Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented

[merivercap]

By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.

What if the issuer of Mode A brings in 1,000,000,000 new users because of low fees and brings new users to pay higher fees for another asset that uses Mode B or C?  The network should take just one low fee to sustain itself for maximum network effect.  Issuers should have flexibility on pricing, not the committee.  The committee should simply determine the network fee.  Any UIA, FBA, Privatized Smartcoin issuer should be able to set fees on top of the network fee.  Technically an issuer can try to add fees outside of the Bitshares system, but it's much more natural to just add that as a standard feature to the system to attract far more businesses to use the platform.

Issuers don't bring in users by their own alone. When they bring in users, they act as registrars or referrers. In this case, the issuer is able to reimburse the users the extra fees paid by users and split to referral program (actually to the issuer in this case), no matter what fee mode she selected for her product.

More important, if the issuer selected a fee mode which doesn't split fees to referral program, OTHER REGISTRARS/REFERRERS would be not willing to bring users FOR THE ISSUER, even worse, they may try to isolate/hurt the issuer's product since it does nothing good to them but probably get benefit from THEIR user bases. Which means the issuer has to fight alone, even against other parties. Which will do no good to the whole system.

Sure you can think of issuers of assets as a mini-platform for various businesses to use.  Bitshares BTS is the broader platform.  Wallet/Exchange/Referral businesses can choose any issuer/asset they want.   If  a wallet or exchange want lower basic fees they can choose an asset with Mode A.  If a wallet or exchange wants to have a referral/membership model they can choose an asset with Mode B or C.

It seems that you are trying to save the issuers from themselves rather than give them a choice?  If an issuer chooses a fee Mode A that has no referral/membership program and many registrars/referrers don't promote them they will have to find other methods to gain users with outside capital, but they will have an advantage of offering lower basic fees.   Why is that a problem especially when a predominant contingent in China want Mode A?

What are your thoughts on Privatized Smartcoins?  My thought is that people will naturally want to promote Public Smartcoins instead of a BitCash Privatized Smartcoin or even TCNY so we who issue Privatized Smartcoins are at a disadvantage. Do you want to save us from ourselves?  Privatized Smartcoins need to find users by improving parameters,  providing liquidity, acquiring different customer segments etc.  The positive is that they aren't forced into using particular parameters or price feeds.  In the same way they shouldn't be forced into a particular fee Mode or fee schedule especially because their business and customer demographic may be different than other businesses.

As I see it, if we have three modes it may look something like this for Smartcoins:
CNY Public Smartcoins:  Mode A  - 1 cent transfers
TCNY Privatized Smartcoins: Mode A - 1 cent transfers
USD /Eur Public Smartcoins: Mode B or C - 1% or 20 cent transfers, 1 cent for members
BitCash Privatized Smartcoins: Mode B or C -  1% or 20 cent transfers, 1 cent for members

Wallets/Registrars/Referral:
OpenLedger
Moonstone
Lime
Bunker
Transwiser
BitCash
Referral Businesses/Blogs/Affiliates

Can you explain to me what will go wrong in this example?  What will businesses be doing to each other rather than focusing on building their own user bases for their business models and target consumer demographic?

[abit]

By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.

What if the issuer of Mode A brings in 1,000,000,000 new users because of low fees and brings new users to pay higher fees for another asset that uses Mode B or C?  The network should take just one low fee to sustain itself for maximum network effect.  Issuers should have flexibility on pricing, not the committee.  The committee should simply determine the network fee.  Any UIA, FBA, Privatized Smartcoin issuer should be able to set fees on top of the network fee.  Technically an issuer can try to add fees outside of the Bitshares system, but it's much more natural to just add that as a standard feature to the system to attract far more businesses to use the platform.

Issuers don't bring in users by their own alone. When they bring in users, they act as registrars or referrers. In this case, the issuer is able to reimburse the users the extra fees paid by users and split to referral program (actually to the issuer in this case), no matter what fee mode she selected for her product.

More important, if the issuer selected a fee mode which doesn't split fees to referral program, OTHER REGISTRARS/REFERRERS would be not willing to bring users FOR THE ISSUER, even worse, they may try to isolate/hurt the issuer's product since it does nothing good to them but probably get benefit from THEIR user bases. Which means the issuer has to fight alone, even against other parties. Which will do no good to the whole system.

