Author Topic: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal  (Read 50504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's

What do you mean by that?  Shouldn't 90%+ of businesses depend on the referral program?  All the blog/affiliate/marketing businesses should be the largest in number and should be the main focus for user growth.

Also we're a wallet/gateway business.  We can produce a great product, but we can't charge a fee on top of the network fee.  We can charge a monthly software-as-a-service (SaaS) fee, but that limits options.  (The easiest way is probably just to allow any business to add a fee on top of a basic network fee for any asset on the network.)   The referral revenue is actually a proxy for income.  We can take our product and sell it to people and merchants who are willing to pay 1% per tx.  However that entire 1% would normally go to the network the way it's set up and if we didn't have a referral program, but that doesn't make sense for any business.  Normally a network platform might charge 0.2% and the business would profit 0.8%.  Businesses should be able to charge as low as .21% and as high as 3%.  The whole Mode A/B/C options is a roundabout way of achieving this flexibility.   One way is probably just to allow businesses to add an extra fee layer on top of all assets (privatized/public Smartcoins, FBAs, UIAs)... might be complicated to link accounts to assets to add a fee layer, so right now the referral income is a sufficient proxy. 
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

38PTSWarrior

  • Guest
It also would hurt my referral business.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
The referral programme hasn't been successful because the flat fee is too high and BTS doesn't have a product to sell yet, however the percentage fees and Smartcoin improvements will address that.

In early 2015, Coinbase had a $400 million valutation and 5 months ago they were listed among 50 companies that could be could soon have a
$1 billion dollar valuation -  http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/here-are-the-companies-that-may-be-the-next-50-start-up-unicorns/

Coinbase uses a referral programme so there is some evidence it is an effective technique for marketing a crypto exchange.

I think a 1 BTS fee will significantly impact the referral programme and harm the businesses that are forming on BTS around it.

I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.


I suppose you will still have the power to control the fees for Stealth because it is an FBA. I think you will find the $0.5/1 per TX you were hoping to charge, I forget the amount?  Will not generate much business beyond a few people claiming their BTS1 balances, similar to the current TX fee, so I think you/whoever controls Stealth will bring it down. I think that power is still in your hands though.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 06:06:51 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
The referral program was debated, very extensively , and decided upon, quite a long time ago. As were the fees necessary to make it profitable.

If bttcrab subsequently made a business that cannot operate profitably under the agreed upon conditions, it is up to him to tweak his business model to make it profitable. Otherwuse he forces ronny at ccedk, and Ken and Data with their business models that had expected to profit from referrals, to change theirs. And I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.

 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

jakub

  • Guest
Actually, you are correct. The are defined by the committee:

      "network_percent_of_fee": 2000,
      "lifetime_referrer_percent_of_fee": 3000,
This totals to 50%.
Who gets the other 50%?

Offline onceuponatime

Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab  who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system,  exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to  sponsor gulu.

also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.

and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know

No replies on this post :p
Cannot rebut?

lol this is the kind of comments that lead people into useless attacks against each other. I simply didn't see it.

I didn't ask what he has done. I asked what is he going to do. What's his plan. Alt didn't understand my question giving a reply that has nothing to do with what I asked (it happens) an I still get provoked? I really hope you didn't do this on purpose and was simply a joke, which is fine, otherwise these kind of comments are useless and only contribute to unnecessary discussions. If I reacted like Ken I would already be flaming and turning this into a fight.

I could argue the same about other questions that have been asked but that would simply be childish.

So I will ask again. What is his plan in the future with the lower fees? And to be even more specific, this is not an rhetoric question aiming to insult his business plan or understimate it, I merely want to know what he plans to do. Continue with what he has done so far or take advantage of the lower fees to do something else?

I know this is strectching it but assuming he has good relationship with chinese exchanges, with lower fees does he intend on trying to convince them to run on top of BitShares like OpenLedger? Given that lower fees could open the door for that.

Your question makes no sense to me. What is the better plan than making the current business profitable (or at least out of danger)? Other guys can give you a good plan because their business has not started yet. ]But bitcrab's business is running now, and in danger. If this continues, the next plan will be closing the business I think.

