[DAC] Possible financial focus for the next few months

[jakub]

(2) Set the flat transfer fee at a level that is considered acceptable by China but still allows some space for %-based fees. IMO, this level is something around 10 BTS or $0.03. If we don't leave this space for %-based fees, no issuer (except the committee) will have any incentive to switch to the %-based scheme. Another advantage of maintaining this slightly higher level, is that this way there is still some incentive left to buy LTM for users who don't need any advanced features but just do a lot of transfers.

as discussed in committee, $0.018 is an acceptable flat fee.
committee can set all public smartcoins to percent fee scheme.

So that your TCNY can stay on the flat rate.
I agree, from bitcrab's point of view this is a brilliant idea.

[jakub]

This all seems fine.. though your worry over the % based fee has no real reasoning. I understand that it was initially sought out as a means of lower fees, however, if it doesn't get used it really won't have any negative consequence to Bitshares.

I don't get it.
So you want to spend 4m BTS on a feature that "doesn't get used" and say that "it really won't have any negative consequence to Bitshares".
And you say this as a committee member?

I do believe as we go forward the fees will increase, and for operators the % could be an option they want/need. Still, not having lower fees just because there is the % proposal under way doesn't really give justification.

How so? I thought xeroc has just created a tool that aims to prevent just that - an increase in fees due to BTS appreciation.
So going forward the fees will *not* increase unless you have a plan to magically convince the Chinese fraction of the committee that this is a good idea for them.

Having the choice is still good.

What you propose is actually the opposite to having a choice:
- Certainly there will be no choice for the issuers - all right-minded issuers will stick to the flat fees. No choice there.
- As for the committee - well, this is the actual option they will have: use the %-based scheme as a way to enforce higher transfer fees on public SmartCoins so that the private ones (e.g. TCNY) can get unfair competitive advantage. No wonder bitcrab is pleased with this.

[bitcrab]

(2) Set the flat transfer fee at a level that is considered acceptable by China but still allows some space for %-based fees. IMO, this level is something around 10 BTS or $0.03. If we don't leave this space for %-based fees, no issuer (except the committee) will have any incentive to switch to the %-based scheme. Another advantage of maintaining this slightly higher level, is that this way there is still some incentive left to buy LTM for users who don't need any advanced features but just do a lot of transfers.

as discussed in committee, $0.018 is an acceptable flat fee.
committee can set all public smartcoins to percent fee scheme.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I think these are our only options:

(1) Leave the 80/20 split unchanged, as this is the network's main source of revenue. Going to 90/10 will not change the referrers situation significantly but will reduce network's income by 50%.

(2) Set the flat transfer fee at a level that is considered acceptable by China but still allows some space for %-based fees. IMO, this level is something around 10 BTS or $0.03. If we don't leave this space for %-based fees, no issuer (except the committee) will have any incentive to switch to the %-based scheme. Another advantage of maintaining this slightly higher level, is that this way there is still some incentive left to buy LTM for users who don't need any advanced features but just do a lot of transfers.

(3) In China open a non-profit faucet that offers LTM upgrade at an 80% discount. BTS funds needed to run such a faucet could be offered by the committee (those funds are only needed due to the 90-day LTM vesting so they are absolutely safe).

This all seems fine.. though your worry over the % based fee has no real reasoning. I understand that it was initially sought out as a means of lower fees, however, if it doesn't get used it really won't have any negative consequence to Bitshares. I do believe as we go forward the fees will increase, and for operators the % could be an option they want/need. Still, not having lower fees just because there is the % proposal under way doesn't really give justification. Having the choice is still good.

[merivercap]

@jakub  Setting up the referral program for specific US/Eur assets makes perfect sense. BSIP10 was designed to be optional per issuer/asset anyways.  All of us referral program users are mostly in the US and Europe and the largest advocates for low fees are in China.   It will make everybody happy.  If I want to use TCNY I'll have low fees.  If I want to use Smartcoin USD fees will be higher.  No big deal.   If someone really wants low fees for Smartcoin USD I'm sure people will donate for an LTM account as charity.

What about more universal assets like gold or BTC?
There will always be assets used by both China and US/Europe - if not, what's the point of having a common blockchain?

The committee can decide gold & BTC...I don't think many will businesses would mind those assets having the low fee option but who knows... wouldn't the committee have to decide %-based or flat fee anyways?  If it's privatized smartcoin let the business decide.  The point of the common blockchain is that you can use all the assets.  It doesn't matter that each asset has varying fees.  Diversity is good.  We can all see what works and each demographic and business case is different.   

[jakub]

I think these are our only options:

(1) Leave the 80/20 split unchanged, as this is the network's main source of revenue. Going to 90/10 will not change the referrers situation significantly but will reduce network's income by 50%.

(2) Set the flat transfer fee at a level that is considered acceptable by China but still allows some space for %-based fees. IMO, this level is something around 10 BTS or $0.03. If we don't leave this space for %-based fees, no issuer (except the committee) will have any incentive to switch to the %-based scheme. Another advantage of maintaining this slightly higher level, is that this way there is still some incentive left to buy LTM for users who don't need any advanced features but just do a lot of transfers.

(3) In China open a non-profit faucet that offers LTM upgrade at an 80% discount. BTS funds needed to run such a faucet could be offered by the committee (those funds are only needed due to the 90-day LTM vesting so they are absolutely safe).