[merivercap]

There are no 3 modes on a system-wise level. There is just one - the lowest fee (A in your words). The rest is testing very uninformative alternatives - does people like paying more or less.

[edit] the only way to have the 3 modes at once is - the high fee business models trying to cut (or try to) their users out of the rest of the system. The negatives from that in all kind of aspects should be obvious.

No it's testing to see if a referral/membership program with higher basic fees, but with incentives can acquire more users than one with low fees and no referral incentives.  CNY assets will probably use Mode A.  USD/Eur assets will probably use Mode B or C.  I may be able to transfer funds with CNY more cheaply than USD, but I'll probably just use USD assets for convenience. (For members the cost will be the same.)  Hence users can use any asset in the system they prefer.   Also the referral/membership model will allow discounts on creating: premium names, UIAs, FBAs, as well as using any other higher fee asset so there is a shared network effect for membership.   

[merivercap]

Yes there would be continuous improvements/developments. Perhaps you've never thought how much work need to be done to support all potential features, perhaps you will only use a small part of them, but others may need other features. FBA is for special features which major stake holders don't want to dilute for.

The network need to sustain, which means in the end it's best to be able to pay witnesses and workers from income / fees, although they have to be paid from dilution in the beginning due to insufficient income.

Imo setting a low fee and not splitting to the referral program will definitely hurt the referral program. Asset issuers should have no privileges to hurt other parties.

Well we can set a higher fee for all three modes to sustain the network if dilution doesn't cover it, but the referral program shouldn't have anything to do with this.  The referral program can be an add-on layer for specific assets.  I'd prefer the lowest sustainable network fee, but we can let the committee decide what the minimum network fees should be to pay the witnesses and for non-FBA software development and maintenance.

I plan to use the referral Mode B for a privatized Smartcoin so I don't feel having another asset using Mode A even in direct competition with us would be that big of a deal.  There are a whole lot of other reasons a business is going to be successful besides fees.

By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.

What if the issuer of Mode A brings in 1,000,000,000 new users because of low fees and brings new users to pay higher fees for another asset that uses Mode B or C?  The network should take just one low fee to sustain itself for maximum network effect.  Issuers should have flexibility on pricing, not the committee.  The committee should simply determine the network fee.  Any UIA, FBA, Privatized Smartcoin issuer should be able to set fees on top of the network fee.  Technically an issuer can try to add fees outside of the Bitshares system, but it's much more natural to just add that as a standard feature to the system to attract far more businesses to use the platform. 

[abit]

Not sure I follow this.  Either mode A, B or C may generate more users (all things being equal and eliminating many other factors.)  No one knows which mode will get more active users.  It can be that low fees and no referral program brings in 1,000,000 users.  Then Mode A may be perceived to have brought more value.  If Mode B or C brings more users (ie. 2,000,000) it may indicate the referral program works well.  Without isolating other factors we may never know, but tracking active users provides one somewhat useful data point.  The proposal for three modes makes it fair to the network because the network will get the same fees no matter who brings them in.   Accommodating various modes and more businesses enhances network effect, it doesn't decrease it.   

But it's unfair to who brought in users. Hence reduced incentives.

[tonyk]

  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.

I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.

I was about to make the same commentary.. a user is a user of the whole system and making decisions based on this fragmented outlooks is just operating on a faulty assumption.

If a merchant bring in 100,000 users he gets benefits, but because of the shared network, other merchants could also benefit from those users now using bitshares. So the merchant that paid nothing into the network is going to not only benefit from that merchant that brought the 100k users in, he is going to cheat him out of his % cut which he should be getting for bring that business to them.

This idea of fragmenting pieces of the network and the refer system to accommodate one crabby business is not only counter productive, but will have ongoing issues going forward. If they have no interest in shared network effect, they might as well fork.

