Author Topic: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal  (Read 50749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jakub

  • Guest
I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a single person - could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes to LTM referral payouts.  So I will continue to maintain that there is ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.

Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of the LTM fee?  Think about it.  If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets no piece of the transaction fees going forward.  So the referrer NEEDS to collect the LTM fee.  But the network gets paid for transactions regardless.  So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam. 

If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users immediately.  Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers. 

If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties.  We would still need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging these last couple days.  Thoughts?

 +5%
I could not agree more. This is exactly what I think.

We need to sort out these two:
- why does there need to be vesting on LTM?
- why does 20% of LTM go to the network?

If both are unnecessary, they need to be removed.
And once they are removed, the referral program becomes fully optional, and our long lasting debate is finally over.

jakub

  • Guest
@yvv , this is only illustrates that your flat rental example is quite inadequate to our situation.
We do not have any significant cost (the equivalent of mortgage) to pay for unoccupied space on the blockchain. 

Well. That is not really true.  bts witnesses still need to keep their nodes up and running, and pay running cost, whether there is transaction to be signed or not.  These expenses are being financed by the network.

Maybe I need to rephrase it:
The landlady only needs one tenant to start making profit instead of incurring a loss. Her situation is binary. She either has a tenant and makes money or doesn't have a tenant and makes a loss. So she is willing to pay to the referrer the difference between the state of making money and making a loss.

Whereas we can only pay to the referrer as much as we expect to earn on the user he brings us. So we need to set the fees in such a way that the user actually pays for the effort of referring him, as puppies pointed it out. Our situation is not binary. So there is no way we could act like the landlady. Our economic model is different.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 11:32:15 am by jakub »

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2

Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.

Corrected.

The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price.  From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period.  Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
IMO it IS perfectly safe, assuming you are BTS long anyway.
You're right, this will not suit everyone but this assumption holds for most BitShares-related businesses, including bitcrab's transwiser.
You give away 16k BTS today and you're sure to get the full amount back in 90 days.
You need to freeze some of your BTS capital this way, but in return you get a happy customer having access to low transfer fees.

I'm still curious why @bitcrab is not willing to consider this as an alternative option to "1 BTS for transfer".
Probably it need to freeze too many BTS's. Probably you don't know how many potential (ab)users are there in China. 16K BTS per user means 1.6M per 100 users, 16M per 1000 users, imo it's too easy to be exploited.
Maybe the vesting period should be significantly shortened when LTM is bought, as @twitter suggested.
(I'm probably missing something, as I don't know why we need vesting for LTM in the first place - anyone can explain? What kind of abuse would be possible without it?)

And secondly, you need 1.6 M per 100 users in a given time window. But as time goes by, the already vested funds can be reused for new users.

I brought up the vesting issue a few months back and no one - not a single person - could explain why vesting is necessary when it comes to LTM referral payouts.  So I will continue to maintain that there is ZERO reason for such vesting and it should be removed immediately.

Also, why is there any reason for the network to collect a portion of the LTM fee?  Think about it.  If a user pays for LTM, the referrer gets no piece of the transaction fees going forward.  So the referrer NEEDS to collect the LTM fee.  But the network gets paid for transactions regardless.  So the network doesn't have the same need to get a cut of the LTM, perhaps just a minimal fee to prevent spam. 

If we a) cut the network out of the LTM fee and b) remove vesting, it would allow business who don't want their users to pay anything for lower fees to return 100% of the LTM fee back to their users immediately.  Whereas business that rely on referrals can let their users pay the LTM fee, which would then go to their referrers. 

If we then combine these modifications with a percentage-based transaction fee having the lowest possible minimum (i.e. $.005 spam prevention), we should be able to satisfy all parties.  We would still need to debate the % fee (.1%?) and the upper limit ($.10-.20?), but that should be pretty easy relative to the debate that has been raging these last couple days.  Thoughts?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
We cant bring in micropayment users and at the same time keep businesses that run solely on top of the referral fee for transfer operations.
I disagree. There is a way to reconcile these two.
The percentage-based fee system effectively removes micro-payments from the referral program but in exchange it offers more generous profits for the referrers in case of bigger transfers.
This way both sides can be happy. Users have micro-payments. Referrers have income. Problem solved.
Yes .. I was referring to flat fees. Should have made myself more clear

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
@yvv , this is only illustrates that your flat rental example is quite inadequate to our situation.
We do not have any significant cost (the equivalent of mortgage) to pay for unoccupied space on the blockchain. 


Well. That is not really true.  bts witnesses still need to keep their nodes up and running, and pay running cost, whether there is transaction to be signed or not.  These expenses are being financed by the network.
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

jakub

  • Guest

Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.

Corrected.

The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price.  From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period.  Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
IMO it IS perfectly safe, assuming you are BTS long anyway.
You're right, this will not suit everyone but this assumption holds for most BitShares-related businesses, including bitcrab's transwiser.
You give away 16k BTS today and you're sure to get the full amount back in 90 days.
You need to freeze some of your BTS capital this way, but in return you get a happy customer having access to low transfer fees.

I'm still curious why @bitcrab is not willing to consider this as an alternative option to "1 BTS for transfer".
Probably it need to freeze too many BTS's. Probably you don't know how many potential (ab)users are there in China. 16K BTS per user means 1.6M per 100 users, 16M per 1000 users, imo it's too easy to be exploited.
Maybe the vesting period should be significantly shortened when LTM is bought, as @twitter suggested.
(I'm probably missing something, as I don't know why we need vesting for LTM in the first place - anyone can explain? What kind of abuse would be possible without it?)