[jakub]

@jakub  Setting up the referral program for specific US/Eur assets makes perfect sense. BSIP10 was designed to be optional per issuer/asset anyways.  All of us referral program users are mostly in the US and Europe and the largest advocates for low fees are in China.   It will make everybody happy.  If I want to use TCNY I'll have low fees.  If I want to use Smartcoin USD fees will be higher.  No big deal.   If someone really wants low fees for Smartcoin USD I'm sure people will donate for an LTM account as charity.

What about more universal assets like gold or BTC?
There will always be assets used by both China and US/Europe - if not, what's the point of having a common blockchain?

[merivercap]

really? I think if I just leave one sentence in my forum signature, users will pass the info one by one. no ad needed.
people like to save money and help others to save money.

So you're talking about the crypto crowd. This market is tiny and extremely tough.

I'm talking about "normal" customers who don't really care about the technology part. And this market is huge.

so is a solution such as below acceptable to you? it limit referral program to some assets.

in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.

for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.

I think it's hard to limit the referral program to some assets because you never know which assets the user will eventually choose to use the most.

Let's assume my asset participates in the referral program and your asset does not, and I refer a user to the system but s/he ends up using your asset, not mine.
This way I'll be upset as I've paid to bring the user to the system but it's you who has made profit on this user.

But on the other hand limiting the referral program to some demographics does make sense, IMO.
The crypto crowd generally does not need it, so if CoinHoarder's machine effectively dismantles the referral program on this market, it will not hurt a business targeting "normal" users.

I honestly encourage you to set up a CoinHoarder's machine.
It's worth the effort, if it brings more harmony and less fighting into our community.

@jakub  Setting up the referral program for specific US/Eur assets makes perfect sense. BSIP10 was designed to be optional per issuer/asset anyways.  All of us referral program users are mostly in the US and Europe and the largest advocates for low fees are in China.   It will make everybody happy.  If I want to use TCNY I'll have low fees.  If I want to use Smartcoin USD fees will be higher.  No big deal.   If someone really wants low fees for Smartcoin USD I'm sure people will donate for an LTM account as charity.   

[yvv]

That's funny how you insist to take away almost all revenue from the referrers and yet you expect them to do more.

This is not what I say. I say, if referrers want to be payed more, then they should do some more work than just signing up users who never use the network.

There is no such concept as "duty" in this crypto world.
Saying somebody "should" do something does not work here.

Either you align the incentives properly and get the job done, or you end up without getting the job done.

This is what I say. If you don't do work for me, I shouldn't pay no fees to you.

[jakub]

That's funny how you insist to take away almost all revenue from the referrers and yet you expect them to do more.

This is not what I say. I say, if referrers want to be payed more, then they should do some more work than just signing up users who never use the network.

There is no such concept as "duty" in this crypto world.
Saying somebody "should" do something does not work here.

Either you align the incentives properly and get the job done, or you end up without getting the job done.

[abit]

@Bhuz One concern about the built-in referral program is about how new business benefit from existed user bases, and share benefits to whom brought in those existed users, and how businesses share benefits with other businesses built on top of the same platform.

[jakub]

Or you just have to make 2 transaction:
-the first one as requested by the user (with only the network fee)
-the second one from the user to the business account (it is hidden from the user side, so he see it as an higher fee charged on the first transaction)

I'm not sure but I think the hiding part might be the main difficulty - this is what the in-built referral program does perfectly for you.

The built in referral program allows a referrer to charge a shit out of a real user, who actually brings volume to the network, to cover the cost of creating spam accounts, which are 95% of all accounts. Nice approach.

This is exactly how any marketing-based business works.

[jakub]

really? I think if I just leave one sentence in my forum signature, users will pass the info one by one. no ad needed.
people like to save money and help others to save money.

So you're talking about the crypto crowd. This market is tiny and extremely tough.

I'm talking about "normal" customers who don't really care about the technology part. And this market is huge.

so is a solution such as below acceptable to you? it limit referral program to some assets.

in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.

for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.

I think it's hard to limit the referral program to some assets because you never know which assets the user will eventually choose to use the most.

Let's assume my asset participates in the referral program and your asset does not, and I refer a user to the system but s/he ends up using your asset, not mine.
This way I'll be upset as I've paid to bring the user to the system but it's you who has made profit on this user.

But on the other hand limiting the referral program to some demographics does make sense, IMO.
The crypto crowd generally does not need it, so if CoinHoarder's machine effectively dismantles the referral program on this market, it will not hurt a business targeting "normal" users.

I honestly encourage you to set up a CoinHoarder's machine.
It's worth the effort, if it brings more harmony and less fighting into our community.

[yvv]

Or you just have to make 2 transaction:
-the first one as requested by the user (with only the network fee)
-the second one from the user to the business account (it is hidden from the user side, so he see it as an higher fee charged on the first transaction)

I'm not sure but I think the hiding part might be the main difficulty - this is what the in-built referral program does perfectly for you.

The built in referral program allows a referrer to charge a shit out of a real user, who actually brings volume to the network, to cover the cost of creating spam accounts, which are 95% of all accounts. Nice approach.

[jakub]

Or you just have to make 2 transaction:
-the first one as requested by the user (with only the network fee)
-the second one from the user to the business account (it is hidden from the user side, so he see it as an higher fee charged on the first transaction)

I'm not sure but I think the hiding part might be the main difficulty - this is what the in-built referral program does perfectly for you.