poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal

[lil_jay890]

I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.

I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post?

I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.

Right. I do need some comprehension lessons.

You are a idiot man. Here is an english lesson for you. Learn the difference inbetween:
Investing: current or future tense
Invested: past tense

If I had said "I am no longer invested..." then you would be correct, but I didn't and instead you're just an idiot that doesn't understand English.

lol.. you mad bro??

[CoinHoarder]

I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.

I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post?

I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.

Right. I do need some comprehension lessons.

You are a idiot man. Here is an english lesson for you. Learn the difference inbetween:
Investing: current or future tense
Invested: past tense

If I had said "I am no longer invested..." then you would be correct, but I didn't and instead you're just an idiot that doesn't understand English.

[tbone]

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

below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:



some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.

it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01

to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.

upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.

Despite much urging to debate/discuss the fees in terms of a stable currency, you keep discussing them in terms of BTS.  So can I assume that means you don't care that the fee would be much higher in terms of USD and CNY when BTS goes up a lot in value? 

Also, do you realize that your proposals are going to make micro-transactions much more expensive?

[jakub]

I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.

I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post?

I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.

Right. I do need some comprehension lessons.

[bitcrab]

My understanding was that this is just another fee model that has to be
applied on a per asset basis. So once it is implemented (and hard
forked) the committee still needs to change the fee model for other
assets. For that reason it will not be applied for BTS because the
committee does not own the BTS asset, in contrast to the other
bitassets.

I find there is a root difference between their proposal and my expection: in their flat fee mode, there are still 80% go to referrer, and in my expectation, in flat mode, all the fee should go to network.
because I think of this in order to get some assets out of the influence of referral program, but they do their proposal in order to make referral program work better.

And you propose a 1 BTS fee for transfers?

check my last reply, generally speaking the value can be discussed inside the narrower reasonable fee area: 2-5 BTS.

[sudo]

bts lack users！！！！！！！！！！！！！！

[bitcrab]

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

below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:



some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.

it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01

to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.

upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.

[wallace]

as I already stated, in my view, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient, attractive and cheap platform

Uh huh, and who's gonna pay for that? So, if the POS system sells a 50 cent candy bar, it costs 1 BTS fine, but if the POS system sells a Ferarri, it should only charge 1 BTS for that too? How about a Navy Shipbuilder or Lightrail project? Think outside your firewalls, man.
 
Is nature flat? No. It's dynamic. We need to SCALE from micro to macro and everything in between.
 

I know not everyone agree with me, but one fact is that most users are at the same time shareholders, charge more means shareholders need to pay more.

Pay more, get more. Pay nothing and you get a LOT less. Understand?
Have you ever built a successful company in your life, or even one that managed to last for more than 5-10 years? Show us the flaws in BSIP10, please.
 

we need a balance to ensure the DAC can sustain itself

Good lord, you're all over the place.
Who's actually voting for you anyway? Be specific.

傻逼

[xeroc]

AFAIK, there are difference between this and abit's proposal, in abit's proposal, all the smartcoins, including all privatized smartcoins will be applied model B.
this difference is important, it's possible for me to support abit's proposal, but before that I need to check with him for details of the fee stucture and do modification if necessary.

My understanding was that this is just another fee model that has to be
applied on a per asset basis. So once it is implemented (and hard
forked) the committee still needs to change the fee model for other
assets. For that reason it will not be applied for BTS because the
committee does not own the BTS asset, in contrast to the other
bitassets.

and even finally a consensus be reached, we still need to determine the flat fee parameter,  and at frist step apply this to all assets, and then wait for abit to realize his proposal.

And you propose a 1 BTS fee for transfers?

[kenCode]

as I already stated, in my view, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient, attractive and cheap platform

Uh huh, and who's gonna pay for that? So, if the POS system sells a 50 cent candy bar, it costs 1 BTS fine, but if the POS system sells a Ferarri, it should only charge 1 BTS for that too? How about a Navy Shipbuilder or Lightrail project? Think outside your firewalls, man.
 
