Author Topic: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal  (Read 44610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
That's the case for ALL operations on the network ...

however, don't mix 'operational fees' with 'trading fees' which are a different thing

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
i am right that the tradingfees are not going to the referrals?


ja, you're right.
erm .. yes they do .. partially ..
The fees from creating/canceling/updating orders go to the referral program and thus 20% of it go to BTS.

when was this implemented?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
i am right that the tradingfees are not going to the referrals?


ja, you're right.
erm .. yes they do .. partially ..
The fees from creating/canceling/updating orders go to the referral program and thus 20% of it go to BTS.
The percentage market fees for each trade go to the issuer currently and the MAKER proposal wants to distribute THOSE to liquidity providers (if the issuer agrees)

Offline Moon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
    • View Profile
一个农民不想村里通路,因为通路了他就没法在路上捡牛粪去卖了   
---引用;)

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1912
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
thanks to all who read my suggestion carefully and give helpful feedback.

up to now 106 users voted, about 50% support 1 BTS or 0.1 BTS transfer fee, at least this shows that it's not wasting time to discuss this topic, there are many users/shareholders who are very unsatisfactory on current fee stucture, anyway, no need to rush, it is still needed to do some deeper review/analysis on some key topics, from my side, I'll try to dig on below topics: 

1.what a transfer fee is reasonable according to cost and competetion?

2. I am not intent to remove referral program, now I just consider to reduce the transfer fee, however currently the referral program has a tight link with the transfer fee. so we cannot ignore referral program, we need to ask below question:

if the referral program could only work with a transfer fee which is much higher than reasonable level and then actually enslave the users/shareholders, does it conform to a valid business ethical?

3. is it possible that Bitshares become a platform that businessmen can develop their business of different types upon it with great convenience, and meanwhile without enslaving users/shareholders or disturbing each other?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 07:22:55 am by bitcrab »
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline lovejoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
    • Cryptofresh
  • BitShares: lovejoy
We can compromise, get percentage based fees, have micro transactions, and still support the referral program.  I think the bad pr of constantly changing and screwing over anyone that attempts to build on our blockchain is worth the 3M bts abit is asking. 

All the people that are saying that reducing the fees to this level won't cause massive pain and damage to some are delusional.

All those that think that ignoring the concerns of the low fee crowd will not cause massive pain and damage to some are delusional.

Let's start thinking about compromise.  We are a globe spanning chain.  This squabbling is really unbecoming.

 +5%

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
i am right that the tradingfees are not going to the referrals?


ja, you're right.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
We can compromise, get percentage based fees, have micro transactions, and still support the referral program.  I think the bad pr of constantly changing and screwing over anyone that attempts to build on our blockchain is worth the 3M bts abit is asking. 

All the people that are saying that reducing the fees to this level won't cause massive pain and damage to some are delusional.

All those that think that ignoring the concerns of the low fee crowd will not cause massive pain and damage to some are delusional.

Let's start thinking about compromise.  We are a globe spanning chain.  This squabbling is really unbecoming.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline lafona

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: lafona
1.  The referral program is one key to  success for Bitshares and Bitcash.  It's an extremely efficient way of allocating marketing resources.   If anyone thinks a product sells itself without any marketing that person doesn't understand business.  The technology is important, but any other system can emulate or even fork features so that makes marketing and distribution more critical.  Dropbox, Paypal, Square and many other companies have used referral systems extremely effectively.

2.  The referral program attracts and provides an incentive for a variety of businesses to use and build applications on Bitshares.  It provides some sustenance to these businesses.  Most other businesses that build on Bitcoin or other ecosysems are not sustainable.

3.  The price someone is willing to pay reflects the value something provides.  Bitshares has to be useful. Fees help us identify areas where we are solving the biggest problem.   We can solve a problem for merchants if we make it easy to use, charge lower processing fees, eliminate chargebacks, and bring in new potential customers.  We can solve problems for those that don't want to or can't use traditional banking systems.   Those users and merchants should be willing to pay fees.   Peer-to-peer payments are already free with Alipay, Wechat, Unionpay in China and it's free in the US with Paypal, Square, Facebook, Apple(soon) ..all these companies already have a huge network effect and billions to spend on marketing.  We can go after peer-to-peer payments later.  It's not wise to use resources to go against these giants directly.

4.  The fees are not the biggest issue, but in China I understand that overall prices are lower so regional pricing makes sense.

5.  The Bitshares system doesn't need to earn a profit in the beginning.  It just has to pay for marketing, witnesses, and software development.   All we have to do is set the bare minimum network fee for sustainability.  We can have a small budget for ongoing core development, but rely on FBA's for advanced features.   

6.  What if we:

a. Determine the lowest sustainable fee structure that will pay for witnesses and a reasonable amount of software development and maintenance in the long run.  This will be the network fee.  It can be in dollar/yuan terms. 

b.  Create a flexible fee structure so that certain Smartcoins (bitUSD,bitEUR), UIA's, Privatized bitAssets, FBA's can charge an additional fee to pay for marketing costs and utilize the existing referral program as is.  We can allow other Privatized bitAssets (TCNY) or Smartcoins (bitCNY) to charge no additional fee and find a way to market itself with no money and no referral program... or possibly find outside VC money for marketing somehow.

