poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal

[tbone]

I hope you do not announce it in recent days,  if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.

@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?

because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.

Why do you continue to push for fees that are below our costs?  This is very irresponsible.  Also, even a flat fee at our cost would effectively kill the referral program.  If you succeed, that would be the second time you pushed your agenda through a back door.  That is terrible behavior.  You need to be stopped and removed from the committee.

[jakub]

I don‘t get it.

Someone wants us to pay for 300K just to lower the fee while we can just vote down and cost nothing?

Yes, you're right. You don't get it.

[jakub]

my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.

Not true.
Your proposal will have these costs:
- lost revenue for the network
- irreparable damage to the business environment around BitShares
- irreparable damage to BitShares reputation (lack of stable rules)
- people who have bought LTM will be rightly upset

[wallace]

@tbone I guess you don't pay attention. Where did I mention the flaw you pointed was towards the referral system or that you didn't support it?

I'm talking about all this sudden "need" to change what we have now. The quote from you is not even from the referral program but from the Lifetime membership part, which I disagree with you. It sets a commitment to the network and it's good to have that. Everyone is free to pay it or not.

@wallace if you want I can make 50 fake accounts and vote whatever option I want. Does your statement continue to stand true? Shareholder voting matters, not pools. These just help give an idea. It's not because of this pool that we need to "wake up". Unless you want me to make 50 fake accounts, of course.

if you think these are fake accounts, I have no idea because I can not prove it. but I know most of chinese community member support to lower the fee to 1

and as you said, let's vote on our blockchain

[deer]

I don‘t get it.

Someone wants us to pay for 300K just to lower the fee while we can just vote down and cost nothing?

[jakub]

of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion

The crucial thing here is: how much more?
Yes, I doubt that it will change liquidity by more than 5%.
If you think otherwise, you need to prove it somehow, so that we have some rational basis to assume it's worth destroying the referral business incentive.

[Vizzini]

[bitcrab]

I hope you do not announce it in recent days,  if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.

@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?

because I plan to propose to do the real fee reduction to 1 BTS if I get enough support from forum.
so it will be better to announce your worker proposal after I finished this issue, either fail or succeed finally.
my proposal do not cost BTS, while yours will cost a lot.

[Empirical1.2]

Bitcrab,

- Do you agree BitShares is a business?
- Do you agree a business needs marketing?

BitShares can either

1. Pay marketing delegates from dilution who we've seen are hard to manage in a decentralized business and often don't add value
2. Use a referral programme which pays marketers but only for the results they achieve.
3. Have low fees and hope volume increases, bringing in liquidity and word of mouth marketing works.

You are choosing option 3.

Atm it is actually close imo between option 2 & 3 because BitShares doesn't have a tightly pegged, liquid Smartcoin product yet, so what exactly are the referrers selling?

So I agree with you that charging a high fee when you don't have product to sell, hoping referrers are magically going to bring in business is wrong. That's why I'm in favour of the percentage fee system, it makes BTS much cheaper and possibly attracts & enables a lot more small transaction type customers and business models but should significantly increase volume thereby minimising any negative short term impact on the referral programme. 

However once the Smartcoin works well it will need to be marketed otherwise competitors will just copy them and spend money marketing them & your supporters will be crying to you everyday about no marketing. However you won't be able to use the referral programme because no-one will trust BTS to honour the agreement and the businesses that are building their model around it now will be gone.

(Your strategy will also increase the burden on dilution to pay for other expenses, witnesses and development as there will be little income when business does increase with such a low fee as a result the BTS you are proposing will be very centralized, with limited development and potential. Unless you are also incredibly focused on Smartcoins and there is enormous demand for them, you may attract more users but the value of BTS will decline because you will be paying for everything out of dilution.)

[lil_jay890]

Do you want to see businesses join this blockchain? That's where the growth can come from at this point. You are proposing to eliminate the incentive for them to do so.

If penny investors cannot afford the fee, then how much money are they really going to bring into BitShares? I'd rather have the CCEDKs of the world investing their own time and money to grow and innovate in this ecosystem.

If you don't like it, fork it. Free BitShares for everyone. And you figure out how to pay for the maintenance and support of your own system.

totally agree donkey

BTS is officially dead if the fees are lowered to 1...  There will be no incentive for development much less block production.

[alt]

of couse low fee could bring us more liquility than high fee.
you even doubt this?
I have no idea about this duscussion

[tbone]

I think the percentage-based fee solution is a sensible compromise.
We can keep low transfer fees where they are needed the most (i.e. for small transfers) and at the same time preserve the referral program in areas where it makes most sense (i.e. for bigger amounts).

We'll be announcing the actual worker proposal very soon, most probably today.

Yes, it is a sensible compromise.  Although how much of a compromise will depend on the final % and upper/lower bounds.  Unfortunately we haven't had a real debate on these parameters largely because @bitcrab amazingly doesn't understand the merits of implementing percentage-based fees.  It's also very disappointing that he continues to ignore the fact that we have a minimum network cost, and doesn't seem to appreciate why we should be discussing fees in terms of a stable currency. 

[jakub]

a boss open a store and sell product A.
normally in the market the price of A is $1.
for marketing the boss raise the price to $20, and broadcast to everyone: "if you can introduce another guy to buy, each time he pay $20, you will get $16 as cashback."
and he also tell everyone:"if you prepay $20000, then you can get $16 cashback 9 months later each time you buy one A."
someone called this referral program.

good point
we need to ask ourselves a question: what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
and another question: should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
In my opinion, transfer fees and trade fees should as low as posible, because of we need more active users, and good liquility.
and I guess referral program can work even more better with low transfer/trade fee,
we can got more fees for special service, such as issue an asset, active asset's market, upgrade account ....

It's amazing how you avoid the main issue here: where is your proof that lowering the transfer fee from 30 to 1 BTS will bring more liquidity?
One piece of evidence, please. Apart from you saying that you believe so.

[alt]

I hope you do not announce it in recent days,  if you announce it today I can only reject it, no other choice.

@bitcrab
And what is the reason for you having no choice?

It's you that need to give us a good reason if you want to dilution. if you wan to spent our money.
tell us your plan about how to use this function,
and  how much value could this bring us

[donkeypong]

Do you want to see businesses join this blockchain? That's where the growth can come from at this point. You are proposing to eliminate the incentive for them to do so.

If penny investors cannot afford the fee, then how much money are they really going to bring into BitShares? I'd rather have the CCEDKs of the world investing their own time and money to grow and innovate in this ecosystem.

If you don't like it, fork it. Free BitShares for everyone. And you figure out how to pay for the maintenance, growth, and support of your own system.