Author Topic: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal  (Read 50817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jakub

  • Guest
There is little real evidence to show high fees are slowing bitshares adoption.  On the other hand there is vast empirical evidence that shows rule and parameter changes are cutting bts off at the knees.

This. Which makes it compltely illogical to change atm, imo. This is the most rational option so why come up with stuff that will destabilize the network? I just don't get it.

Atm the status of the network is A
Someone wants B because they don't agree with A
There is no evidence A is harmful
There is evidence that changing the status of the network (ie, B) is harmful.

What's even there left to discuss?

 +5%
I fully agree with @lil_jay890 and @Akado

Those who want to experiment with changing from status A to status B - let them do this without affecting other existing (or planned) businesses, i.e. by giving up their referral profits and running a non-profit faucet for *their* customers to see how the transition to status B works for them.

This way we can reconcile both approaches and let the more efficient one survive.

This is a very important question: do low transfer fees (for bigger transfers) really matter for the customers? Maybe they do and maybe to some degree they don't. Maybe it all depends on regional / cultural  circumstances. The point is we don't know this at this stage. People who say they know it for sure because it's "obvious", cannot be treated seriously.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 04:02:56 pm by jakub »

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
There is little real evidence to show high fees are slowing bitshares adoption.  On the other hand there is vast empirical evidence that shows rule and parameter changes are cutting bts off at the knees.

This. Which makes it compltely illogical to change atm, imo. This is the most rational option so why come up with stuff that will destabilize the network? I just don't get it.

Atm the status of the network is A
Someone wants B because they don't agree with A
There is no evidence A is harmful
There is evidence that changing the status of the network (ie, B) is harmful.

What's even there left to discuss?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 02:21:13 pm by Akado »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
I have no income, zero.
 
The mobile wallets will bring us referral income. This income is sorely needed to get the wallet past v1.0 and keep it bug free, constantly improving and ad-free. I have a family of four and my wife works 3 jobs, she is NOT happy that I have had no income for over a year. I have put my life blood, sweat and tears into this business and to have the only thing I have going yanked out from under me once again, well, I have to say this is it. Nuff said. Please enable micro-payments with near zero fees all the way up to large POS payments such as a Ferarri (charge a much higher fee of course) on a dynamic scale, but I would definitely cap it and use the Smartcoins as the % basis instead of the volatile BTS. @abit @jakub @xeroc @fav @BunkerChain Labs @chryspano and many others here know how important the network effect is, we need dynamic fees.
 
The Smartcoins POS for Odoo can bring us ALL an income. Dynamic fees are required here as well. Everything from 5 cent gumballs all the way up to houses and yachts and beyond.
 
Flat models don't scale, nature itself is dynamic, mimic nature and THRIVE.

It's important to realize people like ken have been developing businesses for bts using the current referral model as a key element in their design.  I don't think people her realize that businesses don't just pop up in a week.

I was just starting to develop a business as well, but now all of a sudden we are facing another drastic rule change. A rule change that effectively destroys any business that had been developing for the current version of bts.

Yes, everyone would love to pay extremely low fees.  But just because they want lower fees doesn't mean they won't pay slightly higher ones.  There is little real evidence to show high fees are slowing bitshares adoption.  On the other hand there is vast empirical evidence that shows rule and parameter changes are cutting bts off at the knees.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 02:07:48 pm by lil_jay890 »

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
I have no income, zero.
 
The mobile wallets will bring us referral income. This income is sorely needed to get the wallet past v1.0 and keep it bug free, constantly improving and ad-free. I have a family of four and my wife works 3 jobs, she is NOT happy that I have had no income for over a year. I have put my life blood, sweat and tears into this business and to have the only thing I have going yanked out from under me once again, well, I have to say this is it. Nuff said. Please enable micro-payments with near zero fees all the way up to large POS payments such as a Ferarri (charge a much higher fee of course) on a dynamic scale, but I would definitely cap it and use the Smartcoins as the % basis instead of the volatile BTS. @abit @jakub @xeroc @fav @BunkerChain Labs @chryspano and many others here know how important the network effect is, we need dynamic fees.
 
The Smartcoins POS for Odoo can bring us ALL an income. Dynamic fees are required here as well. Everything from 5 cent gumballs all the way up to houses and yachts and beyond.
 
Flat models don't scale, nature itself is dynamic, mimic nature and THRIVE.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

jakub

  • Guest
We do want online merchants, and we do want micropayments. for that reason a transfer fee of 0.024$c is proposed together with alot of other changes in the fee structure that are yet to be opimized by many iterations ..

