poll for the percent based transfer fee

[EstefanTT]

I think it has to be higher than the actual fee or every person planning on something related to the referral program will be disapointed. We need to be VERY carefull with that decision. The low fees of the big mass of tiny transactions has to be compensated by some of the big one to average fees around what we have now.
Someone sending 1000€ doesn't care about the fee beeing 30 or 90 cents.
The 0.1% fee, cap 3bts / 300bts seems decent.
I guess it's too complicated to have 0.1% up to 100€ and 0.05% up to 10 000€ and cap there at 500 bts ?

Given 0.1% fee / 300 BTS, changing min fee from 1 BTS to 3 BTS only increases 1.7%. I think that it's not worth to get 1.7% more fee while discouraging many potential micro-transaction activities. It's totally undesirable.

I agree. Maybe I missunderstood the discussion in the hangout, is that possible 1 bts fee / Tx ? I was proposing 3 because I thought the minimum fee was around the cent. If 1 bts is possible, let's go for it !!

[clayop]

I think it has to be higher than the actual fee or every person planning on something related to the referral program will be disapointed. We need to be VERY carefull with that decision. The low fees of the big mass of tiny transactions has to be compensated by some of the big one to average fees around what we have now.
Someone sending 1000€ doesn't care about the fee beeing 30 or 90 cents.
The 0.1% fee, cap 3bts / 300bts seems decent.
I guess it's too complicated to have 0.1% up to 100€ and 0.05% up to 10 000€ and cap there at 500 bts ?

Given 0.1% fee / 300 BTS, changing min fee from 1 BTS to 3 BTS only increases 1.7%. I think that it's not worth to get 1.7% more fee while discouraging many potential micro-transaction activities. It's totally undesirable.

[EstefanTT]

I think it has to be higher than the actual fee or every person planning on something related to the referral program will be disapointed. We need to be VERY carefull with that decision. The low fees of the big mass of tiny transactions has to be compensated by some of the big one to average fees around what we have now.
Someone sending 1000€ doesn't care about the fee beeing 30 or 90 cents.
The 0.1% fee, cap 3bts / 300bts seems decent.
I guess it's too complicated to have 0.1% up to 100€ and 0.05% up to 10 000€ and cap there at 500 bts ?

[onceuponatime]

With the information we got today on mumble it seem that the minimum fee for transcations would be around 1 cent.

So it would make sense to use around 2-3 bts as the cheapest fee (around 1 cent but slightly below to have a nice selling agrument).

(Here comes the limit of my hability to express myslef clearly in english ...)

To avoid to hurt referral program, wich is a very sensible subject, we could have something like 150-300 bts as the upward cap fee.

The low cap is easy to decide, it's the minimum fee that doesn't allow anyone to hurt the ecosystem. The top cap is more tricky !!!

To define the top cap, maybe we could create a poll and get an estimation of how much transactions (in volume) we would have with fees of 3 bts  / 30 bts  / 100 and the  maximum fee (let's say 300)

With something like  20 members participating in the evaluation we would have something close to what we would have. With simple math we could determine what would be the highest fee asked to keep (more or less) the same effect on the referral program and probably decide to take something a little higher to be sure.

This would be to avoid guessing in the dark and change it in 5 weeks with all the fudders enjoying the oportunity to say that "we are always changing everything and bla bla bla fud fud fud"

Is that making sense ?

Makes sense, and Bytemaster suggested in the Mumble that the upper cap should be something like the fixed fee now (30BTS).

I would be happy with a cap slightly higher than that, but not so high as to become noncompetitive. Say 60 to 100 BTS.

[clayop]

With the information we got today on mumble it seem that the minimum fee for transcations would be around 1 cent.

So it would make sense to use around 2-3 bts as the cheapest fee (around 1 cent but slightly below to have a nice selling agrument).

(Here comes the limit of my hability to express myslef clearly in english ...)

To avoid to hurt referral program, wich is a very sensible subject, we could have something like 150-300 bts as the upward cap fee.

The low cap is easy to decide, it's the minimum fee that doesn't allow anyone to hurt the ecosystem. The top cap is more tricky !!!

To define the top cap, maybe we could create a poll and get an estimation of how much transactions (in volume) we would have with fees of 3 bts  / 30 bts  / 100 and the  maximum fee (let's say 300)

With something like  20 members participating in the evaluation we would have something close to what we would have. With simple math we could determine what would be the highest fee asked to keep (more or less) the same effect on the referral program and probably decide to take something a little higher to be sure.

