poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal

[xeroc]

I think the only problem that could arise is people complaining about
the complexity of this, isn't BitShares all about the free markets and
option of choice? This is the most versatile option so far. People who
prefer A can use A, people who prefer B can use B. It doesn't rally
matter if users find it unfair or not, they will simply move to the one
they think it's best for them, the only one affected by this is the
business.

I think free markets should be allowed to choose between different fee
models. But the issue is that we should not forget about the
profitability of the DAC itself. Hence, reducing the profits for the DAC
to zero is not something that will find a lot of support. Letting people
choose weather to pay a flat fee or a percentage based fee (and which
parameters) is certainly something worth considering (see BSIP#10 and
@abit's implementation, as well as his worker!!)

One thing though, once a business has chosen the plan they prefer, they
won't be able to change it. That makes it a zero sum game. You either
succeed or you don't, you can't go back.

Why wouldn't they be able to change it later on?

[xeroc]

the problem is how to define fee model for each asset. how about this:
1. apply A model to BTS.
2. issuer of every other asset can select which model to apply, for
public smartcoins, committee will decide, to me it's OK that all the
public smartcoins, including BitCNY to be applied model B.

but I worry this will also cause debate in some scenarios, for example,
if I issue privatized smartcoin TUSD and apply model A. as BitUSD is
applied model B, so maybe some people will complain unfairness that TUSD
get competitive advange than BitUSD.

any thoughts?

My thoughts: This is excatly what @abit is doing in his proposal. So I
recommend you don't claim this as your idea and instead support abit's
worker proposal to get this done!


P.S. Yes, I am pissed

[xeroc]

boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.

There are plenty of them on these 12 pages. Could you please take the time and address them?

need not to waste time on that.

So my only argument for defending your behavior, namely, that you want to discuss even radical ideas, just vanished with your statement not to address others concerns. Got it

[jakub]

I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post? Or, since I don't have much stake my opinions don't matter? Are you always this elitist? Small stakeholders opinions don't matter?

Sorry you don't agree with my opinions. If you want to live in an echo chamber, then go somewhere else as this community is anything but. Sorry, I think it is disgustingly greedy and obnoxious that he just sold 200k-300k USD worth of stake in his company (and still retained a nice amount of equity) then turns around and blackmail us into alienating our Chinese userbase. I only make 50k a year working 40 hours a week, so it disgusts me that 200k-300k is not enough for this man for a measly few months worth of work.

It is disgusting because I am sure there are many that would love to be in his position. I can name a few less successful Bitshares based companies that I am sure would love to be in his position. I would be happy to start a business and be in the position OpenLedger is now after juse banuking 200-300k from a crowdsale. They are the cornerstone business of the Bitshares economy. I have neither the time, nor money, nor jurisdiction. I work 40 hours a week and go to school, I don't have the money to focus full time on a start up, and the USA is not a friensly jurisdiction for cryptocurrency businesses.

I am not against high fees. I am against high fees before Bitshates has a chance to reach critical mass. Running people off because of fees is the last thing Bitshares needs right now. The DEX, Bitshares flagship feature, depends on adoption to be useful (have liquidity). It is a common marketing strategy for exchanges to have low fees to attract users, then increase the fees once a certain amount of volume is reached. You guys seem disillusioned as to how to increase volume, as if percentage based fees will be the savior. No, if the fees are still high you are just spending money for the sake of spending money.

I have been around here longer than you, and I am sure you will tire of the project before I do, so get used to me being around. I brought many people and attention to the Bitshares project early on. I am one of the earliest supporters, and have spent more time than anyone promoting and defending Bitshares in the biggest cryptocurrency community Bitcointalk. I can hardly make a post about other cryptocurrencies without someone commenting about my affiliation with Bitshares. All you do for Bitshares is blab on Bitsharestalk all day, get real kid.

If you do have a stake, then I'm sorry, I retract that. I thought you said you didn't but I obviously I was dumb enough to believe you when you said this a few days ago:

Yet, you guys feel free to do what you like. I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.  You guys live in a bubble over here on bitsharestalk and have no idea how bad of a rep Bitshares has in the crypto community for many different reasons. Network effect makes successful crypto currencies, and Bitshares lacks a meaningful one. The referral program is a joke as even with the current fee structure there is little economic incentive to really make it work.

As for the rest of your rant, well.. I'll leave it as it is. I'm not gonna touch this.
I do hope DPOS is strong enough so that people like you are not able to do much damage.

[Akado]

to design different charging model may make sense, suppose we have 2 model for charging transfer fee:A: charge only the flat network fee. B. percent based fee, referrer can get the division accordingly.

It seems very complex but I really like it! It's the most versatile option and keeps everyone happy. Every business can choose the method it's more beneficial to them and accounts created through them, pay the fees the business has chosen.

Seems the best of both worlds!

Regarding people complaining about being unfair, that's how stuff works. Assets will compete against each other, the best will get more adoption. I don't see any problem with that. If users don't like one asset they can change to another one they prefer.

I don't know about the feasibility of this, but good idea bitcrab  I finally agree with you on something that's fee related.

I think the only problem that could arise is people complaining about the complexity of this, isn't BitShares all about the free markets and option of choice? This is the most versatile option so far. People who prefer A can use A, people who prefer B can use B. It doesn't rally matter if users find it unfair or not, they will simply move to the one they think it's best for them, the only one affected by this is the business.

