Author Topic: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal  (Read 39937 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jakub

  • Guest
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2016, 09:59:05 am »
[member=23]bitcrab[/member]
Your idea is destructive.

This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.

You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.

Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".

I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2016, 10:01:59 am »
[member=23]bitcrab[/member]
Your idea is destructive.

This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.

You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.

Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".

I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.
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
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2016, 10:16:27 am »
[member=23]bitcrab[/member]
Your idea is destructive.

This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.

You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.

Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".

I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.

4 months is not enough, people don't change exchanges that easily. They're creatures of habits. Is not easy to come and in 4 months replace major exchanges like that.
 
We've been though these pumps lately but BitShares volume seems to be growing. From the moment we're growing it's proven we're succeeding as we are atm. No need for change.

Plus people are still working and developing their own stuff. Give time for CCEDK's gateway directly into OpenLedger to develop and gain a bit of traction for example.


Like [member=19939]jakub[/member] said, you're acting under nothing but an assumption with no concrete proof or data. You can't prove your point atm. Not to mention if we're growing which we might do if BTC pumps this summer due to halving, alts growing etc, we don't need to change anything. With these simplu pumps our volume spikes. Sure, it's still small but did you honestly expect it to be that much on a project so despised by anyone and that on top of competing with other coins (other peoples pov) is also competing with exchanges?  This simple pumps got us a $50k spike. imagine what happens if there's the huge btc pump during the halving and alts consequently grow too.

We need time, both to prove our or your point. We are developing. Volume reacted fine during this pumps which might be a signal we are slightly growing.

Don't fix what's not broken.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

jakub

  • Guest
Re: poll for the &quot;1 BTS for transfer&quot; proposal
« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2016, 10:27:31 am »
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.

The target customers for referral businesses are online merchants and online consumers.
What can I offer those two groups at this stage? Nothing.
All I can do when I meet them is promise that one day it will all work.
And the reasonable answer from them is this: "Come back to me once it does work".

The referral program is not capable of boot-strapping liquidity, because it's meant for consumers only. Consumers will not take this risk.
Liquidity has to be boot-strapped by the shareholders and entrepreneurs, not the consumers.

So to answer your question, clayop: the referrers will be able to show their performance once we have:
- decent liquidity on the major SmartCoins markets
- gateways that allow you to turn fiat into SmartCoins (and back) without incurring significant fees

If we have these two in place, and the referral program does not produce any significant results for a couple of months, I'll fully support scrapping it.

Offline wallace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2016, 10:46:57 am »
it seems like if we wait, finally the people will realize how amazing our system is and they will come to follow us.
give me money, I will do...

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
Re: poll for the &quot;1 BTS for transfer&quot; proposal
« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2016, 10:57:26 am »
[member=23]bitcrab[/member]
Your idea is destructive.

This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.

You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.

Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".

I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.

4 months is not enough, people don't change exchanges that easily. They're creatures of habits. Is not easy to come and in 4 months replace major exchanges like that.
 
We've been though these pumps lately but BitShares volume seems to be growing. From the moment we're growing it's proven we're succeeding as we are atm. No need for change.

Plus people are still working and developing their own stuff. Give time for CCEDK's gateway directly into OpenLedger to develop and gain a bit of traction for example.


Like [member=19939]jakub[/member] said, you're acting under nothing but an assumption with no concrete proof or data. You can't prove your point atm. Not to mention if we're growing which we might do if BTC pumps this summer due to halving, alts growing etc, we don't need to change anything. With these simplu pumps our volume spikes. Sure, it's still small but did you honestly expect it to be that much on a project so despised by anyone and that on top of competing with other coins (other peoples pov) is also competing with exchanges?  This simple pumps got us a $50k spike. imagine what happens if there's the huge btc pump during the halving and alts consequently grow too.

We need time, both to prove our or your point. We are developing. Volume reacted fine during this pumps which might be a signal we are slightly growing.

Don't fix what's not broken.
lower transfer is temporary ,  if there are 10 tps average , we can consider increase transfer fee .
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
Re: poll for the &quot;1 BTS for transfer&quot; proposal
« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2016, 11:03:39 am »
[member=23]bitcrab[/member]
Your idea is destructive.

This is what we know for sure that will happen if we go through with your concept:
- it will be the end of the referral program (including the concept of LTM) and all businesses that have based their business plans on this program will be screwed
- it will be the end of OpenLeger and its fiat gateway
- it will be the end of our percentage-based fee initiative
And once again BitShares will confirm its lack of respect for stable rules.

You offer no argument whatsoever why lowering the transfer fee to 1 BTS will help anything.
Your only argument is your belief. So you want to sacrifice all the above just because you believe it will help.