This would be to avoid guessing in the dark and change it in 5 weeks with all the fudders enjoying the oportunity to say that "we are always changing everything and bla bla bla fud fud fud"

Is that making sense ?

I fully disagree with the 3 BTS minimum fee idea. This makes no sense in terms of efficiency.

Given 0.2%, 300 BTS maximum, changing from 1 BTS to 3 BTS increases total fee collected only 1.1%. Meanwhile, many micro-transactions have to pay 300% more fees. This will clearly discourage micro-transactions.

[EstefanTT]

With the information we got today on mumble it seem that the minimum fee for transcations would be around 1 cent.

So it would make sense to use around 2-3 bts as the cheapest fee (around 1 cent but slightly below to have a nice selling agrument).

(Here comes the limit of my hability to express myslef clearly in english ...)

To avoid to hurt referral program, wich is a very sensible subject, we could have something like 150-300 bts as the upward cap fee.

The low cap is easy to decide, it's the minimum fee that doesn't allow anyone to hurt the ecosystem. The top cap is more tricky !!!

To define the top cap, maybe we could create a poll and get an estimation of how much transactions (in volume) we would have with fees of 3 bts  / 30 bts  / 100 and the  maximum fee (let's say 300)

With something like  20 members participating in the evaluation we would have something close to what we would have. With simple math we could determine what would be the highest fee asked to keep (more or less) the same effect on the referral program and probably decide to take something a little higher to be sure.

This would be to avoid guessing in the dark and change it in 5 weeks with all the fudders enjoying the oportunity to say that "we are always changing everything and bla bla bla fud fud fud"

Is that making sense ?

[abit]

To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..

I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)

The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.

I confirm that percentage based fee mode can be applied to smart-coins via committee proposals. Tested.

However it's not perfect, we have to manually set core_exchange_rate in the proposal. During the proposal voting and review period, actual core_exchange_rate of proposed smart coin may have changed. When the proposal executes, core_exchange_rate in the proposal will take effect, and it's probably inaccurate.

I wonder if it's possible to set core_exchange_rate as an optional change for update_asset operation.

then the issuer can define the scheme for privatized smartcoin?

This is the specification in the BSIP (issuer can define fee_mode and core_exchange_rate but not other parameters):

global parameters which can be adjusted by the committee
  * the percentage
  * a per-transfer upper limit
  * a per-transfer lower limit
For each asset, the issuer can choose between flat fee mode and percentage based fee mode

[jakub]

Do you think referral program really work?

@bitcrab , recently I've been wondering about this:
You have always been very skeptical about the usefulness of the referral program but at the same time you run a significant gateway business for CNY.

What is your business model if you don't intend to rely on the referral income?
Where does your revenue come from?

[bitcrab]

To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..

I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)

The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.

I confirm that percentage based fee mode can be applied to smart-coins via committee proposals. Tested.

However it's not perfect, we have to manually set core_exchange_rate in the proposal. During the proposal voting and review period, actual core_exchange_rate of proposed smart coin may have changed. When the proposal executes, core_exchange_rate in the proposal will take effect, and it's probably inaccurate.

I wonder if it's possible to set core_exchange_rate as an optional change for update_asset operation.

then the issuer can define the scheme for privatized smartcoin?

[abit]

To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..

I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)

The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.

I confirm that percentage based fee mode can be applied to smart-coins via committee proposals. Tested.

However it's not perfect, we have to manually set core_exchange_rate in the proposal. During the proposal voting and review period, actual core_exchange_rate of proposed smart coin may have changed. When the proposal executes, core_exchange_rate in the proposal will take effect, and it's probably inaccurate.

I wonder if it's possible to set core_exchange_rate as an optional change for update_asset operation.

[jakub]

To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..

I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)

The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.

[jakub]

Maximum 1 dollar is also good for marketing.

I agree.
That's why I initially proposed 300 BTS as the upper limit, which is the equivalent of 1 USD or 1 EUR.
(And around 8 CNY which is also a nice number)

[38PTSWarrior]

Maximum 1 dollar is also good for marketing.

[yvv]

What would you prefer in case of transferring 100k BTS?
- pay 1 BTS for the transfer fee and have all the complexity and high fees on the gateways
- pay 100 BTS for the transfer fee and have cheap & easy gateways

I would really like to be able to send $50 to my friend in other country (say, as a birthday gift) with one button click, and pay no more than $1 fee. If cheap and easy gateways would help to do this, then I am all for it.

[abit]

To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..