And secondly, you need 1.6 M per 100 users in a given time window. But as time goes by, the already vested funds can be reused for new users.

jakub

  • Guest
We cant bring in micropayment users and at the same time keep businesses that run solely on top of the referral fee for transfer operations.
I disagree. There is a way to reconcile these two.
The percentage-based fee system effectively removes micro-payments from the referral program but in exchange it offers more generous profits for the referrers in case of bigger transfers.
This way both sides can be happy. Users have micro-payments. Referrers have income. Problem solved.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4597
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore

Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.

Corrected.

The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price.  From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period.  Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
IMO it IS perfectly safe, assuming you are BTS long anyway.
You're right, this will not suit everyone but this assumption holds for most BitShares-related businesses, including bitcrab's transwiser.
You give away 16k BTS today and you're sure to get the full amount back in 90 days.
You need to freeze some of your BTS capital this way, but in return you get a happy customer having access to low transfer fees.

I'm still curious why @bitcrab is not willing to consider this as an alternative option to "1 BTS for transfer".
Probably it need to freeze too many BTS's. Probably you don't know how many potential (ab)users are there in China. 16K BTS per user means 1.6M per 100 users, 16M per 1000 users, imo it's too easy to be exploited.

//Update:
Even the 16K BTS is paid by the referrer, the 4K upgrading fee seems to be still high for some users who want 1 BTS transfer fee.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 10:19:23 am by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

jakub

  • Guest
You do understand that you are paying higher rent than you would if your company did not have this referral program right?  Just because they don't state this doesn't make it untrue.  The money has to come from somewhere.  I am shocked that you are not angry that you are being overcharged by your landlord, and kept in rent slavery that you can only get out of by referring new renters.

No. Exactly opposite happens. We have the lowest fees in neighborhood, because our landlord fills available apartments fast. They pay me $300, because I save them bunch of money. Unoccupied apartment cost them, since they have to pay mortgage for their property. Their motivation is clear and reasonable. This is how business people do their business. This is not how bitshares referral works. Bitshares referrers rob the network and new users. They bite 80% of fees from reserve pool, then dump it on the market for fiat, and then have a good time with blackjack and hookers.

@yvv , this is only illustrates that your flat rental example is quite inadequate to our situation.
We do not have any significant cost (the equivalent of mortgage) to pay for unoccupied space on the blockchain. 

You suggest the referral reward should be paid by the BitShares company. However, since the new user does not give us any savings in costs, this referral reward has to be financed by the expected future earnings the company makes on this new user. Which brings us to the referral scheme we have now.

jakub

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

You have access to the Committee telegram channel.  All known proxies were invited.  You were there once but you probably forgotten about it.  Please come into the channel. There are discussions going on and we need your input.
Thanks, I've found it.

Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.

Corrected.

The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price.  From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period.  Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.
IMO it IS perfectly safe, assuming you are BTS long anyway.
You're right, this will not suit everyone but this assumption holds for most BitShares-related businesses, including bitcrab's transwiser.
You give away 16k BTS today and you're sure to get the full amount back in 90 days.
You need to freeze some of your BTS capital this way, but in return you get a happy customer having access to low transfer fees.

I'm still curious why @bitcrab is not willing to consider this as an alternative option to "1 BTS for transfer".
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 10:05:12 am by jakub »

Offline twitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile

we can definitely lower the fee to the same level as ETH ... do not worry ... we are getting there ...soooooooooooon

Quote
1) add the intrest to account that no moving bts for more than a month

2) to lower the fee to LTM level but increasing the vesting period(non-LTM) to 150-180 days and reduce LTM's vesting period to 7 days

FYI... Ethereum charges 0.01 ETH ($0.02) per transfer for all users, while we charges 30 BTS ($0.10). Oh I forgot LTM... yeah you need to transfer 833 times to recoup LTM fee.
witness:

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
FYI... Ethereum charges 0.01 ETH ($0.02) per transfer for all users, while we charges 30 BTS ($0.10). Oh I forgot LTM... yeah you need to transfer 833 times to recoup LTM fee.
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline twitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
1) add the intrest to account that no moving bts for more than a month

2) to lower the fee to LTM level but increasing the vesting period(non-LTM) to 150-180 days and reduce LTM's vesting period to 7 days
witness:

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Ironically, you call this guy  toxic to bitshares
you don't learn to respect our old friend, no new friend will come
you don't learn to respect share holders(how many times you have said, fork it  if you not satisfied), no money will support us
I agree with this. And I really don't understand why people get so frustrated about a forum post that merely contains a proposal.
We need to get back to the old times where this community was highly motivated, happy and welcomed everyone.

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
the current BTS referral program are not welcomed in China.

How the f*ck would you know? Or.... the referral program is not welcomed by YOU?
 
Get real. Go out, hit the streets, take an honest poll of the Chinese people en masse. Ask them if they would like to receive $50 for every lifetime member that they sign up. Go to a college campus and have some kids go out and canvas with you.
 
Get out there in the real world and see how many people you can talk to about Bitshares, get them excited, start a Meetup group, show them the mobile wallet, send them 100 BTS, get them signed up on ccedk.com or OL, shake some hands, encourage others to do the same.
 
Your hubris far outweighs my ability to describe it.
If one gets 100 BTS he or she will spend it up in three transfers ;)
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop