Author Topic: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal  (Read 48119 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees

I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
thanks, I have not understand all, but here is some advice:
1. for asset settle, I agree should be discourage, but I prefer compensate shorters instead of charge high fees to pool.
    this means: a low settle fees + force_settlement_offset_percent(compensate like 1%)
2. if override_transfer can be used by prediction markets, I prefer a low fee.
3. some operation used for maintain, not for profit, I prefer a low fee, such as:
    asset_update_bitasset   asset_update_feed_producers   asset_claim_fees

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I think we should lower the transfer fees so that we stay competitive with other businesses but no further ..
Transfers are not essential to the referral program unless you are a payment processor and only want that operation ..
most businesses in the referral program do refer traders and business that want to trade and or create their own assets on the chain .. those fees could be raised .. as well as the fee for upgrading to LTM

jakub

  • Guest
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees
I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
But the difference between non-LTM and LTM transfer fees is the whole point of the referral program.
You cannot have low transfer fees across the whole system and the referral program at the same time.

I have no interesting for the faucets
If you're personally not interested in running a non-profit faucet, that's fine.
But note that the existence of a non-profit faucet will achieve your aim: low transfer fees for all users who have registered via this faucet.

I'm a bit supported you fight so hard for low transfer fees, saying that they are crucial for BitShares in China, but when I offer you means to achieve that, you say you are not interested.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees

I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
We should certainly have more competition in faucets and I can set one up this week.
What I do NOT want (and I think many will agree) is to be the DEFAULT faucet on bitshares.org/wallet or something similar because faucets need competition as well!

We should give the user a choice on registration which faucet they want to use and for what reason they should pick them. Of course, openledger.info is excluded here since they don't want to give that option to the users they catch in their marketing they are working hard on.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees

I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account

jakub

  • Guest
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.

So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.

I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)

I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
why should a worker be paid to run a non-profit faucet? It would be better to have the faucet itself pay 10% for maintenance and burn the other 90%. It is technically also possible to identify those referers that upgraded to LTM and pay them back automatically (invovles trust) after 90 days of vesting. Since this needs coding and resouces, this should at least make some little money for however sets it up.
Wouldn't it?

I can certainly set something like this op on bitshares.eu if you want it

You're right, @xeroc
I agree that what you propose makes more sense than a worker porposal.

If you could do that, it would be great. Because I think @yvv has a valid point - it's not fair anybody should be forced to pay a fee to a third-party if actually no third-party was involved in attracting this new user to BitShares. If I come across BitShares via Market Coin Cap or Google, I should have the right not to pay anybody (except the network) for the ability to create an account.

Also, this gives a new dimension to the referral program. There will be faucets competing on the LTM discount and thus they will be forced to offer additional services to justify their pricing policy.

And this should be good news to those who say that the referral program is a burden for BitShares - you can run your own non-profit faucet and thus force the referral businesses to bring some added value to the user or go out of business.

@bitcrab @clayop @alt - what do you think?

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.

So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.

I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)

I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
why should a worker be paid to run a non-profit faucet? It would be better to have the faucet itself pay 10% for maintenance and burn the other 90%. It is technically also possible to identify those referers that upgraded to LTM and pay them back automatically (invovles trust) after 90 days of vesting. Since this needs coding and resouces, this should at least make some little money for however sets it up.
Wouldn't it?

I can certainly set something like this op on bitshares.eu if you want it

This really does sound like a great solution.  I support it too!

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
I would very much like to see fewer rash and hateful words here.
I'm extremely disappointed with certain members of this community based on the tone of their posts in this thread.
While others are standing out for their clear and genuine efforts at reaching some understanding.

I understand a certain degree of skepticism and mistrust here, but we mustn't let it get the best of us.  We can solve this issue, like so many before it.

I for one stand to benefit greatly from the referral program, yet I wish for a solution to the great fee debate which gives the Chinese members of our community the tools they need to succeed, and therefore the tools we need for all of us to succeed.  Others have already pointed out the obvious, and I will reiterate, we are a global blockchain, a global community.  We need to look after the interests of as many members of our community as we can manage.  We will be as strong as our diversity, and we haven't yet begun to exhaust options for devising a plan which can accommodate the many communities of which we are comprised.  Let's not let haste, or greed, for our little piece of the pie, distract us from the greater purpose here.

I'm generally in the don't change things until we've had a chance to see what's really happening as a result of current parameters camp, but we are faced with a situation in which a significant portion of our community is expressing a strong desire for another way of doing business, and we would do well to listen.  Try to understand where bitcrab is coming from, and respond accordingly... don't just react@merivercap and @abit, among others,  are really keeping it real on this front.  Respect.

We must have real dialogue between all interested parties, not just throwing stones. There must be a way to resolve this issue to the benefit of everyone involved.  May reason and goodwill prevail.

C'mon, we're only on page 19 of this thread.. I think we'll have it around page 34.  Someone start a prediction market for the fee debate already.  ;)

The whole world is counting on us... no pressure.  8)
@bytemaster alluded to some thoughts on the matter in the last mumble... I'm curious when he will weigh in... page 20?