Not sure I follow this.  Either mode A, B or C may generate more users (all things being equal and eliminating many other factors.)  No one knows which mode will get more active users.  It can be that low fees and no referral program brings in 1,000,000 users.  Then Mode A may be perceived to have brought more value.  If Mode B or C brings more users (ie. 2,000,000) it may indicate the referral program works well.  Without isolating other factors we may never know, but tracking active users provides one somewhat useful data point.  The proposal for three modes makes it fair to the network because the network will get the same fees no matter who brings them in.   Accommodating various modes and more businesses enhances network effect, it doesn't decrease it.   

There are no 3 modes on a system-wise level. There is just one - the lowest fee (A in your words). The rest is testing very uninformative alternatives - does people like paying more or less.

[edit] the only way to have the 3 modes at once is - the high fee business models trying to cut (or try to) their users out of the rest of the system. The negatives from that in all kind of aspects should be obvious.

[merivercap]

  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.

I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.

I was about to make the same commentary.. a user is a user of the whole system and making decisions based on this fragmented outlooks is just operating on a faulty assumption.

If a merchant bring in 100,000 users he gets benefits, but because of the shared network, other merchants could also benefit from those users now using bitshares. So the merchant that paid nothing into the network is going to not only benefit from that merchant that brought the 100k users in, he is going to cheat him out of his % cut which he should be getting for bring that business to them.

This idea of fragmenting pieces of the network and the refer system to accommodate one crabby business is not only counter productive, but will have ongoing issues going forward. If they have no interest in shared network effect, they might as well fork.

Not sure I follow this.  Either mode A, B or C may generate more users (all things being equal and eliminating many other factors.)  No one knows which mode will get more active users.  It can be that low fees and no referral program brings in 1,000,000 users.  Then Mode A may be perceived to have brought more value.  If Mode B or C brings more users (ie. 2,000,000) it may indicate the referral program works well.  Without isolating other factors we may never know, but tracking active users provides one somewhat useful data point.  The proposal for three modes makes it fair to the network because the network will get the same fees no matter who brings them in.   Accommodating various modes and more businesses enhances network effect, it doesn't decrease it.   

[abit]

I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates.  Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10?  Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI?  Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA.  I think FBAs are for income generating features.

In my opinion, while issuers have more flexibility, they'll get benefit from the system, so it's fair for them to pay a little more or share some profits to other parties e.g. network, referral program and FBA holders. The benefit could be more users, or more revenue, or lower management costs, or better user experience, etc. For example, if an issuer wants to provide zero fee service to users, it would be possible with per asset fee rate mode, but she must pay for the users in some way. Bottom line, issuers should be unable to hurt the system by setting a zero fee rate, otherwise the system will be vulnerable to spam attacks.

Hmmm..  From a business perspective I think it's better to use FBAs for new, niche, or advanced features that expand the network in new business segments.  For broad/core features that deal with fees for all types of assets (FBAs,UIAs, Smartcoins, Privatized BitAssets) it seems inappropriate to use an FBA.  Also I think the network should provide the bare minimum fees it can sustain with the limited dilution that is built in.   I never thought the network needed to take any piece of referral fees, because it was mainly for marketing and the network doesn't provide recurring support for marketing.  The fee structure should be based on the value it brings.  It's either one-time or recurring and I think the ability to change fees is a one-time value-add feature vs a recurring one.  With the referral program it's meritocratic.  You get paid for each active user you bring in.  Unless you're constantly improving or maintaining the technology, it should be a one-time fee.  I think FBAs should work the same way and need to be continually maintained and improved or be outcompeted.  I think the network portion of the referral program originally was to help subsidize lower fees based on the thinking that 20 cents would be the long-term fee.  I think a 20 cent fee can work in the US, but it's better to keep the network fee the bare minimum 1 cent to obtain the broadest appeal and get network effect while allowing business that are able to charge higher fees in the US & Europe do so at the same time.     

Yes there would be continuous improvements/developments. Perhaps you've never thought how much work need to be done to support all potential features, perhaps you will only use a small part of them, but others may need other features. FBA is for special features which major stake holders don't want to dilute for.

The network need to sustain, which means in the end it's best to be able to pay witnesses and workers from income / fees, although they have to be paid from dilution in the beginning due to insufficient income.

Imo setting a low fee and not splitting to the referral program will definitely hurt the referral program. Asset issuers should have no privileges to hurt other parties.

