Author Topic: First Organized Mutually Agreed Proposal  (Read 19419 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
"imaginary new customers"
where would we be without them?
 

I would imagine way lower...if they can imagine what they are getting into.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
I agree, the imaginary new customers are more important.

where would we be without them?  btw my imaginary gfriend is way hotter than my irl gfriend.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
well some votes are coming out...before it is time to vote on this.

thanks for taking "me losing money" to heart committee members...

I agree, the imaginary new customers are more important.





Special thanks to @clayop for selling his tip 30 min after receiving it  ...despite the unbearable fees he had to suffer through, to do so !!!!!!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 06:38:56 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Bitcrab and BTSdac, what about making BitCNY transfers much cheaper? Would that help?

may help, but not that much,  and may make things complex, as even in China BTS,  not bitcny is the tokens that be transferred most. and China users also trade/transfer bitUSD and other assets.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Bitcrab and BTSdac, what about making BitCNY transfers much cheaper? Would that help? 
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
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.
a profitable system is needed , but not now ,  it is in future ,  BTS have potential profitable capacity,  do you know Amazon? I think you must know ; this company had been loss for many year , but it had about 100~200 B US dollar  market value,
investor is not for current profitable  but for potential profitable,    it is so difficult to understand many fans of BTS want  BTS is profitable currently . I think the only reason  is lack business common sense.
we can increase the fee to 0.2$ when the TPS reach to  200,  it will been profitable , but not current , 
[/quote]

 

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! :)
low fee is a not a sufficient condition to get more user,  just a requirement.
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
So sorry to see everyone's complaining. Let me share my personal feeling.

Since the launch, we always have increasing fees, from 0.5 to 20, to 40, and now facing to 60 ($0.2). I think we need to see the opposite direction.

As a lower-fee advocate, I still prefer 5-10 BTS. But I don't want to destroy our growing business based on referral system. (While I still think that lower fee can bring more users and profit for referrers). In this dilemma, I had to decide to satisfy only one side with beating the other, or making a compromise.

Decreasing just 25% is obviously not satisfying to both sides. However, IMHO, it does not break this community into pieces. It maybe not a win-win solution, but better than zero-sum approach. I think it's not a final destination. We're still on the way, and if the community makes a consensus, we can move toward it.

Regarding the order creation fee, we haven't discussed yet because BM's proposal is in the pipeline. After the release, we will discuss about lowering the fee.

Thanks for your invaluable inputs and feedback. We're open to any opinions.

What was so urgent about making an immediate decision that no one likes? I definitely think the committee members could have suspended the meeting long enough to come back to the community and said "Here is what we're looking at; what do you think?" Or "There's not enough support for this proposal. What about a midway compromise instead?"

And we would have told you straight up that no, this was not a wise choice for any of the parties concerned.

Unless you think that the lower fee is now low enough that you can get some traction in your home country or in China. In which case, I say 'go for it'. You wanted the lower fees, you've got them (at least in a half-assed sort of way). The pricing structure does not work well in first world countries where we were trying to fund some marketing, so if this is what you wanted, it's now your turn to show us what you can do. Bring us some volume.

initially we drafted a proposal to decrease the transfer fee to 9 BTS, after many discuss we escape to 30 BTS. I don't think a 40->30 change will obviously hurt the referral program business.

40->30 decrease the margin, but volume and BTS price also are factors to the profits. I belive the change will contribute positive to the latter factors.

the change really does not satisfy China community, but at least they are convinced that change are possible. it may prevent the community from shrinking.

in China little people are really interested in the referral program, here alipay is free, and bank transfer is free, and traditional exchange charge lower fee.

I agree that DEX is amazing, but now what can people do here?

to buy and trade assets such as BTC? where is the liquidity?

to do international remittance? do you think it's really convenient?

we have long way to go. and should try not to hurt common users if possible.

and I think if you can succeed under 40 BTS fee, you can also succeed under 30 BTS fee.

everyone can be committee member, If you have better ideas and think it should be implemented, try to become an active committee member or vote the active committee member that support your ideas, and let the voting do the decision. voting may bring imperfect solution, but it can maximize consensus.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
a change to the cer that would reduce fees paid for bitCNY transfers does not require a change in the bts fee charged by the network. 

However I do not think that subsidizing some asset transfers is a good long term solution.

I am also aware that having too high of a transfer fee is just subsidizing referral income. 

