Who would support a limited offer of drastically reduced fees?

[kenCode]

I would support a temporary lowering of transfer fees.
I would support a permanent lowering of transfer fees.

I would support percentage based transfer fees (with a minimum to prevent Spam and a maximum to remain competitive).

  Logic prevails

 
Percentage based fees please.
If someone wants to send us a 2 BTS donation in the mobile wallet, it actually ends up costing them 34 BTS with the network fee. That's just dumb.
 
Here's another example: http://cryptofresh.com/u/announce
We could have a wicked awesome troll box, but not too many people will want to use it if it costs them their donation PLUS the 32 BTS network fee.. That's just dumb.
 
How can we ever bring in the third world (hmm, a couple billion people?) if none of them can afford it?

[Empirical1.2]

I would support a temporary lowering of transfer fees.
I would support a permanent lowering of transfer fees.

I would support percentage based transfer fees (with a minimum to prevent Spam and a maximum to remain competitive).

  Logic prevails

Where a crypto-company will make it's money is on the products, services & purchases. (Even PayPal doesn't charge for basic transfers)

If BitShares doesn't yet have any useful products and services then the potential is limited. The solution for the referral programme is to fast track a product (if you can't artificially stimulate BitAsset liquidity)  But charging high transfer fees won't aid adoption or the referral programme imo.

[Erlich Bachman]

Yeah, Ken, like how the dopeman always gives you the first hit for free, then you become addicted, and can't stop trading, and before you know it, the prices go up!

Why does Google and Dopemen always get to do the tried and true, preying on human emotion marketing strategy, while we get stuck promoting the confused 180 degree U-Turn launch:

(on launch day with the world watching)
"Today, we are launching a semi-closed sourced blockchain that can do 100,000 TPS sometime in the future hopefully"

Then a month later (with nobody watching, and everyone disgusted):
"Today we are changing our semi-closed source blockchain to open source and lowering fees"

Maybe next month, we can sharedrop some BTS on BTC/DOGE/ETH like ClamClone did (Clams are a generic BTC clone whose only claim to fame is stealing our brilliant sharedrop on arbitrary random (non- mega whale) wallets idea that we never used to land a $1.5 million community)

I know, I know, "Human psychology" sounds gay and all but remember bro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRTdzGtu3yA

(those empty cans on the floor are cash wads in your pocket)

In case you want another Lava Lesson about uncontrollable human marketing money making emotions that can only make you rich if you allow them to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlO8pN8HIA8

Marketing Marketing Marketing

BitShares - quenching your uncontrollable urge to make money

Why?

What were you trying to sell them?

[kenCode]

We should have launched with low fees (limited time offer to induce panic buying)

  Yep, exactly. Google did the same thing. Start out dirt cheap or free, and get the masses sucked in first.

[giant middle finger]

I prefer to lower fees step by step.

I think that the opposite would attract more buzz.

The sudden shock to the heart to wake the corpse:



We should have launched with low fees (limited time offer to induce panic buying)

[kenCode]

So .. another idea came up to reduce the create/cancel order to the spare minimum to prevent spam and instead raise the market fee (at least for bitassets) from 0% to something higher than 0% (capped by some number) .. Committee is currently evaluating the options and tries to come up with reasonable numbers ..

 

[xeroc]

So .. another idea came up to reduce the create/cancel order to the spare minimum to prevent spam and instead raise the market fee (at least for bitassets) from 0% to something higher than 0% (capped by some number) .. Committee is currently evaluating the options and tries to come up with reasonable numbers ..

[yvv]

I asked for a cost to benefit analysis.

However given the idea to 'test'.. what is an even better idea is to research the market.. rather than taking a black eye of being 'unstable' in 'tests'.

I would propose if we really want to know what the market thinks of our fees or fees in the market place in general some market research should be done that provides us with real data from end users.

This should be among the first steps we take when we make decisions like this in order to work on real data instead of feelings.

I could get a researcher to undertake this work if you guys would support a worker proposal to gather such data. We are probably taking about 2 weeks and about $1500 to get the job done considering the data points and market size available.

Otherwise we can just keep playing roulette with Bitshares pricing that thus far as not landed on anything that resulted in significantly good results. Then again, we can keep spinning and may get lucky.

This is a very good, scientific approach, worth to undertake. Would be very interesting to look at results. Also, what is a cost of bitshares transaction in current conditions? According to blockchain.info, a cost of bitcoin transaction is $6. What about bitshares?

[bitacer]

ok. imo this is important !

[abit]

I would support percentage based transfer fees (with a minimum to prevent Spam and a maximum to remain competitive).

I would not support any temporary lowering of fees or any reduction of fees other than moving to percentage based.

We do not want to get in to a race to the bottom.

If I understand correctly, are you saying that you want to pay for this feature? 

I was hoping that you were going to pay for it.

I will. In some conditions.

[onceuponatime]

I would support percentage based transfer fees (with a minimum to prevent Spam and a maximum to remain competitive).

I would not support any temporary lowering of fees or any reduction of fees other than moving to percentage based.

We do not want to get in to a race to the bottom.

If I understand correctly, are you saying that you want to pay for this feature? 

I was hoping that you were going to pay for it.

[Stan]

Who controls fees for functionality funded with fee-based assets?

committee/voters or the issuer of the asset?

That is a design variable left up to the developer.

[abit]

Put it to a vote

Voting is not useful for everything. Most people are not entrepreneur, or say not good at running businesses.

[abit]

I don't think fees play that much of an important role atm but I think this is a good idea to test the market. We can see it how it reacts. If we see more transactions and filled orders then it's worth it and we could continue with it, if not, we can go back to how we are atm. It's a good idea to see how the market reacts.

I asked for a cost to benefit analysis.

However given the idea to 'test'.. what is an even better idea is to research the market.. rather than taking a black eye of being 'unstable' in 'tests'.

I would propose if we really want to know what the market thinks of our fees or fees in the market place in general some market research should be done that provides us with real data from end users.

This should be among the first steps we take when we make decisions like this in order to work on real data instead of feelings.

I could get a researcher to undertake this work if you guys would support a worker proposal to gather such data. We are probably taking about 2 weeks and about $1500 to get the job done considering the data points and market size available.

Otherwise we can just keep playing roulette with Bitshares pricing that thus far as not landed on anything that resulted in significantly good results. Then again, we can keep spinning and may get lucky.

To be honest I support your idea. Thinking in the entrepreneur's way.
I wonder whether it's possible that the block chain hire you as the CEO?

[abit]

I would support percentage based transfer fees (with a minimum to prevent Spam and a maximum to remain competitive).

I would not support any temporary lowering of fees or any reduction of fees other than moving to percentage based.

We do not want to get in to a race to the bottom.

If I understand correctly, are you saying that you want to pay for this feature?