What incentive is there for a selfish issuer to choose B or C , if he can just choose A to skip the referrers and make the users of his asset happy?

Imo if option A is allowed to exist, the fee should be higher than minimum fee of B or C, or the issuer pay some in other ways for example a monthly fee deducted from fee pool, so it will come to a balanced situation.

@jakub @abit  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.

By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.

I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.

I was about to make the same commentary.. a user is a user of the whole system and making decisions based on this fragmented outlooks is just operating on a faulty assumption.

If a merchant bring in 100,000 users he gets benefits, but because of the shared network, other merchants could also benefit from those users now using bitshares. So the merchant that paid nothing into the network is going to not only benefit from that merchant that brought the 100k users in, he is going to cheat him out of his % cut which he should be getting for bring that business to them.

This idea of fragmenting pieces of the network and the refer system to accommodate one crabby business is not only counter productive, but will have ongoing issues going forward. If they have no interest in shared network effect, they might as well fork.

[merivercap]

  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.

I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.

Not quite sure I follow your logic and what this has anything to do with limiting freedom.  I'm saying we can measure active user growth as one data point to see if lower fees (Mode A) makes a big difference vs. higher basic fees and a membership model (Mode B & C).  It seems to be the topic of debate so it's just for educational purposes and friendly competition to track that.  (There are many other factors that determine growth as I stated before.) 

[tonyk]

  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.

I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.

[merivercap]

I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates.  Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10?  Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI?  Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA.  I think FBAs are for income generating features.

In my opinion, while issuers have more flexibility, they'll get benefit from the system, so it's fair for them to pay a little more or share some profits to other parties e.g. network, referral program and FBA holders. The benefit could be more users, or more revenue, or lower management costs, or better user experience, etc. For example, if an issuer wants to provide zero fee service to users, it would be possible with per asset fee rate mode, but she must pay for the users in some way. Bottom line, issuers should be unable to hurt the system by setting a zero fee rate, otherwise the system will be vulnerable to spam attacks.

Hmmm..  From a business perspective I think it's better to use FBAs for new, niche, or advanced features that expand the network in new business segments.  For broad/core features that deal with fees for all types of assets (FBAs,UIAs, Smartcoins, Privatized BitAssets) it seems inappropriate to use an FBA.  Also I think the network should provide the bare minimum fees it can sustain with the limited dilution that is built in.   I never thought the network needed to take any piece of referral fees, because it was mainly for marketing and the network doesn't provide recurring support for marketing.  The fee structure should be based on the value it brings.  It's either one-time or recurring and I think the ability to change fees is a one-time value-add feature vs a recurring one.  With the referral program it's meritocratic.  You get paid for each active user you bring in.  Unless you're constantly improving or maintaining the technology, it should be a one-time fee.  I think FBAs should work the same way and need to be continually maintained and improved or be outcompeted.  I think the network portion of the referral program originally was to help subsidize lower fees based on the thinking that 20 cents would be the long-term fee.  I think a 20 cent fee can work in the US, but it's better to keep the network fee the bare minimum 1 cent to obtain the broadest appeal and get network effect while allowing business that are able to charge higher fees in the US & Europe do so at the same time.     

Since it seems the committee determines the fee it would be hard to accommodate all of CNY/USD/Eur for mode B.   We have to assume Mode B & C is for US/Eur Smartcoins and Mode A is for CNY Smartcoins.  Privatized Smartcoins, UIA's, FBA's would get to choose any mode, but can only use the fee schedule the committee determines for now.  Is that correct?

Correct.

Great thx.

Also for other types of transactions such as premium names & UIA's I assume we can keep the discounts only for lifetime and annual members?

Other types of transactions won't be affected by BSIP10.

Great thx.

What incentive is there for a selfish issuer to choose B or C , if he can just choose A to skip the referrers and make the users of his asset happy?

Imo if option A is allowed to exist, the fee should be higher than minimum fee of B or C, or the issuer pay some in other ways for example a monthly fee deducted from fee pool, so it will come to a balanced situation.

@jakub @abit  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise. 

[abit]

Thanks @jakub and @abit for the response.  I think @bitcrab is very close to being in favor. 