I am not convinced either way about the correct transfer fee price.  My current limit of 20bts is based upon what we launched at, and attempting to maintain that level until we can see if the referral program, or some of the businesses being worked on will come to fruition.  Personally I would like to see a system that could utilize micro transactions.  I think there are lots of use cases for micro transactions that could be really really cool.  Thats not the direction bts went though.  Highish fees were announced when bts 2 and the referral program was announced.  (much to my chagrin, if you remember I was playing with a roulette system that required micro transactions)  I think it would be a mistake to drastically reduce fees now, before we have had a chance to see if anything can be built upon our current structure.  I am not a referrer, nor attempting to make a living off of transfer fees.  One of the truest criticisms of bts to date has been the constant change preventing businesses from being built atop it.

Ultimately I think there is still lots that needs to be done fine tuning bts and its fee structure.  I would like to find the perfect balance of transfer fees and trading fees that will allow us to be the most competitive in all markets. 

This proposal does not attempt to do that.  It is a step in the right direction.  Since I have now been voted in as a committee member I will take the afore mentioned fine toothed comb to this proposal and vote accordingly. 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I believe that we need to give businesses that will rely on this transfer fee the chance to be built. 

There are businesses being damaged, which have already been built in good faith, that were relying on a competitive user to user transfer fee. As well as exciting newly built businesses like sharebits.io which would benefit from the lower fee.

BitCrab's Transwiser  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19968.msg256407.html#msg256407

China and US are different, you can see that eBay and alibaba have different charging policies, users in China used to enjoy free/low fee fundamental services, even 8BTS fee is hard to accept for them

high fees will make unexpected trouble, for me, 41 new accounts are created for CDP after import, to close these accounts I need to pay many BTSs. not sure whether other unexpected trouble will come.

as Elmato said, $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable. for my project - the gateway transwiser.com, it is still viable, but I feel I need to do some change, I need to get at least 2 lifetime members and change some rules, even so I think some customers will leave because the high fee.


Sharebits.io  http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2015/11/15/sharebits-ios-launch-bringing-crypto-technology-to-mass-market-solutions/

we are doing our best to work out a fee-mitigation method that works for everyone, but in the end it will probably come down to the BTS network fee its self needing to be changed.

Elmato's  Limewallet https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17900.0.html


$0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable.

Im pushing Bitshares for a joint effort of two NGOs and the local crypto community which one the objectives is to provide entrepreneurs from marginal economies with a way to use digital cash. (Its a bigger project ex-Worldbank, ex-UN people working on it)
 
Basically they will be moving an IOU, but $3.2 ARS is too much for the average size of that transactions. ($30-$50)

One of the founders of http://www.rootstock.io/ is heavily involved in the project also, so that platform is on the table also even if its on alpha stage.


We've heard rumors that there were businesses whose entire business model was just ripped out from under them (again) due to removal of fees. Thank you for presenting some....empirical evidence of this.


Tuck Fheman

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

BM has not replied yet.

Didn't he say he would be doing some traveling soon or does anyone know otherwise?  Maybe he's just letting us discuss it more before giving his opinion or taking that step back he spoke of.

Jakub, I would support your idea, having some different fees for different currency pairs. I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all approach. And if the business gravitates to the low fee areas, then that would be a successful experiment, telling us what we need to know.

 +5%

To me, #1 was pretty good. Low fee (if not 0) for user-to-user transfers, and high fee for user-to-merchant transfers.

 +5%  Just had to delete an entire paragraph saying what you've said in one line. This is a good solution from my point of view, it's how PayPal handles it. If this was #1 I never had a chance to see it before it was removed.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 04:37:23 am by Tuck Fheman »

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
I believe that we need to give businesses that will rely on this transfer fee the chance to be built. 

There are businesses being damaged, which have already been built in good faith, that were relying on a competitive user to user transfer fee. As well as exciting newly built businesses like sharebits.io which would benefit from the lower fee.

BitCrab's Transwiser  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19968.msg256407.html#msg256407

China and US are different, you can see that eBay and alibaba have different charging policies, users in China used to enjoy free/low fee fundamental services, even 8BTS fee is hard to accept for them

high fees will make unexpected trouble, for me, 41 new accounts are created for CDP after import, to close these accounts I need to pay many BTSs. not sure whether other unexpected trouble will come.

as Elmato said, $0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable. for my project - the gateway transwiser.com, it is still viable, but I feel I need to do some change, I need to get at least 2 lifetime members and change some rules, even so I think some customers will leave because the high fee.


Sharebits.io  http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2015/11/15/sharebits-ios-launch-bringing-crypto-technology-to-mass-market-solutions/

we are doing our best to work out a fee-mitigation method that works for everyone, but in the end it will probably come down to the BTS network fee its self needing to be changed.

Elmato's  Limewallet https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17900.0.html


$0.2 USD transfer fees make some project unviable.

