Can we solve the fee dispute udder the committee infrastructure?

[Xeldal]

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money.

This is not always true.  bitcoin for example has a fee that is always increasing so long as the price of BTC is increasing.  The fees of bitcoin at $1 /BTC were much lower than they are now.

setting a fee now of 20 BTS or $.08, later as price moves up, fee is kept the same 20BTS, but now collecting $.20 fee.  so fee has technically gone up but has also not changed.

I believe there are creative ways of changing the fee structure that will not change the overall collected fees.  for example a percentage based fee would allow for cheaper small transfers and would be more expensive for larger transfers.   the collected fees for a referrer would on average be the same and would allow smaller transactions to remain viable as well as accommodate regional cost of living differences.   

[wallace]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

your owner already have a lot of customers, he just don't want to lost it, right?

our problem is we have no users now. we need new users, this is totally different from your example.

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money. So the example still stand.

Lower Fees does not necessarily equal more users too. Whenever an institution makes sweeping changes like Bitshares did, there is an inevitable "freeze" in the user base who try to wrap their mind around the new platform...some, like me, are still trying to import their funds.

No, the fee priced by BTS, not USD, if the BTS price increased, the fee icreased as well, if the BTS price go up, people don't mind to keep the same BTS fee. and if the BTS price is higher enough, we can decrease the BTS fee but actually fee value increased.

I always said we need strategy. firstly we need users, next is to keep it. we have a Competitive product maybe the best in crypto world and we must have lots of way to keep the users.

[rgcrypto]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

your owner already have a lot of customers, he just don't want to lost it, right?

our problem is we have no users now. we need new users, this is totally different from your example.

The point is that price increase later down the road is quasi impossible for people to swallow. So if you train people to pay low fees then it's tough to convince them they should pay more down the road if it proves uneconomical and we  are losing money. So the example still stand.

Lower Fees does not necessarily equal more users too. Whenever an institution makes sweeping changes like Bitshares did, there is an inevitable "freeze" in the user base who try to wrap their mind around the new platform...some, like me, are still trying to import their funds.

[Xeldal]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

I agree, we must take our time here.  No need to rush and appear whimsical, unfounded, and unstable.  There are many markets and many people with different perspectives and ideas. 

It is also not helpful for people to simply dismiss these talks as annoying or belabored as some are apt to do.  Fees are clearly an issue and deserve a fair discussion until we are all blue in the face if need be.  Honestly, if someone is not open to further patient discussion, IMO they have no business being a committee member.

I personally see good reason in supporting small transactions with lower than 50% fees.  I also see reason in providing great incentive for building referral businesses marketed to average transfer customers.   I understand there are difficulties in setting prices on a global scale due to regional pricing, cost of living, social and cultural differences.  I believe there is a solution that is functional and equitable for all parties.  Lets figure it out.

[lil_jay890]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

Agree... We can not possibly come to consensus when most of our committee member are still inits.

I am still in favor of keeping the fee's at $.15-$.20... I would prefer the fees change in bts terms dynamically as the value of bts changes.

[wallace]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

your owner already have a lot of customers, he just don't want to lost it, right?

our problem is we have no users now. we need new users, this is totally different from your example.

[rgcrypto]

I would highly suggest people to take their time and not rush this issue.

When I was working as a baker I remember that time when the price of flour almost doubled. The owner had a problem...he couldn't raise his price without losing clients. He had to reduce the weight of each piece of bread to make up the difference.

Once we lower fees, we can't go back without risking losing the users we gained at that lower price. This could mean trouble down the line if cost rises.

So please, let's not rush this issue, let's have a town-hall meeting where the community can see all sides being debated and fill the committee member slots before making such a radical decision.

[bitcrab]

in BTS2.0 one of committee's tasks is to define some business parameters, including transaction and trading fees. now the argue on fee has lasted for long time, why not get a conclusion via a vote by committee?

I understand the referral businesses need to keep a high fee. however these merchants are not the only BTS relevant part that need to be cared, and I am not sure what kind of success they can get, but what I can feel everyday is that the China community stop growing, and even begin to shrink, one of the main factors is the high fee. surely traders, market makers and common users need lowering fee, their benefits must also be considered.

then why don't we let the committee do something and reach a conclusion that can balance all sides?

clayop has draft a proposal 1.10.13, its content is to decrease the transfer fee from 40 BTS to 9 BTS, however seems referrals are strongly against this proposal.

in my view, if you have some opinion to a proposal, you should become an active committee member or find one committee member that can represent you and set him/her as your proxy. and let the votes tell the majority's opinion.

we need more active committee members to fill the slots, and these committee members should represent different parties, please take action, if you need to add you shares to some opinion.

someone defined what clayop did recently as "craziness", said this will break up the community. but behind clayop and I is a big community. clayop just expressed the common opinion of this community.

I understand sometimes we need compromise in committee game, committee members need to totally understand the BTS business and the road map and then vote wisely.

I know that many referral businessmen are against proposal 1.10.13, ok if you think 9 BTS is too low, how about 20 BTS, if you are still not satisfied, how about 30 BTS?

actually clayop and I are prepared to draft an alternative proposal, let's call it "proposal B", its content is to decrease the transfer fee to 30 BTS.

maybe someone will say, 30 and 40 has no big difference, is it really necessary to do such a change?

I say yes, we need to give the people some hope, to convince them their benefits are not ignored, and the committee can really decide something. and BTS is not centrally controlled.

and we can give referral businesses several months to grow up, and then discuss and decide what's the next direction to go, either increasing fee or decreasing fee is ok, if the majority agree.

is this OK?