The referral program was debated, very extensively , and decided upon, quite a long time ago. As were the fees necessary to make it profitable.

If bttcrab subsequently made a business that cannot operate profitably under the agreed upon conditions, it is up to him to tweak his business model to make it profitable. Otherwuse he forces ronny at ccedk, and Ken and Data with their business models that had expected to profit from referrals, to change theirs. And I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.


Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it
would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for
lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users
immediately.  Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their
users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers. 
The split between referral program and network is 80/20 independent of
the operation. Changing that is a) a lot of work and b) gives even more
degrees of freedom to figure out a useful fee schedule.
I thought the committee determined the split.  Can't we just make it 100%/0%?

Actually, you are correct. The are defined by the committee:

      "network_percent_of_fee": 2000,
      "lifetime_referrer_percent_of_fee": 3000,


Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a single person - could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes to LTM referral payouts.  So I will continue to maintain that there is ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.

Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of the LTM fee?  Think about it.  If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets no piece of the transaction fees going forward.  So the referrer NEEDS to collect the LTM fee.  But the network gets paid for transactions regardless.  So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam. 

If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users immediately.  Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers. 

If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties.  We would still need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging these last couple days.  Thoughts?

 +5%
I could not agree more. This is exactly what I think.

We need to sort out these two:
- why does there need to be vesting on LTM?
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?

If both are unnecessary, they need to be removed.
And once they are removed, the referral program becomes fully optional, and our long lasting debate is finally over.

I agree.  I don't think vesting or a network fee is necessary.  As I stated before if the network earns fees on referrals it makes sense to just pour that back into the referral program anyways.  The referral program is mainly for marketing.  I think originally it was to get people to pay for transaction fees up front assuming long-term fees would be 20 cents.  It's a better strategy to just start with low network fees and assume you can raise it in the future.


Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of
the LTM fee?  Think about it.  If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets
no piece of the transaction fees going forward.  So the referrer NEEDS
to collect the LTM fee.  But the network gets paid for transactions
regardless.  So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of
the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam. 
The network (read: shareholders) collect fees on EVERY SINGLE operation
that is stored on the blockchain and unless you won't like to see a DAC
be profitable, you shouldn't remove that.

The DAC can always raise fees far into the future.  It doesn't have to be profitable now as long as it can cover its expenses.  Network effect is the key right now

If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it
would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for
lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users
immediately.  Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their
users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers. 
The split between referral program and network is 80/20 independent of
the operation. Changing that is a) a lot of work and b) gives even more
degrees of freedom to figure out a useful fee schedule.
I thought the committee determined the split.  Can't we just make it 100%/0%?

BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab  who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system,  exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to  sponsor gulu.

also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.

and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know

No replies on this post :p
Cannot rebut?

lol this is the kind of comments that lead people into useless attacks against each other. I simply didn't see it.

I didn't ask what he has done. I asked what is he going to do. What's his plan. Alt didn't understand my question giving a reply that has nothing to do with what I asked (it happens) an I still get provoked? I really hope you didn't do this on purpose and was simply a joke, which is fine, otherwise these kind of comments are useless and only contribute to unnecessary discussions. If I reacted like Ken I would already be flaming and turning this into a fight.

I could argue the same about other questions that have been asked but that would simply be childish.

So I will ask again. What is his plan in the future with the lower fees? And to be even more specific, this is not an rhetoric question aiming to insult his business plan or understimate it, I merely want to know what he plans to do. Continue with what he has done so far or take advantage of the lower fees to do something else?

I know this is strectching it but assuming he has good relationship with chinese exchanges, with lower fees does he intend on trying to convince them to run on top of BitShares like OpenLedger? Given that lower fees could open the door for that.