I just wanted to confirm that we can create the following scenario with BSIP10.  I understand the proposal doesn't determine fees, but I just wanted to get confirmation the modes below are possible if the committee decides:

Mode A: 1 cent per transaction to the network (no incentive for referral program or membership)
Mode B: 1% per transaction, 1 cent minimum fee (example max. $1/$10/$20),  lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
Mode C: flat 20 cents per transaction, lifetime/annual members: 1 cent

In all three modes 1 cent goes to the network for each transaction so it's fair and the network doesn't care which mode anyone selects.  Mode B & C adds an extra fee layer that all goes to referrals.

@abit mentioned this:
"I'd like to emphasize again that fee rates can only be set by the committee, and issuers can only choose among the fee modes.

I'm willing to implement per-asset fee rates, however it would be funded via FBA, so won't come in the soon future."

I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates.  Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10?  Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI?  Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA.  I think FBAs are for income generating features.

Since it seems the committee determines the fee it would be hard to accommodate all of CNY/USD/Eur for mode B.   We have to assume Mode B & C is for US/Eur Smartcoins and Mode A is for CNY Smartcoins.  Privatized Smartcoins, UIA's, FBA's would get to choose any mode, but can only use the fee schedule the committee determines for now.  Is that correct?

What incentive is there for a selfish issuer to choose B or C , if he can just choose A to skip the referrers and make the users of his asset happy?

Imo if option A is allowed to exist, the fee should be higher than minimum fee of B or C, or the issuer pay some in other ways for example a monthly fee deducted from fee pool, so it will come to a balanced situation.

[abit]

I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates.  Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10?  Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI?  Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA.  I think FBAs are for income generating features.

In my opinion, while issuers have more flexibility, they'll get benefit from the system, so it's fair for them to pay a little more or share some profits to other parties e.g. network, referral program and FBA holders. The benefit could be more users, or more revenue, or lower management costs, or better user experience, etc. For example, if an issuer wants to provide zero fee service to users, it would be possible with per asset fee rate mode, but she must pay for the users in some way. Bottom line, issuers should be unable to hurt the system by setting a zero fee rate, otherwise the system will be vulnerable to spam attacks.

Since it seems the committee determines the fee it would be hard to accommodate all of CNY/USD/Eur for mode B.   We have to assume Mode B & C is for US/Eur Smartcoins and Mode A is for CNY Smartcoins.  Privatized Smartcoins, UIA's, FBA's would get to choose any mode, but can only use the fee schedule the committee determines for now.  Is that correct?

Correct.

Also for other types of transactions such as premium names & UIA's I assume we can keep the discounts only for lifetime and annual members?

Other types of transactions won't be affected by BSIP10.

[jakub]

Thanks @jakub and @abit for the response.  I think @bitcrab is very close to being in favor. 

I just wanted to confirm that we can create the following scenario with BSIP10.  I understand the proposal doesn't determine fees, but I just wanted to get confirmation the modes below are possible if the committee decides:

Mode A: 1 cent per transaction to the network (no incentive for referral program or membership)
Mode B: 1% per transaction, 1 cent minimum fee (example max. $1/$10/$20),  lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
Mode C: flat 20 cents per transaction, lifetime/annual members: 1 cent

In all three modes 1 cent goes to the network for each transaction so it's fair and the network doesn't care which mode anyone selects.  Mode B & C adds an extra fee layer that all goes to referrals.

@abit mentioned this:
"I'd like to emphasize again that fee rates can only be set by the committee, and issuers can only choose among the fee modes.

I'm willing to implement per-asset fee rates, however it would be funded via FBA, so won't come in the soon future."

I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates.  Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10?  Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI?  Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA.  I think FBAs are for income generating features.

Since it seems the committee determines the fee it would be hard to accommodate all of CNY/USD/Eur for mode B.   We have to assume Mode B & C is for US/Eur Smartcoins and Mode A is for CNY Smartcoins.  Privatized Smartcoins, UIA's, FBA's would get to choose any mode, but can only use the fee schedule the committee determines for now.  Is that correct?

What incentive is there for a selfish issuer to choose B or C , if he can just choose A to skip the referrers and make the users of his asset happy?