First Organized Mutually Agreed Proposal

[Xeldal]

-5% It's good that you guys are trying to compromise, but it's not an improvement imo.

Either you're going to gain traction in the payments business using a circa $0.2 transfer fee, particularly to incentivise merchant adoption & referrals.

Or you going to gain initial traction by attracting a userbase first at a much lower transfer fee, so our Chinese community can spread BTS and where the referral programme will still be lucrative. It would also allow Western users to generate much higher referral numbers using the myriad of opportunities present in social media sharing, donating, gifting and tipping (Sharebots.io - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20007.msg257180.html#msg257180 )

So I predict you will get little to no traction in the next 4-6 months, with the constant excuse, that we're waiting to get the product right.
(Merchant acquisition is unlikely to gain traction until competitive payment processor services are in place   - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20023.msg257656.html#msg257656 )

So I would rather get the referral programme and network effect going in China and via social media, thereby generating a useful userbase in the next 4-6 months. (Which will appeal to merchants when everything else is in place. You can in the interim come up with a solution such as percentage payments/merchant identification process that allows you to charge more for payments but less for P2P transfers.)
------------------------------

How is mindphlux a committee member?

Didn't he want to dump his BTS 1.0 on exchanges that hadn't upgraded and on people that obviously weren't aware of the upgrade?

Big mistake. This seems like a half-assed political solution. I like consensus and I'm glad that the committee role functioned well in reaching a decision, but I have a strong feeling this is a temporary solution and we're going to find in a few months that it's wasted precious time. 

I am NOT convinced that:
(1) the low-fee crowd will be happy enough, given that the fees remain higher than they want for them to spread BitShares' use, or that
(2) the system will be profitable enough to drive any real marketing, or that
(3) we are serious about attracting any meaningful trading business, given the fees there.

I would have suggested picking a side and giving one of these groups what it needs to add a ton more users. We even could have pleased two out of three. Instead, what we have is a compromise that does not give any of these groups the tools it needs to succeed. In a few months, we're going to have to change this again, and by then we might be really sorry we wasted this time.

Hey, what's done is done. Everyone should come together now and help promote BitShares.

Low-fee group, are you happy enough? If so, then get out there and bring us some users!

 

Agreed

This doesn't do anyone any good imo.  It appears rushed and arbitrary, and lacks proper justification.

Unless I misunderstand something, don't you need majority for this to even pass.  I see 33% approval at the moment. 

[tonyk]

Nope... I believe you pay this fee any time you create a vesting balance - aka one of the people you referred upgrades to LTM, or you register an asset and you are LTM 

If that was the case, I think fav would know.
He did not tell anything about it.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19961.0.html

[jakub]

Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.

So why don't we lower the transfer fee on CNY only and leave transfer fees for other assets as they are?

[jakub]

Since we set the Scale to 1 (the default value, no shooting in the dark), to not change all the other fees, we had to actually double all the values, that is why you see a lot of changes.

I think this needs to be explained better before we can vote.
(1) Why did you halve some of the values (e.g. "call_order_update") but other were left unchanged (e.g. "asset_update_feed_producers")?
(2) If you say that the scale factor is a shortcut for multiplying all other values: Why in the current configuration we have "scale = 2" and "transfer fee = 40 BTS" and we still pay 40 BTS for transfer, not 2*40=80 BTS?

My point is this: unfortunately CNX has not produced a proper documentation for this stuff yet so until that happens all such changes should by supervised by BM. And I mean "supervised", not "decided".

[lil_jay890]

Big mistake. This seems like a half-assed political solution. I like consensus and I'm glad that the committee role functioned well in reaching a decision, but I have a strong feeling this is a temporary solution and we're going to find in a few months that it's wasted precious time. 

I am NOT convinced that:
(1) the low-fee crowd will be happy enough, given that the fees remain higher than they want for them to spread BitShares' use, or that
(2) the system will be profitable enough to drive any real marketing, or that
(3) we are serious about attracting any meaningful trading business, given the fees there.