Your question makes no sense to me. What is the better plan than making the current business profitable (or at least out of danger)? Other guys can give you a good plan because their business has not started yet. But bitcrab's business is running now, and in danger. If this continues, the next plan will be closing the business I think.
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Where's bitcrab's plan then? What does he intend to do? How does he intend getting more users? What plan can he shows us that his business model can outcompete OpenLedger? That way people might consider him. Until then, they won't.
what bitcrab have done for BTS?
he is the fiat gateway for bitCNY
look at bitCNY and bitUSD market, it's bitcrab  who make bitCNY peg CNY more better.
he had develop a whole system,  exchange from bitCNY to fiatCNY automaticly.
and he never asked for 1 BTS from community.
before bitcrab, gulu is the gateway for fiatCNY, but his business is manual, bad user experience, and community have give a 100% delegate to  sponsor gulu.

also, bitcrab have ask btc38 to accept bitCNY, TCNY
he have ask yunbi to accept bitCNY also, but had been refused, because they don't want to spent more time for BTS, they have lose interesting for BTS.

and bitcrab have try to find a USD fiat gateway
and maybe many other things I don't know

No replies on this post :p
Cannot rebut?

lol this is the kind of comments that lead people into useless attacks against each other. I simply didn't see it.

I didn't ask what he has done. I asked what is he going to do. What's his plan. Alt didn't understand my question giving a reply that has nothing to do with what I asked (it happens) an I still get provoked? I really hope you didn't do this on purpose and was simply a joke, which is fine, otherwise these kind of comments are useless and only contribute to unnecessary discussions. If I reacted like Ken I would already be flaming and turning this into a fight.

I could argue the same about other questions that have been asked but that would simply be childish.

So I will ask again. What is his plan in the future with the lower fees? And to be even more specific, this is not an rhetoric question aiming to insult his business plan or understimate it, I merely want to know what he plans to do. Continue with what he has done so far or take advantage of the lower fees to do something else?

I know this is strectching it but assuming he has good relationship with chinese exchanges, with lower fees does he intend on trying to convince them to run on top of BitShares like OpenLedger? Given that lower fees could open the door for that.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 01:17:15 pm by Akado »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline cylon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
BTS: cylon

jakub

  • Guest
Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of
the LTM fee?  Think about it.  If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets
no piece of the transaction fees going forward.  So the referrer NEEDS
to collect the LTM fee.  But the network gets paid for transactions
regardless.  So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of
the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam. 
The network (read: shareholders) collect fees on EVERY SINGLE operation
that is stored on the blockchain and unless you won't like to see a DAC
be profitable, you shouldn't remove that.

The logical thing is to make an exception here.
The LTM upgrade does only one thing - it redirects the income stream from the referrer to the user.
The network is entitled to something like 30 BTS for handling this transaction on the blockchain but otherwise there is no justification for the network to take a huge 20% fee on this particular transaction.

The LTM upgrade is a transaction only between the referrer and the user, the network has nothing to do with it.
IMO it's logically inconsistent the way we have it now.
For me, the network steals 20% of the value of this transaction for no apparent reason.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 12:36:34 pm by jakub »

Offline cylon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile

 +5%
I could not agree more. This is exactly what I think.

- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?
BTS: cylon

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a
single person
- could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes
to LTM referral payouts.  So I will continue to maintain that there is
ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.
I thought there was one given by Daniel in one of the hangouts, but I
may be wrong. I can't see any reason just now.

Quote
Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of
the LTM fee?  Think about it.  If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets
no piece of the transaction fees going forward.  So the referrer NEEDS
to collect the LTM fee.  But the network gets paid for transactions
regardless.  So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of
the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam. 
The network (read: shareholders) collect fees on EVERY SINGLE operation
that is stored on the blockchain and unless you won't like to see a DAC
be profitable, you shouldn't remove that.

Quote
If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it
would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for
lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users
immediately.  Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their
users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers. 
The split between referral program and network is 80/20 independent of
the operation. Changing that is a) a lot of work and b) gives even more
degrees of freedom to figure out a useful fee schedule.

Quote
If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based
transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam
prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties.  We would still
need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but
that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging
these last couple days.  Thoughts?
Since BSIP#10 cannot be applied to STEALTH, I see that at least
@onceuponatime will have issues with that (or increase the fee to
something way beyond 3x transfer fee, which would be fine for me)