Millions of Features, Features for Me!

[CLains]

Thx @Xeldal and @yvv for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

[jtme]

Thx @Xeldal and @yvv for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

[Thom]

Thx @Xeldal and @yvv for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.

[jakub]

It's a bad thing because it complicates the messaging of the refer program tremendously. It takes it from, "you get a piece of all their transactions for the lifetime of their account", too, "sometimes you get a piece of the transactions depending on what they are doing in bitshares and what they are using" .. which then derails the entire messaging into wanting to find out when and where that ultimately leads to 'damn this is just too complicated', or 'geez it looks like you only get some in a few cases.. why bother?', or worse 'this looks like you are tricking people into thinking you get something for refers when really they only get it for a few things.'

The refer program to "bring users" is only going to be as good as the opportunity it brings to those that promote it. If you marginalize it by excluding it through out the bitshares space, then all these new FBAs will have to go on their own marketing efforts to get users instead of leveraging the base that will be more excited and more incentive to spend money to promote the new features knowing the base they are targeting is going to directly result in refer income generated from the specific feature they referred them for.

As much as I like the FBA concept, BunkerChain Labs has a point that features implemented via FBAs are not very friendly for the Referral Program (as they undermine its revenue pool or at least make it more obscure).
I'd appreciate @bytemaster 's comment on this aspect.

EDIT: Now I've come to the conclusion that FBAs might bring about new features that wouldn't have come into existence in any other way.
So ideally FBAs will generate new revenue opportunities, thus they will not "steal" any existing revenue streams from the Referral Program.
But still it's a valid point that FBAs will make the Referral Program revenue structure more obscure as there will be several exceptions regarding what's included in the RP revenue stream and what's not.

[carpet ride]

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

[jtme]

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

[yvv]

You say "In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.", but not ALL markets behave as an auction or negotiation. Walk into most retail stores and there is no negotiation, the price is the price, take it or leave it.

Its the same thing really.  The various bids or buys, are like various competing retail stores all competing for your dollars.  The highest bid is the only relevant bid if they can satisfy the amount you're looking to buy.  So the highest bid is the no negotiation, take it or leave it price.

Of course you can negotiate by placing a sell order(ask) above this price but you risk no one being willing to meet it.  You can do the same at a retail store (trying to get a discount) but you may not get it.

There are actually terms for these two types of trades: market order and limit order. Market order is like checking different retail stores, choosing the cheapest one and accepting their prices. In bitshares you just accept lowest ask price. Limit order is when you say: this is the highest price I am willing to pay. If an offer with lower price is available, you take it, if not, you wait until somebody  accepts your offer.

[Xeldal]

You say "In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.", but not ALL markets behave as an auction or negotiation. Walk into most retail stores and there is no negotiation, the price is the price, take it or leave it.

Its the same thing really.  The various bids or buys, are like various competing retail stores all competing for your dollars.  The highest bid is the only relevant bid if they can satisfy the amount you're looking to buy.  So the highest bid is the no negotiation, take it or leave it price.

Of course you can negotiate by placing a sell order(ask) above this price but you risk no one being willing to meet it.  You can do the same at a retail store (trying to get a discount) but you may not get it.   

I'm getting confused by the mixing of fixed funding costs vs. bidding which is a negotiable (i.e. variable) offer at some price.

Everything is negotiable.
The variable bidding allows everyone to reflect and gauge the relative importance of a proposed feature and to change their mind based on this and other information to perhaps support a different feature, without actually spending any money until finalized; or for a developer to lower their price target based on lower demand.  If there aren't enough bids on a particular feature it won't get done.  If a feature is perceived far more valuable then some fixed proposed cost, it will be bid up to whatever people are willing to pay.

For example if people feel the Stealth feature is worth more than 45k they can bid the price up above the 12 BTS/STEALTH.  This particular deal is a little different, in that OnceUpon gets all the STEALTH regardless, but with bids above 12 he might be incentivized to sell some for an instant profit.  Bids below 12, I think are meaningless, because the entire sum is being bought at 12, as a given.

[Thom]

A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)

Thx for trying bhuz, I need a little more to understand. Could you elaborate to clarify? I've never heard of a "bid order"

It is literally just placing an order to buy.  In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.