What do you guys think?
This seems like a potential way to resolve this. I think it would be beneficial for Asset owners/creators to be able adjust the fee structure for their assets in order to better cater to their customers or marketing approach.
BTS Witnesses: delegate-1.lafona     Witness Thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21569.msg280911/topicseen.html#msg280911
MUSE Witness: lafona

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
I am with China on this one... I support low fees. Bitshares is too young to push users away because of low fees.

Openledger, by far the biggest referrer, has barely made chump change off the referral program. We should not base our decisions off of a failure of a feature.

If OpenLedger packs up shop because we lower fees then so be it. I own some OBITS and still could care less if they survive or not. I prefer that Bitshares thrives rather than OpenLedger survives.

I posit others will be willing to take OpenLedger's position as the cornerstone business of the Bitshares ecosystem and won't complain about transfer fees affecting the referral program. There are other profitable avenues for businesses to make money with Bitshares than simply the referral program.

Furthermore, it is kind of obnoxious to me Ronny makes 200-300k from the issuance of OBITS tokens then has the balls to blackmail us into leaving transaction fees as they are:

I will personally pull out of anything related with BitShares if this is voted out, as I will have no belief or incentive in the continuous pull for getting BTS and OpenLedger known worldwide.

He has no incentive... because he already pocketed $237,000 for a few months of work. Must be nice...

Quote
According to OBITS issuer and market maker, CCEDK, a Danish crytocurrency exchange, the OBITS crowd sale has so far managed to generate total public sales amounting to around 645 Bitcoin (BTC) – equivalent to around $237,000 (c.€217,000/£166,000) as of today. This has been spent purely on development costs and enhanced user experience.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2016/01/16/cryptocurrency-obits-ending-crowd-sale-with-buyback-dividend-option-adding-fiat-gateway/#27a08e2b4207
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 05:18:26 am by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags
want earn moeny before you have enough users???
even you  have enough users
still should think about  how to earn money from users   In order to avoid the loss of the users
 is  BTS unique, there is no substitute?

wake up

Offline freedom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
If you think you have a lot of users who want lower fees, then who are they? There are 11 pages of messages in this thread. I'm guessing (though I have not counted) that at least 20 or 30 different people have posted their thoughts. And it seems like only 2 or 3 posters actually want these low fees. Everyone else prefers to fund the system and help it grow.

Jakub keeps asking for evidence that low fees would attract people. Also, I question whether this poll is anywhere near accurate (I don't think so). If you have more real people who want lower fees, ask them not just to vote, but to post here also and explain why. They can write it in Chinese if they want. Then we'll believe they exist and we'll listen to their reasons.

As @jakub keeps asking you, please present some evidence that lower fees would help, not just the opinion of 2 or 3 loud posters. If there are more members than 2 or 3 who want lower fees, then ask them to post also.

I support low fees,我说中文你看得懂吗?这里有一吨的人支持low fees

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21192.0.html
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 04:43:01 am by free »

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.

20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?

You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
"Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only." -- You suggest a referrer should simply break even - wouldn't that give zero incentive to actively refer users? Moreover, you should consider that the cost to acquire a user involves costs for trying unsuccessfully to acquire users who do not sign-up.

If you invest in BTS, you have incentive to bring more users right away. More active users, better for BTS. If this is not enough incentive to you, then BTS is worthless. Referrers should be discouraged to create accounts which are never used. Those are spamers.
A referrer earns 0 from accounts that are created and never used, so they are naturally discouraged to not create accounts that are not used.

true, except if you are the OpenLedger. then you say... "see we have all these new account sign ups - pay for obituaries (OBITS) now and you will see how we capitalize on them in no time (just wait 1 year or so)"
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.

20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?

You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
"Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only." -- You suggest a referrer should simply break even - wouldn't that give zero incentive to actively refer users? Moreover, you should consider that the cost to acquire a user involves costs for trying unsuccessfully to acquire users who do not sign-up.

If you invest in BTS, you have incentive to bring more users right away. More active users, better for BTS. If this is not enough incentive to you, then BTS is worthless. Referrers should be discouraged to create accounts which are never used. Those are spamers.
A referrer earns 0 from accounts that are created and never used, so they are naturally discouraged to not create accounts that are not used.

They have 80% of fees from accounts which are used. So, they are encouraged to create accounts randomly,  and if 5% of them are actually used, referrer has good chance to break even in short time.

Offline mint chocolate chip

You pay 80% of LTM fee to referrer, and only 20% to network.

20% is not a bad reward for zero effort wouldn't you say?

You mean 80% for zero effort? Hell yeah, it is not bad at all for referrers. But it is bad for network. Network needs to have all transaction fees. Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only.
"Referrers need to be refunded for their expenses only." -- You suggest a referrer should simply break even - wouldn't that give zero incentive to actively refer users? Moreover, you should consider that the cost to acquire a user involves costs for trying unsuccessfully to acquire users who do not sign-up.

If you invest in BTS, you have incentive to bring more users right away. More active users, better for BTS. If this is not enough incentive to you, then BTS is worthless. Referrers should be discouraged to create accounts which are never used. Those are spamers.
A referrer earns 0 from accounts that are created and never used, so they are naturally discouraged to not create accounts that are not used.