? Providing services.
If your read what I said, I mentioned that once we have products costumers could use that we should lower fees based on their experience.

You need to know that liquidity providers don't like high fees also.

They have LM. We can lower a bit of course, but not as much as some people are suggesting. Still, the biggest liquidity providers should be the ones with LM and some kind of business to earn from fees so. We will still get liquidity providers in. Even though, we need more to push liquidity such as businesses and services. We can't survive solely on market makers and low fees. We are not Ripple.

If I were a liquidity provider (outside from the community), I'd rather choose centralized exchanges because the cost is lower. And LTM is another cost.
FYI, our competitor's fee rate

Bitcoin: $0.03
Ethereum: $0.01
Nubits(?): $0.01

[Akado]

Right and what will a costumer do here now? Absolutely nothing because you don't have a product or a service to use. At the moment, IMO, BitShres will gain nothing from lower fees because users simply have nothing to do on the platform. They dont have liquidity to trade. Who brings liquidity? Businesses. How? Providing services.
If your read what I said, I mentioned that once we have products costumers could use that we should lower fees based on their experience.

You need to know that liquidity providers don't like high fees also.

They have LM. We can lower a bit of course, but not as much as some people are suggesting. Still, the biggest liquidity providers should be the ones with LM and some kind of business to earn from fees so. We will still get liquidity providers in. Even though, we need more to push liquidity such as businesses and services. We can't survive solely on market makers and low fees. We are not Ripple.

[clayop]

Right and what will a costumer do here now? Absolutely nothing because you don't have a product or a service to use. At the moment, IMO, BitShres will gain nothing from lower fees because users simply have nothing to do on the platform. They dont have liquidity to trade. Who brings liquidity? Businesses. How? Providing services.
If your read what I said, I mentioned that once we have products costumers could use that we should lower fees based on their experience.

You need to know that liquidity providers don't like high fees also.

[Akado]

Right and what will a costumer do here now? Absolutely nothing because you don't have a product or a service to use. At the moment, IMO, BitShres will gain nothing from lower fees because users simply have nothing to do on the platform. They dont have liquidity to trade. Who brings liquidity? Businesses. How? Providing services.
If your read what I said, I mentioned that once we have products costumers could use that we should lower fees based on their experience.

[clayop]

My take on fees:

Costumers want lower fees. Atm these costumers are bitsharestalk members only.
Businesses need somewhat higher fees.

If we lower fees, we might get some new costumers.
Then they leave because they have nothing to do on the platform. Features are limited.

If we maintain fees, business build more stuff.
People actually won't mind paying fees for a nice service and they will have a multitude of them.

The thing is, you need costumers first, but you won't get costumers not because of the fees. you won't get costumers because the lack of utility 
As we are now, it's completely pointless to lower fees.

It only makes sense if we had something that could bring utility like  Bond or Prediction Markets. That way we already had a product and if actual new users complained about the fees then we should lower them. Until then it doesn't make sense because you will only restrict the ecosystem from developing itself and achieve a variety of products and services.

It's better to have people using products and services and paying a little higher than having people using a platform with lower fees but with no businesses providing services at all. Then the whole platform becomes useless.

Is it that difficult to understand? You say current fees won't attract new users but we don't even have services and products for them to use lol. meaning at this point that is a completely useless argument. only when we have working services and products should we worry about fees.

Do people have a bond market to use yet? no
Prediction market? no
Do market maker bots suffer when they try to provide liquidity? They dont even exist atm and they will obviously have LM and they can adjust their bots, so no problem for them.
When we have, I'm all for this debate as we will have actual real world usage and costumers, people who will actively use those services. At that time that will make sense. But not not. Definitely not now.

I dont even understand why this is beind discussed for so long up until now. It makes zero sense.

People are creating a problem that doesn't exist at this point. Get it right. Don't fix what doesn't need to be fixed, you will only end up breaking it.

You are saying like "Let's provide subsidies to business owners by taxing high on customers"
High fees with referral program may attract some business owners, but so far most of business owners lowered the fee by relocating the subsidy (referral income) to customers. See BTC38 and Yunbi's withdraw fees (10 BTS).
The reason they do is the current fee level is intolerably high for customers. Ignoring these signs may hurt our own business, the BitShares ecosystem.

Have you talk with people in Polo about this topic? If not, try. Business are built on where customers are possibly to go.