Thx puppies. I can't seem to keep all these terms and the contexts they're used in straight in my mind. Terms are thrown around and it's difficult sometimes for me to see the correlation, especially when English is a secondary language for some posters.

You say "In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.", but not ALL markets behave as an auction or negotiation. Walk into most retail stores and there is no negotiation, the price is the price, take it or leave it. In BitShares 1.0 I had a UIA which I offered at $10BitUSD. Buyers that wanted one of those ponied up $10BitUSD for every one of the UIAs they wanted. They could buy half of one at $5.00 BitUSD, but the price was fixed.

So how can I discern when people discuss markets when the model is like the above vs. an auction? I would think the way to make that obvious is to use the terms BUY or BID, but what do I know.

In this FBA context it was also confusing b/c of the way the UIA is also used to gauge support for the feature. Also, the OP mentions a specific cost of the UIA which is tied to the amount of funding to be raised, so "bidding" or placing an order that is at some other price per share is like a negotiation or counter offer. Because of these variations it would be helpful to be more explicit in what action should be used to accomplish the intent.

Bidding brings to mind auctions, which is a negotiation of price.

Quite a different picture than saying a feature costs $20000, 100000 UIAs issued at $0.20 each (actually the equivalent BTS, or 50 - 60 BTS per UIA) so buy as many UIAs as you want to represent your interest in the feature. If you want a majority interest you would buy (not offer a bid for but to actually buy) at least 50001 UIAs.

I'm getting confused by the mixing of fixed funding costs vs. bidding which is a negotiable (i.e. variable) offer at some price.

[CLains]

The next level thing in BitShares is always some unexpected, ingenious plot twist. Out of nowhere we suddenly merged committee code implementations with UIAs with dividends with cut-of-fees with crowd-funding with prediction markets with worker proposals.

[puppies]

A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)

Thx for trying bhuz, I need a little more to understand. Could you elaborate to clarify? I've never heard of a "bid order"

It is literally just placing an order to buy.  In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids. 

[Thom]

A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)

Thx for trying bhuz, I need a little more to understand. Could you elaborate to clarify? I've never heard of a "bid order"

[KenMonkey]

Polls/Voting, etc are not good means of prioritizing. Profit is perhaps the most important means of prioritizing.

As a company, Cryptonomex is interested in working on the most profitable features.  Those features that we can sell for the highest price will get the highest priority. 

It's important to realize some features are not directly profitable, but will result in more ease-of-use, security, or comfort for the user. For example I'd love to see the API improved (which will increase liquidity!) and also enabling 2FA to log into my wallet (btw is that crazy?).

This is a good idea, I'm hopeful that it takes off, but I also hope the "free" features like GUI improvements don't go by the wayside.

May the profit be with you!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

It's a bad thing because it complicates the messaging of the refer program tremendously. It takes it from, "you get a piece of all their transactions for the lifetime of their account", too, "sometimes you get a piece of the transactions depending on what they are doing in bitshares and what they are using" .. which then derails the entire messaging into wanting to find out when and where that ultimately leads to 'damn this is just too complicated', or 'geez it looks like you only get some in a few cases.. why bother?', or worse 'this looks like you are tricking people into thinking you get something for refers when really they only get it for a few things.'

The refer program to "bring users" is only going to be as good as the opportunity it brings to those that promote it. If you marginalize it by excluding it through out the bitshares space, then all these new FBAs will have to go on their own marketing efforts to get users instead of leveraging the base that will be more excited and more incentive to spend money to promote the new features knowing the base they are targeting is going to directly result in refer income generated from the specific feature they referred them for.

The point is the refer system is not a stand alone to just bring in new users, it is an intrinsic marketing element that every part of the bitshare ecosystem can and will benefit from. While the share % out of a 20% portion will be smaller, it still can do the job of providing a marketing arm for all the new FBAs that come to the table.

Just because you build it, and investors are excited about it, doesn't mean they will come.

[Akado]

Another question is: What if a better feature which targets the same market (e.g. the bond market) is proposed as a normal worker proposal or a FBA sometimes in the future?

I would like to know this too