I would have suggested picking a side and giving one of these groups what it needs to add a ton more users. We even could have pleased two out of three. Instead, what we have is a compromise that does not give any of these groups the tools it needs to succeed. In a few months, we're going to have to change this again, and by then we might be really sorry we wasted this time.

Hey, what's done is done. Everyone should come together now and help promote BitShares.

Low-fee group, are you happy enough? If so, then get out there and bring us some users!

Agree...

Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.

As a committee member he should realize compromise != smart business.

[santaclause102]

How difficult would it be to peg the tx fee that is paid in bts to a fixed amount of us cents (or maybe even to a fixed amaount of us cents, yuan cents, euro cents etc.)?

[Bhuz]

Has anyone looked at the code to confirm what the bug is?

BM has not replied yet.

[roadscape]

Since we set the Scale to 1 (the default value, no shooting in the dark), to not change all the other fees, we had to actually double all the values, that is why you see a lot of changes.

Has anyone looked at the code to confirm what the bug is?

[donkeypong]

Big mistake. This seems like a half-assed political solution. I like consensus and I'm glad that the committee role functioned well in reaching a decision, but I have a strong feeling this is a temporary solution and we're going to find in a few months that it's wasted precious time. 

I am NOT convinced that:
(1) the low-fee crowd will be happy enough, given that the fees remain higher than they want for them to spread BitShares' use, or that
(2) the system will be profitable enough to drive any real marketing, or that
(3) we are serious about attracting any meaningful trading business, given the fees there.

I would have suggested picking a side and giving one of these groups what it needs to add a ton more users. We even could have pleased two out of three. Instead, what we have is a compromise that does not give any of these groups the tools it needs to succeed. In a few months, we're going to have to change this again, and by then we might be really sorry we wasted this time.

Hey, what's done is done. Everyone should come together now and help promote BitShares.

Low-fee group, are you happy enough? If so, then get out there and bring us some users!

[Bhuz]

Since we set the Scale to 1 (the default value, no shooting in the dark), to not change all the other fees, we had to actually double all the values, that is why you see a lot of changes.

[roadscape]

I updated the display on cryptofresh to get a better view into the proposed changes..
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.14

There's a *lot* parameters being changed, I'd prefer to see much smaller/cleaner proposals.

I wouldn't change the scale until the vesting issue is looked at.. feels like shooting in the dark otherwise

And price_per_kb fees get scaled, right? If that's the case, you guys are changing those too and there's been no community discussion on it yet

edit:

And congratulations to the new committee members.. but please make sure changes are minimal, methodical, gradual, & representative of the community's needs

[Bhuz]

...You can in the interim come up with a solution such as percentage payments/merchant identification process that allows you to charge more for payments but less for P2P transfers

This is basically the #1 BM's proposal that the community made him to retract.

That could solve all these problems imo

[jakub]

What about this idea by merivercap?

I'd like to keep bitUSD transfer fees the same.  Can we make transfer fees for bitCNY lower and keep bitEuro and BitUSD the same?  I'm sure it's hard to implement regional pricing, but doing it by currency type might be good for now.

It's been discussed in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20038.msg257756.html#msg257756
It seems to make a lot of sense by addressing the root of the problem (i.e. regional differences) and nobody so far has found any flaw in it.

[Bhuz]

Nope... I believe you pay this fee any time you create a vesting balance - aka one of the people you referred upgrades to LTM, or you register an asset and you are LTM 

If that was the case, I think fav would know.
He did not tell anything about it.

[Bhuz]

Are any of the committee members actually reading the forums at least. [Apparently they are not reading the parameters they vote on for sure]

          

Re: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20069.msg257882.html#msg257882


 

Hi tonyk,

that fee was setted by BM and was never changed, so it is still on his default value.
Since is not very clear what that fee is for, and we don't want to cause some issue, we are waiting for a clarification from BM himself before make any other kind of change.