Im pushing Bitshares for a joint effort of two NGOs and the local crypto community which one the objectives is to provide entrepreneurs from marginal economies with a way to use digital cash. (Its a bigger project ex-Worldbank, ex-UN people working on it)
 
Basically they will be moving an IOU, but $3.2 ARS is too much for the average size of that transactions. ($30-$50)

One of the founders of http://www.rootstock.io/ is heavily involved in the project also, so that platform is on the table also even if its on alpha stage.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 04:30:27 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
There seems to be some confusion between what community members can do, and what requires a worker proposal and a change in the code. 

People also seem to be very upset that this proposal does not solve all of their problems with bts.  I haven't had the time to look at it with a fine tooth comb, and I am not currently a committee member, so it doesn't really matter too much, but here is my thinking regarding this proposal.

There appears to be a bug in referral income with a scale greater than 1. 

190BTS to create an account is too high, and vests for too long.  Openledger is often running out of faucet funds.

40bts vs 30bts will likely be largely revenue neutral for referrers.

This proposal fixes the scale of fees (we launched with a scale of 1, and that scale was doubled by BM when he changed transfer fee from 20 to 40 bts)  and sets the account creation fee to 95bts, where it was intended to be.  (because we were getting spammed, remember that)  and we get the support of the low fee proponents by reducing the transfer fee to only 30bts.

This is not an attempt to fix all fee problems with bts.  this is not the final end all solution for bts fees.  This is a single proposal that does only 3 things.

Fixes fee scale.
changes account creation fee to 95bts
changes transfer fee to 30bts.

If you would like to see other changes that is great, and we can all discuss that.  If you are opposed to any of these changes, a clear explanation of what you are opposed to and why you are opposed to it would be appreciated. 

I am of the opinion that we should keep transfer fees above 20bts (the price that we launched at).  I believe that we need to give businesses that will rely on this transfer fee the chance to be built.  I am supportive of a change to 30bts, because it is still higher than what we launched at, and I think we need to show the chinese community that we are listening to them, and care about what they think, while still maintaining a revenue stream for businesses hoping to build upon bitshares.  Ultimately I think the fee just needs to be high enough to promote lifetime membership signups.  I am not of the opinion that we should attempt to fix our fees to a fiat price.  I am of course willing to listen to any reasonable arguments.


https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile

I wish you guys had been this vocal about regime uncertainty (https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Regime_uncertainty ) prior to the merger  :)


I am as hard on myself as I am on others...

And I am [the only person I know of] that openly admits that he was pro-merger... long after it was announced!

And I was WRONG... And was wrong for months, before finally coming to my senses!

Praise to all who were smart enough to see it all at the time of the merger!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 03:42:23 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
Because bitshares didn't gain a flood of new users due to a buggy interface and lack of upgrades from exchanges, plus all the regular holders who were unable to import their wallets, we decided to butcher the fee structure on a reactionary whim.

All this based off one month of live data while still in beta testing mode... dumbest thing I have ever been around.  From what I have seen, these committee members have no business sense or patience whatsoever.

I agree with Donkeypong that we need stability, but this half ass rushed through shit compromise is terrible and now were stuck with it.

I wish you guys had been this vocal about regime uncertainty (https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Regime_uncertainty ) prior to the merger  :)

However it's actually the fee structure itself, (one that prices BitShares above both centralized and crypto user-to-user transfers) which probably wasn't created on a whim but was poorly conceived. Had prior consultation been done with Chinese businesses and shareholders, (probably still our largest market), we would have discovered without the need for even 1 day of testing that it prices BitShares out of the market.

It's creating large instability and uncertainty as to whether BTS has a future in its biggest market and the ones it was most likely, like Bitcoin, to expand into. (South America and Eastern Europe)

Also one of the key reasons for the higher fees, developing BTS as a payment business, requires payment processor partnerships/services, to appeal to the majority of merchants. Without that you're unlikely to gain traction there in the next few months, so there's little justification for maintaining the current transfer fee for that purpose.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 03:38:23 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
It goes without saying (though I'm glad you did) that we need a non-buggy interface. I think that we will have something soon which is quite good and that it will continue to improve.

And yes, we need to get to a stable point where we stop tweaking important shit. Just find a balance and leave it there, giving us some predictability and the chance to let it develop. For example, some people have built businesses on the basis of expecting future referral fees. Then it changes once, it changes again and suddenly they're basically gone. WTF? Why exactly do people want to be involved with BitShares and invest their money in developing infrastructure to support it when it keeps getting changed from one expectation to another? It will be marketable when we have something solid, not ever-changing.