Your "reasoning" is based on this unproved hypothesis:
There are potential users who would like to transfer amounts above the equivalent of $5 but are not doing so because "the fees are too high".

I think this hypothesis of yours is worth exactly this: 1 BTS.
If referrers show us their great performance s for last four months, this debate will be resolved more easily.

BTS 2.0 has only existed for three months and the referral for about two, so what i it with this 4 months?
OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2016, 11:33:53 am »
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 Program
We 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 Membership
So let's remove the concept of lifetime/annual membership.  Sorry [member=19939]jakub[/member], 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).

Fees
Now 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 Fee
When 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.   

Compromise
Let'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.

[member=23]bitcrab[/member], do you honestly think these fees would limit user adoption in any meaningful way?

[member=23432]ccedk[/member]/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.

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2016, 11:41:04 am »
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"

This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.

Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.

It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2016, 11:43:19 am »
 +5% +5% +5% +5%

Lets not have to have this discussion either its your sister or your wife situation kind of relationship!!! We need to embrace and build on what we have and decide later i'd after 1 year and only if declining in value or declining user base, and either one of these need time and products on platform to really kick off. Right now it seems it easier to speak about change than acually developing and adding great stuff for everyone to use, and thats really the wrong way to deal with this. Forget these nit pick polls about stuff that only creates loss of time is fousing on the real important matters.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 11:49:47 am by ccedk »
OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2016, 12:15:10 pm »
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"

This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.

Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.

It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.

I completely agree....

jakub

  • Guest
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2016, 12:25:10 pm »
Right now it seems it easier to speak about change than actually developing and adding great stuff for everyone to use, and that's really the wrong way to deal with this.

 +5%

And would add this: it's a big misconception that the referral program has the ability to boot-strap liquidity.
It's the other way round: liquidity comes first and once it is there, there will be a chance for the referral program to kick in.
So first we need to deal with the liquidity problem, and only then we can judge the referral program.

Nobody has given any proof that the current transfer fee of 30 BTS hurts liquidity.

Which hypothesis looks more reasonable to you?
- we have no liquidity because people transferring $300 are so poor that they cannot afford $0.1 for the transfer fee
- we have no liquidity because nobody has an economic incentive to risk their money to support liquidity

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2016, 12:30:58 pm »
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"

This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.

Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.

It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.

I completely agree....
Agreed ...

I would rather start pegging the current fees to the USD (for which we now have scripts: https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/tree/master/usd-denominated-fees)

Plus, those people that provide liquidity to centralized exchanges are having hard times running their bots against our markets .. simply because of the API.
Not sure if making the API easier to use will bring more liquidity .. but we can try
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2016, 12:32:07 pm »
Once again you don't actually backup your opinion on why we should change fees. Instead you argue it's because "If any referrer has a business model that depends on upfront fees (instead of residuals) for survival, then I think their model is flawed"

This is still young, why so quick to change you're not even giving it an opportunity. What's worse is that there's really nothing backing up the arguments that volume will grow and compensate for this lack of fees... And it doesn't make sense to change something that's working just because of a whim, with no foundation behind it while jeopardizing other projects at the same time.

Plus the volume seems to be growing a little because of these pumps, it will only take that initial flow to get things rolling. Isn't a chicken and egg problem? Well, we're having the volume because of the pumps, it's just a matter of using that to get more or at least, not to let it decrease below our previous average.

It seems we're creating a problem where it doesn't exist instead of focusing on the real problems.

I guess you don't pay attention.  I have always been a proponent of the referral program.  In my last post I said we NEED the referral program.  And I did NOT say it isn't working.  In fact, I'm pretty sure it IS working.  I just said that the tiered structure is complicated and counterproductive on MULTIPLE levels, which it is.  And there's no reason for that.  As Ronny said, it's about the residuals anyway.  We would lose nothing, and only gain, if we switched to a residual only referral model.  Let's wise up here.

And to the other side ([member=19219]clayop[/member], [member=23]bitcrab[/member], etc.), I'll say this: Common sense dictates that if you incentivize a behavior, you will likely get more of it.  Of course nothing is guaranteed.  But it should be obvious that you simply CANNOT judge the effectiveness of the referral program after such a short amount of time, especially considering that we don't even have liquid BitAssets yet.  You are NOT being reasonable by trying to remove the referral program. 

Guys, we need to compromise here.  I have VERY high hopes for Bitshares and have invested a LARGE sum of money.  But I'm losing patience with the inability to compromise, and my shit load of BTS will move on to greener pastures if we can't figure this out and get on to the business of creating liquidity for BitAssets.  Seriously, this is ridiculous.

Offline wallace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2016, 12:38:32 pm »
wake up... looking at this voting result
give me money, I will do...