Author Topic: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX  (Read 11008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.

So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.

If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless.  Those fee's are controlled by the committee.  Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China.  Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.

I'm not doing this just to spread fud...  Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive.  Just the license will cost 50k-100k.  Plus probably another 50k in development time.  The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable.  That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee.
How can you judge a certain fee level makes referral program "useless"? Do you think $10 fee per transfer is more useful for referral program?

Can you provide a number how reduced fee kills referral program?

You really wan't me to explain how lowering the transfer fee's to 1 bts kills the referall program??

Ok... say mt4 integration cost $100k.  Profit from this is based on referrals from people who create a wallet that is used in the mt4 terminal.  Right now there are approximately 100k retail trading account in the US.  Lets just say on average a trader makes 3 round trip trades a day.  Say bts captures 1% of this market.  1,000 traders making 6 trades a day = 6,000 trades.  6,000 * 1bts = $21/day... The time to pay off the 100k dollar debt to implement mt4 would take 4,761 days or 13 years.  This makes mt4 integration a non-starter as maintenance costs would probably add another 6 years onto the time it takes to get profitable.

Now lets say that the trader generates 30bts... take 80% of that (24bts) as the return for a trade.  6,000 * 24bts = $504/day.  Time to pay off the debt is 198 days.  Investors are back in the black in less than 10% of the time all while squishing spreads, adding liquidity and generating real profit for the blockchain.  The transfer fee is $0.10, substantially less than what traders currently pay.  Why have a race to 0 fee's when there is no reason to do it???
Why 6000 is fixed?
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.

So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.

If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless.  Those fee's are controlled by the committee.  Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China.  Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.

I'm not doing this just to spread fud...  Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive.  Just the license will cost 50k-100k.  Plus probably another 50k in development time.  The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable.  That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee.
How can you judge a certain fee level makes referral program "useless"? Do you think $10 fee per transfer is more useful for referral program?

Can you provide a number how reduced fee kills referral program?

You really wan't me to explain how lowering the transfer fee's to 1 bts kills the referall program??

Ok... say mt4 integration cost $100k.  Profit from this is based on referrals from people who create a wallet that is used in the mt4 terminal.  Right now there are approximately 100k retail trading account in the US.  Lets just say on average a trader makes 3 round trip trades a day.  Say bts captures 1% of this market.  1,000 traders making 6 trades a day = 6,000 trades.  6,000 * 1bts = $21/day... The time to pay off the 100k dollar debt to implement mt4 would take 4,761 days or 13 years.  This makes mt4 integration a non-starter as maintenance costs would probably add another 6 years onto the time it takes to get profitable.

Now lets say that the trader generates 30bts... take 80% of that (24bts) as the return for a trade.  6,000 * 24bts = $504/day.  Time to pay off the debt is 198 days.  Investors are back in the black in less than 10% of the time all while squishing spreads, adding liquidity and generating real profit for the blockchain.  The transfer fee is $0.10, substantially less than what traders currently pay.  Why have a race to 0 fee's when there is no reason to do it???

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.

So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.

If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless.  Those fee's are controlled by the committee.  Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China.  Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.

I'm not doing this just to spread fud...  Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive.  Just the license will cost 50k-100k.  Plus probably another 50k in development time.  The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable.  That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee.
How can you judge a certain fee level makes referral program "useless"? Do you think $10 fee per transfer is more useful for referral program?

Can you provide a number how reduced fee kills referral program?
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.

So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.

If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless.  Those fee's are controlled by the committee.  Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China.  Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.

I'm not doing this just to spread fud...  Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive.  Just the license will cost 50k-100k.  Plus probably another 50k in development time.  The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable.  That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee. 

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.

So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Just going based off this... see item 3.  I suppose I should have said some committee members instead of a lot.  My mistake.



1.The core idea is, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient and attractive and cheap platform, meanwhile provide chance and tools for every player here to make money.

2.Keeping high transfer fee and meanwhile putting much fund on refining the fee structure is the wrong way, we should move to the right way -  go back to the global lowest tranfer fee scheme.

3.The referral program does not fit Bitshares, we need to eliminate its bad effect.




Bottom line: There is still a fairly substantial risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 09:59:09 pm by lil_jay890 »

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore


Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better

Thanks Dad.

I didn't say all the committe members want to, but bitcrab and many of the chinese members have advocated eliminating the referral programs.
Sounds like you know everything.

Currently, in the committee, there are 3 Chinese members: bitcrab, baozi(alt) and abit(me).
* bitcrab is somehow against applying referral program to China market.
* alt/baozi seems to be neutral to the referral program
* I tend to not remove the referral program.

harvey is ever in the committee and hasn't made any voice.

//Edit:
just noticed that k1 is voted into the committee, who is also Chinese. His ID on bitsharestalk is @BTSdac .
Don't know what's his opinion though.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop


Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better

Thanks Dad.

I didn't say all the committe members want to, but bitcrab and many of the chinese members have advocated eliminating the referral programs.
They don't actually. If they want to remove referral program, they attempted to change referral percentage. I think they want to change the structure of referral program.
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile


Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better

Thanks Dad.

I didn't say all the committe members want to, but bitcrab and many of the chinese members have advocated eliminating the referral programs.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc


Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better


Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
EDIT: And do it as FBA.

What is FBA?

FBA = fee backed asset

Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..

Could MT4 not generate income through referral fees by users who sign up through MT4?  Isn't that the whole point of the referral program.

That is the only way I figure an MT4 integration would be able to make money... FBA doesn't seem possible.

Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.

Offline morpheus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
EDIT: And do it as FBA.

What is FBA?

FBA = fee backed asset

Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..

Could MT4 not generate income through referral fees by users who sign up through MT4?  Isn't that the whole point of the referral program.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
EDIT: And do it as FBA.

What is FBA?

FBA = fee backed asset

Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..
Income after developed such plugin are from the MT4 side. License fee.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
EDIT: And do it as FBA.

What is FBA?

FBA = fee backed asset

Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..

Offline Thom

EDIT: And do it as FBA.

What is FBA?

FBA = fee backed asset

Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html