Every word....fantastic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.

So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.

I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)

I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
why should a worker be paid to run a non-profit faucet? It would be better to have the faucet itself pay 10% for maintenance and burn the other 90%. It is technically also possible to identify those referers that upgraded to LTM and pay them back automatically (invovles trust) after 90 days of vesting. Since this needs coding and resouces, this should at least make some little money for however sets it up.
Wouldn't it?

I can certainly set something like this op on bitshares.eu if you want it

jakub

  • Guest
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.

So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.

I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)

I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.

jakub

  • Guest
In China(maybe also in some other regions in the world), the current referral program is just a trouble maker, very few people are interested in playing as a referrer, on the otherside, the high fee brought by it make the old players unhappy and drive a lot potential new joiners away. even worse, the logic behind the referral program is not appreciated by the China blockchain/cryptocurrency community. the whole China BTS community are in pain because of this.

here I propose mainly as a representative of China community and a committee member,  not the founder of transwiser.
whether I am important is not important,  but it is important to face the problem and find a solution.

why there are always voice from China community to request transfer fee reduction, not because we like to make noise, but because the whole China community suffered from the high fee day after day.

now in this poll more than 50% voted 1 BTS or 0.1 BTS, this shows that even outside China there are many shareholders/users are not satisfactory with current transfer fee structure.

even I leave BTS the problem still exist.

@bitcrab , if you say the referral program is nothing but "a trouble maker" in countries like China, maybe this is a simple solution:

Create a special faucet in China that registers new users and offers them LTM for free (or almost for free to cover the network LTM fee).
This faucet will be a non-profit entity (or will have to be subsidized a little bit by businesses like yours) but in my eyes it makes perfect sense, if you say you are able to make profit elsewhere, i.e. outside the referral program.
The only drawback is that Chinese customers will have to be aware of the vesting aspect (i.e. they pay higher fee today but 80% of it gets refunded in the future).

It's so simple that I'm sure you must have thought about it already.
But what are the reasons (apart from vesting) that prevent you from solving the problem this way?

Offline lovejoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
    • Cryptofresh
  • BitShares: lovejoy
I would very much like to see fewer rash and hateful words here.
I'm extremely disappointed with certain members of this community based on the tone of their posts in this thread.
While others are standing out for their clear and genuine efforts at reaching some understanding.

I understand a certain degree of skepticism and mistrust here, but we mustn't let it get the best of us.  We can solve this issue, like so many before it.

I for one stand to benefit greatly from the referral program, yet I wish for a solution to the great fee debate which gives the Chinese members of our community the tools they need to succeed, and therefore the tools we need for all of us to succeed.  Others have already pointed out the obvious, and I will reiterate, we are a global blockchain, a global community.  We need to look after the interests of as many members of our community as we can manage.  We will be as strong as our diversity, and we haven't yet begun to exhaust options for devising a plan which can accommodate the many communities of which we are comprised.  Let's not let haste, or greed, for our little piece of the pie, distract us from the greater purpose here.

I'm generally in the don't change things until we've had a chance to see what's really happening as a result of current parameters camp, but we are faced with a situation in which a significant portion of our community is expressing a strong desire for another way of doing business, and we would do well to listen.  Try to understand where bitcrab is coming from, and respond accordingly... don't just react@merivercap and @abit, among others,  are really keeping it real on this front.  Respect.

We must have real dialogue between all interested parties, not just throwing stones. There must be a way to resolve this issue to the benefit of everyone involved.  May reason and goodwill prevail.

C'mon, we're only on page 19 of this thread.. I think we'll have it around page 34.  Someone start a prediction market for the fee debate already.  ;)

The whole world is counting on us... no pressure.  8)
@bytemaster alluded to some thoughts on the matter in the last mumble... I'm curious when he will weigh in... page 20?

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1920
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
We are now killing a very important business that are connected to enormous market, china. I'm really worried that bitcrab leaves BTS with his customers and human networks (exchanges, celebrities). He can, because he's a business guy. If he find more attractive market than BTS he will move.
Still, BitShares needs to please more than just bitcrab
Correct. But he's still important.

here I propose mainly as a representative of China community and a committee member,  not the founder of transwiser.
whether I am important is not important,  but it is important to face the problem and find a solution.

why there are always voice from China community to request transfer fee reduction, not because we like to make noise, but because the whole China community suffered from the high fee day after day.

now in this poll more than 50% voted 1 BTS or 0.1 BTS, this shows that even outside China there are many shareholders/users are not satisfactory with current transfer fee structure.

even I leave BTS the problem still exist.
Email´╝Übitcrab@qq.com

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Some of you are ignoring that transfer does not mean only for money. It can include information, like messaging, communicating with iot, etc. High fees can remove these opportunities.

How about different (new?) operation for those... they do not fall under "asset transfer" category by most definitions, aren't they? (mostly you do not buy them/pay for them first, you just create the message, much like the memo field. A kB field and a small say 0.01BTS base/min fee.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 04:07:38 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.