Is nature flat? No. It's dynamic. We need to SCALE from micro to macro and everything in between.
 

I know not everyone agree with me, but one fact is that most users are at the same time shareholders, charge more means shareholders need to pay more.

Pay more, get more. Pay nothing and you get a LOT less. Understand?
Have you ever built a successful company in your life, or even one that managed to last for more than 5-10 years? Show us the flaws in BSIP10, please.
 

we need a balance to ensure the DAC can sustain itself

Good lord, you're all over the place.
Who's actually voting for you anyway? Be specific.

[xeroc]

Choosing between 2 different models doesn't imply no profitability for
the DAC. It's just a matter of setting up those 2 models. Flat vs
Percentage for example. One thing doesn't imply the other imo. It's just
a matter of reaching consensus here. With two options should be easier
because that way we can have one that benefits people who think fees are
too high and others who think fees are too low.

Sure. My reasoning was that no matter what model you chose, the end user
will always need to pay a fee. And unless you can opt-out from the
referral program on a per-asset basis, 80% of that fee will go to the
referral program (except for ltm)

Well, assuming it's the businesses that choose the fee model which their
users will use, what if they just keep changing the fees? What about the
first users who used a more expensive fee model before and the new users
that get the new benefits of the new model? People will no be happy,
even though the market will decide to continue supporting that business
or not..

Sounds like business as usual to me

Will old users have a different model than new users? Will the fee model
change for all users if the business who registered them chooses to? I
assumed it won't. Can parameters from thousands of accounts be changed
like that? While others aren't? There are lots of stuff to consider
there. Maybe I'm going too deep already but I assumed they wouldn't be
able to change because of that. Of course if it can be changed, I see no
problem. If users find it unfair they will just move on to other
business. That was my first assumption, maybe a wrong one but the
initial one I had, hence my comment above.

Oh, wait, I think we are talking different things here. I am not talking
about makeing a distinction among USERS, but among ASSETS.

So, for instance, a user of asset TUSD does not need to pay referral
bonus because TUSD has opted out of the referral program. That, however,
does not mean that the referral fee is discarded for any other asset as
well.

[CoinHoarder]

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.

I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.

[bitcrab]

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!

AFAIK, there are difference between this and abit's proposal, in abit's proposal, all the smartcoins, including all privatized smartcoins will be applied model B.
this difference is important, it's possible for me to support abit's proposal, but before that I need to check with him for details of the fee stucture and do modification if necessary.

and even finally a consensus be reached, we still need to determine the flat fee parameter,  and at frist step apply this to all assets, and then wait for abit to realize his proposal.

[bitcrab]

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!!)

as I already stated, in my view, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient, attractive and cheap platform, meanwhile provide chance and tools for every player here to make money.

I know not everyone agree with me, but one fact is that most users are at the same time shareholders, charge more means shareholders need to pay more. so we need a balance to ensure the DAC can sustain itself and the shareholders/users are not enslaved. 

[Akado]

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?

Choosing between 2 different models doesn't imply no profitability for the DAC. It's just a matter of setting up those 2 models. Flat vs Percentage for example. One thing doesn't imply the other imo. It's just a matter of reaching consensus here. With two options should be easier because that way we can have one that benefits people who think fees are too high and others who think fees are too low.

Well, assuming it's the businesses that choose the fee model which their users will use, what if they just keep changing the fees? What about the first users who used a more expensive fee model before and the new users that get the new benefits of the new model? People will no be happy, even though the market will decide to continue supporting that business or not..

Will old users have a different model than new users? Will the fee model change for all users if the business who registered them chooses to? I assumed it won't. Can parameters from thousands of accounts be changed like that? While others aren't? There are lots of stuff to consider there. Maybe I'm going too deep already but I assumed they wouldn't be able to change because of that. Of course if it can be changed, I see no problem. If users find it unfair they will just move on to other business. That was my first assumption, maybe a wrong one but the initial one I had, hence my comment above.