We need a GRAND COMPROMISE on the fees and referral program. And we need it
soon so we can collectively turn our attention to solving our most serious problem, poor liquidity of BitAssets, before its too late.
Referral ProgramWe need there to be incentive for businesses to refer new users. So it would be a big mistake to kill the referral program, especially at this early point in time. However, it is clear that the design of the referral program is complicated and problematic. The complicated design is confusing for users and business builders, and also makes it very difficult to have a productive debate about setting fees. I propose we simplify matters. Let's remove the tiers and go with a residual model only. Ronny said it himself:
"...something as important as referral system where the residual income is only coming later, that' is the idea with this anyways. It's not to have money in your pocket same day you refer someone."Lifetime MembershipSo let's remove the concept of lifetime/annual membership. Sorry
@jakub, but it's simply counterproductive to complicate matters all around by forcing people to pay membership fees just so a referrer has the chance to make upfront referral fees in some cases. If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed. So let the referral incentive come entirely from the residual income generated by 80% of the network fees (above the per-transaction network cost, of course).
FeesNow let's talk about the actual fees. I strongly believe that we can compromise to find a sweet spot that keeps fees low enough for user adoption, allows for micro-transactions, and allows referrers to earn a residual that incentivizes them to attract new users.
When debating fees, we must first recognize that there is a per-transaction COST to the network, therefore we CANNOT have fees below this level. Also, let's please stop making proposals with fees denominated in BTS because that is too ARBITRARY since the value of BTS is volatile. The recent proposal from bitcrab is for 1BTS fee. The problem with that is that today it barely covers the network cost. If the price drops back to yesterday's levels, then the network is losing money. On the other hand, if the price goes up substantially, then the fee becomes much higher than anticipated. This is not sensible. So let's debate and ultimately target fees in terms of a stable currency.
Flat Fee vs. Percentage-based FeeWhen it comes to flat fee vs. %-based fee, again, we must again recognize that the flat fee is also ARBITRARY, i.e. lower value transactions are paying a higher relative fee than larger transactions. This is partly why the %-based fee makes sense. A %-based fee combined with the upper and lower caps allows us to meet our goals since it enables micro-transactions, ensures network costs are covered, and there is still room for referrers to earn a residual % of fees above the network cost.
CompromiseLet's have a proper debate about the fees in this context. And keep in mind that we need to compromise here. The success of Bitshares depends on it. So let's figure out what numbers we can all live with. For starters, the minimum fee cannot be below $.005 (half a penny), we know that for sure. As for the percentage, .1% seems very reasonable. Although perhaps we can go as low as .05%. Regarding the maximum, I am personally in favor of at least $.20, but I would like to see this debated. Keep in mind that with the .1%, $.20 would be the fee for transactions of $200 and up, whereas smaller transactions would have smaller fees, as low as $.005.
@bitcrab, do you honestly think these fees would limit user adoption in any meaningful way?
@ccedk/Ronny, what do you think of a compromise along these lines?
If we can come to a good compromise here, then we can turn our attention to liquidity of BitAssets, which is the real limitation on user adoption.
Topic: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal (Read 125633 times)
