Author Topic: First Organized Mutually Agreed Proposal  (Read 19245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wallace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Good, I like it.  +5% +5%

if you don't like this proposal, just buy more bts and unvote it. :)
give me money, I will do...


Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
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?

I hate to say it, lil_jay, but you are correct. They have stripped everyone of the tools they need to succeed. They could have picked a side, any side, and yet they price this at dumbest possible price point where no one has what they need to properly sell this thing.

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.

The reason you cannot have different fees for different pairs is you destroy all the pairs that are more. In other words, why would I trade in bitUSD pair when trading in bitCNY will be cheaper? Market will respond the same way and only the lower value currencies will have any meaningful volume.

We cannot begin to get into having to geo locate accounts either.

But why are you talking about currency pairs?
This is about transfer fees, not trading fees.

What I advocate is very simple: when I transfer bitCNY I pay e.g. the equivalent of $0.10. But when I transfer bitEUR I pay the equivalent of $0.20.
Clean and simple.

It just requires the witnesses to configure asset fee pools differently for bitCNY and differently for bitUSD and bitEUR.
The only "problem" is that transfers on bitUSD and bitEUR will "subsidize" transfers on bitCNY, but I think this is the least bad solution.
The alternative is to have a bad compromise which makes both sides unhappy.
It makes sense to lower the cny transfer fee since we have a functional cny bridge but no(?) such service in other currencies. If the committee decided, witnesses could set core_exchange_rate of cny to a higher value so that cny transfers will get a discount if fees are paid in cny. But I'm not sure whether the market fees will be affected by doing so.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Fixes fee scale.

Regarding fixing the scale parameter, can someone explain the following?
(1) Why does this proposal halve some of the values (e.g. "call_order_update") but leave other unchanged (e.g. "asset_update_feed_producers")?
(2) Assuming 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?

2) Recently on cryptofresh there is this info "All BTS amounts below have been scaled for ease of comparison."
-that should means that you see 40 because the scale was 2 and the fee value was 20.

1) We are investigatin this behaviour, it could be a bug on cryptofresh side due to a bad scaling calculation, just guessing. We are looking in it.

Offline EstefanTT

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.

 +5% +5% +5%

We didn't even give it a shot !

We have, with BitShares French Connexion, not even start to speak about us in other forums, in other communities, reach people, ect... Because it feels that there will be more change to come and we don't want to disappoint people.

Constant changes are bad ! It makes people actually promoting BitShares and creating project very slow !

These are the ones who will bring users, not a insignificant discount from 40 to 30 bts. Let's not making the task more difficult that it is already.

If we want to send a small amount of bts, let use ShareBits
If we want to send a bigger amount of bts, who cares about a difference of 0.03 $ between 0..9 and 0.12 $ ???

The only real (little) problem is about the creation and cancellation of orders in the DEX because it's different from what traders are used to. Even if it's cheaper ...

Changes have to be precise and very well thought ... Baby steps  :P



« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 12:14:21 pm by EstefanTT »
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
What I don't get us why you guys rush here. It's not like someone is pointing a gun at you to put up a proposal.

jakub

  • Guest
Generally I'm against lowering transfer fees and agree with @donkeypong @tonyk @BunkerChain Labs that the discussion about those fees is pointless until:
(1) we have a working product (i.e. there is liquidity in the trading part of the business)
(2) we fully identified who our customer is in the payment part of the business (i.e. we stop targeting "everybody")

Nevertheless I'm considering supporting this proposal for two reasons:
(1) to show my understanding to the Chinese community's point of view (having such a clear split like this is very damaging)
(2) in the hope that BitShares market cap will rise in the coming months so that the proposed 30 BTS fee will eventually be worth more than the current $0.10.

Offline GaltReport

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 , 

 

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.
[/quote]

I agree with bolded parts above.  I thought the plan was to go with BM's proposal(s) except what was retracted? Probably I missed something.

jakub

  • Guest
Fixes fee scale.

Regarding fixing the scale parameter, can someone explain the following?
(1) Why does this proposal halve some of the values (e.g. "call_order_update") but leave other unchanged (e.g. "asset_update_feed_producers")?
(2) Assuming 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?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 11:22:53 am by jakub »

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
One of the truest criticisms of bts to date has been the constant change preventing businesses from being built atop it.

Is anybody here that don't agree with this? (Don't answer... it's a rhetoric question)

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
@Op:
I would recommend to write a lengthy article and describe your choice for ALL fees as well as add a discussion of advantages and disadvantages ..
Putting the new fees online without proper justification will result (as we see here) and many people complaining that don't understand the difficulties of the optimization you are trying to achieve

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
If a user can't deal with 30 bts tx, he's probably very poor, and won't bring any business anyways. May sound harsh, but we have a business here not a charity

Offline radiumlau

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
In short: this is a terrible system.

No one wants to use the system if he knows when he transfer 100 BTS to others, he will lost 30~40 BTS, especially for the new users.
Check the user volume, does it bring significant users if the terrible fee is the business model?

The system will be died definitely if it cannot attracting new users.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Who exactly was the target customer when all of this was decided?

How were they identified?

Was a market comparison to what this target customer currently uses looked into?

Will the minutes of your meeting be published publicly or be kept private?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
I would imagine way lower...if they can imagine what they are getting into.


This is my "rest of the forum" rimshot.