Also, name one bitcoin processor that profits from a) referrals or b) transaction fees.
Whatevery we pay them, it is already an extra profit for them.

Quote
Let Referral program businesses make more profit from other features that are considered less 'core'-ish.

This weakens our sales pitch to online merchants to a large degree.
Majority of their customers will never do anything in BitShares beyond the 'core'-ish stuff, so if transfer fees are not part of the deal, the chance of buying LTM by the merchants' customers becomes really small.
Indeed, whatever we pay online merchants, it is already an extra profit for them, but this "whatever" becomes much less.

In this case, the LTM concept evolves into an offer for *advanced* users instead of being an offer for *frequent* users.
It's a significant change in the referral program strategy, but if businesses like @kenCode are OK with it, then maybe it makes sense.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
actually, I'd rather see some more operations that REQUIRE a LTM to be used .. good candidates are
WITHDRAW_PERMISSIONS
BOND MARKET
STEALTH TRANSFERS
etc ..

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
I just got a new idea,
LTM means trust.
with  reliable evidence, if LTM cheat somebody with money, committee can cancel an account's LTM

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
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".

If transfer fees are removed from the  LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?

I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
we should add more aditional feature for LTM,
such as can add a field for json info, lined to  photo,  webpage,  social account,
can add a wall for LTM, others can wirte public message for LTM,
can use chat room on chain....


Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Quote
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
privatized bitassets are certainly a feature that the network can
benefit from. I agree that this is not the case for committee-owned
bitassets, but it is for every other (privatized) bitasset.
because these operations are used for maitain, It's very user unfriendly if you charge high fee.
maybe it's more reasonable for add a percent fees(go to global fee pool) based UIA's trade/transfer fees(go to UIA's pool)
#edit seems the simple way is add a percent fee for asset_claim_fees
indeed ..

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
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".

If transfer fees are removed from the  LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?

I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
We do want online merchants, and we do want micropayments. for that reason a transfer fee of 0.024$c is proposed together with alot of other changes in the fee structure that are yet to be opimized by many iterations ..

Also, name one bitcoin processor that profits from a) referrals or b) transaction fees.
Whatevery we pay them, it is already an extra profit for them.

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
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal". EDIT: I've found it.

If transfer fees are removed from the  LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?

I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 09:38:42 am by jakub »

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
Quote
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
privatized bitassets are certainly a feature that the network can
benefit from. I agree that this is not the case for committee-owned
bitassets, but it is for every other (privatized) bitasset.
because these operations are used for maitain, It's very user unfriendly if you charge high fee.
maybe it's more reasonable for add a percent fees(go to global fee pool) based UIA's trade/transfer fees(go to UIA's pool)
#edit seems the simple way is add a percent fee for asset_claim_fees
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 12:38:08 pm by alt »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I do not get you.
now one LTM cost 20K BTS, how can a faucet offer free LTM? even I can make a little profit, I cannot offer free LTM.
The faucet promises to pay back 90% of the upgrade fee after 90 days. Done.
And you can make 10% profit plus every profit made from fees until the upgrade.

Quote
and if there is a faucet that offer free LTM, new users all around the world will come to sign up, how will openledger attract users?
now that is marketing. pick any idea to set your service apart from any other

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
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%)
We could certainly do this, but it kind of kills our reputation since we
advertised settlement AT the pricefeed. Not sure how this would be
perceived :(

Quote
2. if override_transfer can be used by prediction markets, I prefer a low fee.
Need to figure this out first

Quote
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
privatized bitassets are certainly a feature that the network can
benefit from. I agree that this is not the case for committee-owned
bitassets, but it is for every other (privatized) bitasset.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1920
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab

@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?

I do not get you.
now one LTM cost 20K BTS, how can a faucet offer free LTM? even I can make a little profit, I cannot offer free LTM.
and if there is a faucet that offer free LTM, new users all around the world will come to sign up, how will openledger attract users?
Email´╝Übitcrab@qq.com

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
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.
I guess xeroc also have different option with you

I have no problem for LTM have same transfer fees/trade fees with normal users,
because I encourage as more as possible people can come to use bitshares for transfer, for trade.
(in traditional company, they even send a free gift(like a mouse, a cup) for customer who used their payment service.)

upgrade  or not upgrade to  LTM  is cursomers free, I wish they have low transfer/trade fees even they don't choose to upgrade.

but we can offer more special service to attract user to upgrade to LTM,
referal program should earn money from these special service, or upgrade fees.

you are supprice for me because you still don't understand me.