One thing though, once a business has chosen the plan they prefer, they won't be able to change it. That makes it a zero sum game. You either succeed or you don't, you can't go back.

[bitcrab]

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.

Already thought about this.
I am ready for more developments.

this is considerable, as there are really business culture difference among different regions, in China referral program is just a trouble maker, but maybe it works in US and western europe. so as I asked before, 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?

to design different charging model may make sense, suppose we have 2 model for charging transfer fee:A: charge only the flat network fee. B. percent based fee, referrer can get the division accordingly.

the problem is how to define fee model for each asset. how about this:
1. apply A model to BTS.
2. issuer of every other asset can select which model to apply, for public smartcoins, committee will decide, to me it's OK that all the public smartcoins, including BitCNY to be applied model B.

but I worry this will also cause debate in some scenarios, for example, if I issue privatized smartcoin TUSD and apply model A. as BitUSD is applied model B, so maybe some people will complain unfairness that TUSD get competitive advange than BitUSD.

any thoughts?
 

[bitcrab]

boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.

There are plenty of them on these 12 pages. Could you please take the time and address them?

need not to waste time on that.

[CoinHoarder]

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.

Nice.

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.

I look forward to you following those "other profitable avenues for businesses".

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.

Indeed, it's obnoxious.

-------
@CoinHoarder
Who are you to produce statements like these? As you admitted yourself, you don't even have any stake.
I do hope you eventually become disappointed with BitShares and go away.

I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post? Or, since I don't have much stake my opinions don't matter? Are you always this elitist? Small stakeholders opinions don't matter?

Sorry you don't agree with my opinions. If you want to live in an echo chamber, then go somewhere else as this community is anything but. Sorry, I think it is disgustingly greedy and obnoxious that he just sold 200k-300k USD worth of stake in his company (and still retained a nice amount of equity) then turns around and blackmail us into alienating our Chinese userbase. I only make 50k a year working 40 hours a week, so it disgusts me that 200k-300k is not enough for this man for a measly few months worth of work.

It is disgusting because I am sure there are many that would love to be in his position. I can name a few less successful Bitshares based companies that I am sure would love to be in his position. I would be happy to start a business and be in the position OpenLedger is now after juse banuking 200-300k from a crowdsale. They are the cornerstone business of the Bitshares economy. I have neither the time, nor money, nor jurisdiction. I work 40 hours a week and go to school, I don't have the money to focus full time on a start up, and the USA is not a friensly jurisdiction for cryptocurrency businesses.

I am not against high fees. I am against high fees before Bitshates has a chance to reach critical mass. Running people off because of fees is the last thing Bitshares needs right now. The DEX, Bitshares flagship feature, depends on adoption to be useful (have liquidity). It is a common marketing strategy for exchanges to have low fees to attract users, then increase the fees once a certain amount of volume is reached. You guys seem disillusioned as to how to increase volume, as if percentage based fees will be the savior. No, if the fees are still high you are just spending money for the sake of spending money.

I have been around here longer than you, and I am sure you will tire of the project before I do, so get used to me being around. I brought many people and attention to the Bitshares project early on. I am one of the earliest supporters, and have spent more time than anyone promoting and defending Bitshares in the biggest cryptocurrency community Bitcointalk. I can hardly make a post about other cryptocurrencies without someone commenting about my affiliation with Bitshares. All you do for Bitshares is blab on Bitsharestalk all day, get real kid.

[xeroc]

boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.

There are plenty of them on these 12 pages. Could you please take the time and address them?

[abit]

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.

Already thought about this.
I am ready for more developments.

[bitcrab]

boys, stop personal attack please, if you have too much time just give some convictive words.

[kenCode]

I'm off from the forum for a while and what do I find when I come back? Bitcrab is still in the committee and he is still trying to destroy Bitshares.

Can't you just vote him out? He has demonstrated for many, many times that he doesn't understand how a DAC works and he is not interested in listening to arguments from other people. This is just some kind of power game for him, where he tries to get as much power as he can – and he doesn't care if Bitshares will be successful or not. Seriously, if you want Bitshares to succeed, Bitcrab and his minions have to be voted out.

 

[chryspano]

I'm off from the forum for a while and what do I find when I come back? Bitcrab is still in the committee and he is still trying to destroy Bitshares.

Can't you just vote him out? He has demonstrated for many, many times that he doesn't understand how a DAC works and he is not interested in listening to arguments from other people. This is just some kind of power game for him, where he tries to get as much power as he can – and he doesn't care if Bitshares will be successful or not. Seriously, if you want Bitshares to succeed, Bitcrab and his minions have to be voted out.

 

[Samupaha]

I'm off from the forum for a while and what do I find when I come back? Bitcrab is still in the committee and he is still trying to destroy Bitshares.

Can't you just vote him out? He has demonstrated for many, many times that he doesn't understand how a DAC works and he is not interested in listening to arguments from other people. This is just some kind of power game for him, where he tries to get as much power as he can – and he doesn't care if Bitshares will be successful or not. Seriously, if you want Bitshares to succeed, Bitcrab and his minions have to be voted out.

[jakub]

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.

Nice.

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.

I look forward to you following those "other profitable avenues for businesses".

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.

Indeed, it's obnoxious that Ronny has made some serious business decisions assuming the rules are stable and now he defends those rules.

-------
@CoinHoarder
Who are you to produce statements like these? As you admitted yourself, you don't even have any stake.
I do hope you eventually become disappointed with BitShares and go away.