[Akado]

My take on fees:

Costumers want lower fees. Atm these costumers are bitsharestalk members only.
Businesses need somewhat higher fees.

If we lower fees, we might get some new costumers.
Then they leave because they have nothing to do on the platform. Features are limited.

If we maintain fees, business build more stuff.
People actually won't mind paying fees for a nice service and they will have a multitude of them.

The thing is, you need costumers first, but you won't get costumers not because of the fees. you won't get costumers because the lack of utility 
As we are now, it's completely pointless to lower fees.

It only makes sense if we had something that could bring utility like  Bond or Prediction Markets. That way we already had a product and if actual new users complained about the fees then we should lower them. Until then it doesn't make sense because you will only restrict the ecosystem from developing itself and achieve a variety of products and services.

It's better to have people using products and services and paying a little higher than having people using a platform with lower fees but with no businesses providing services at all. Then the whole platform becomes useless.

Is it that difficult to understand? You say current fees won't attract new users but we don't even have services and products for them to use lol. meaning at this point that is a completely useless argument. only when we have working services and products should we worry about fees.

Do people have a bond market to use yet? no
Prediction market? no
Do market maker bots suffer when they try to provide liquidity? They dont even exist atm and they will obviously have LM and they can adjust their bots, so no problem for them.
When we have, I'm all for this debate as we will have actual real world usage and costumers, people who will actively use those services. At that time that will make sense. But not not. Definitely not now.

I dont even understand why this is beind discussed for so long up until now. It makes zero sense.

People are creating a problem that doesn't exist at this point. Get it right. Don't fix what doesn't need to be fixed, you will only end up breaking it.

[Akado]

Can't we make two worker proposals to see which one has more votes? 1 for maintaining, other for lowering fees. let the market decide. I understand this might not need a worker proposal since only some parameters would be changed but it's just so we can measure the votes.

Simple as that.

ps. i would maintain the fees as they are

That's another good idea. But you also need to see committee voting result. Bitcrab already got over 123 million votes.
BM's saying he votes for inits for security reasons. I agree. But he is sitting on multiplies voting power and use it without considering other committee members' opinion.

Well that's an interesting topic to tale to a mumble session? Did someone address this? If not, do it next Friday

[pc]

IMO blockchain technology has a USP wrt micro transactions, because the effective cost of a single transfer of value is extremely small. That's why transfer fees should be very low, IMO. A TX fee of USD 0.01-0.02 is sufficient to cover network costs.

For trading, our competitors typically have fees as a percentage of trade volume. I'm not sure what the typical volume of a single trade is - take 0.01% from that as order creation fee, and we're attractive for traders, at least wrt trade cost.

Account creation is more difficult. Is shouldn't be cheap, because accounts are costly to handle. Creation cost is irrelevant for new users, because accounts are created (and paid for) by existing users. Of course there must be a realistic chance for the registrar to recover the account creation cost from the account owner's fees. I'd say ~1 USD is OK.

[clayop]

Can't we make two worker proposals to see which one has more votes? 1 for maintaining, other for lowering fees. let the market decide. I understand this might not need a worker proposal since only some parameters would be changed but it's just so we can measure the votes.

Simple as that.

ps. i would maintain the fees as they are

That's another good idea. But you also need to see committee voting result. Bitcrab already got over 123 million votes.
BM's saying he votes for inits for security reasons. I agree. But he is sitting on multiplies voting power and use it without considering other committee members' opinion.

[clayop]

- lower trading fees
- lower account creation

- keep Referral Program and Lifetime Membership relevant

So you want to keep the fee at $0.2 at the same time lowering the fee? How?

He probably meant he wanted to lower them without jeopardizing LM too much, which in your case (lowering to 3cents), does. He might lower them but not that much? That's my take on it

So I am trying to listen which level of fee he wants, although he seems not want to lower the fee at all.

[Akado]

- lower trading fees
- lower account creation

- keep Referral Program and Lifetime Membership relevant

So you want to keep the fee at $0.2 at the same time lowering the fee? How?

He probably meant he wanted to lower them without jeopardizing LM too much, which in your case (lowering to 3cents), does. He might lower them but not that much? That's my take on it

[clayop]

- lower trading fees
- lower account creation

- keep Referral Program and Lifetime Membership relevant

So you want to keep the fee at $0.2 at the same time lowering the fee? How?