Author Topic: [BSIP] Annual Membership price determined by the registrar  (Read 2076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jakub

  • Guest
Why shouldn't users feel cheated since even the same registrars could sell AM at different prices?
Why users then shouldn't feel cheated also from the platform itself that allows this behaviour to registrars?
The idea is that a registrar offers the same AM price to *all* customers who choose to register with her.
So not an individual price for every single customer, but one price offer from one registrar.
A different registrar can offer a different AM price but maybe their hosted wallet platform is also a bit different.

Of course there will be users who will try to be smart and register and upgrade with one registrar and then migrate their account to another hosted wallet service which they like better.
Theoretically we already have this problem to a large extent (I could sell you a LTM account for $25 and you could use it on OL instead of buying a new one for $100) and yet most users are not trying to game the registrar in this way. When people like a given hosted wallet platform, most of them will not attempt to find a better bargain.  Some of them will hunt for the best price but most cannot be bothered to do that, especially when the amount involved is small, e.g. $5.

Regarding feeling cheated: do you feel cheated when you see very different prices for airline tickets even though the quality of service is very similar?
So not, I don't think people will feel like that. People will have a choice, and those who do not care so much about price will pay the price offered by their registrar and those who care about the price will hunt for the best price and they will feel they are smart.

Maybe it's a matter of a cultural difference. In Europe, I think price is not the most important factor, people look at several aspects and price is only one of them.


Why should you give free AM to an user that *do not want* to pay a fee to obtain AM's benefits?
If an user do not want AM, he is more than welcome to remain a normal_user and pay higher fee for every operation.
You don't need to give it away completely free, you can ask a very low price, e.g. $1, so that only users who want it will have it.
All options are possible. If a user does not want AM even for $1, she can stay on higher fees.


Giving away free AM or LTM means take away revenue from the network.
Or because eventually that user could have paid for it, or just because he would had end up paying higher fee as normal user.
I've tried my best to explain in the BSIP, why I believe this is not true. If those arguments are not enough, then sorry, I cannot express it more clearly.
As long as the competition among hosted wallet providers is non-existent or weak (as we have it now) no revenue can be lost, as no registrar will give anything for free, if it can be sold for money. Only strong competition can change that, but currently we are very far away from this situation.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Why shouldn't users feel cheated since even the same registrars could sell AM at different prices?
Why users then shouldn't feel cheated also from the platform itself that allows this behaviour to registrars?

Why should you give free AM to an user that *do not want* to pay a fee to obtain AM's benefits?
If an user do not want AM, he is more than welcome to remain a normal_user and pay higher fee for every operation.

Giving away free AM or LTM means take away revenue from the network.
Or because eventually that user could have paid for it, or just because he would had end up paying higher fee as normal user.

jakub

  • Guest
In my design, a registrar opts out of referral program by setting the price of AM to zero, so the lack of a minimum price enforced by the network is actually quite crucial here.
The network earns nothing in this case, but my main assumption is that no revenue is lost, as no AM could have been sold on this particular market anyway.

The foundation of this concept is to give the registrar a total freedom regarding the AM price, even if it means no AM income for the network.
But in all cases when the AM is high enough, the network will get its share of the income.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
from abit:
So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.

from you:
Yes, that's a very good summary.



from me:
Is it correct that the shareholders/network/committee would end up setting the basic/lower_limit fee, and each registrars would *add* another fee *on top of the basic one*?

from you:
That's correct.

I understood abit's intention was this: introduce the basic/lower_limit fee as a formal parameter but set it to zero, so that a registrar *can* sell AM for zero if she really wants to.
Without this option my whole concept does not make much sense.

If abit's intention was different, then I misunderstood it.

Anyway, my proposal stands as described in this BSIP draft.
Is it a problem for you that there is no lower limit below which AM cannot be sold?
I've tried to logically prove that this should not be an issue and no revenue will be lost.
Maybe there were misunderstandings.

I've never wanted to let registrars drive LTM or AM upgrading fee to zero. IMO the committee (read: the DAC, or the stake holders) should set a bottom ABOVE zero for LTM/AM upgrading.

Jakub: sorry, I haven't had time to read the detailed proposal, I will check it when have time.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

jakub

  • Guest
from abit:
So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.

from you:
Yes, that's a very good summary.



from me:
Is it correct that the shareholders/network/committee would end up setting the basic/lower_limit fee, and each registrars would *add* another fee *on top of the basic one*?

from you:
That's correct.

I understood abit's intention was this: introduce the basic/lower_limit fee as a formal parameter but set it to zero, so that a registrar *can* sell AM for zero if she really wants to.
Without this option my whole concept does not make much sense.

If abit's intention was different, then I misunderstood it.

Anyway, my proposal stands as described in this BSIP draft.
Is it a problem for you that there is no lower limit below which AM cannot be sold?
I've tried to logically prove that this should not be an issue and no revenue will be lost.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
from abit:
So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.

from you:
Yes, that's a very good summary.



from me:
Is it correct that the shareholders/network/committee would end up setting the basic/lower_limit fee, and each registrars would *add* another fee *on top of the basic one*?

from you:
That's correct.

jakub

  • Guest
Again, the specifications are different from the thread conclusion.

Could you be more specific?
What aspect is controversial to you? What would you like to be changed?

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Again, the specifications are different from the thread conclusion.

jakub

  • Guest
I've improved the description in two areas:

(1) I've applied a better way to split income between the network and the business side: the committee defines the income level it wants for the network from an AM sale and if the price of AM is high enough, the network will get what it wants. More details and examples are to be found in the BSIP draft.

(2) I agree with abit's conclusion that maybe vesting is not such a bad thing, so I've deleted suggestions about removing it.

@abit , will you take a look at this revised version and let me know if it makes sense to you?

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Ah.. looks like I'm involved.

Honestly, after some thinking, I've changed my mind a bit.. now, I think we'd better leave the vesting thing unchanged, since it will make a barrier for registrars and referrers so only the ones who have enough strength can afford deep discount while competing, since IMO we should encourage long-term investment rather than "earn quick money and go" behavior.

I'll edit that post.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
To align the network's interests with the registrar's interests, I propose to make the network's income proportional to the registrar's income from AM sales (the network gets a 20% cut).

The resolution of the thread you mention is different from what you are saying now.

You changed a very important and fundamental part of it that was discussed and not accepted.

So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.
* no vesting on cash-backs.

I'll support it.

Yes, that's a very good summary.

jakub

  • Guest
This is a more formal description of the idea described in this thread.

It's a very simple yet important change: the price of Annual Membership (AM) to be determined not globally by the committee but locally by the regional registrars (i.e. hosted wallet services).
This way, in regions requiring low transfer fees, AM can be given away for free (or almost for free), which translates into access to extremely low transfer fees, as an AM means 80% discount on those fees for its holder.
In other regions, the referral program will operate normally, i.e. with AM price floating well above zero.

To align the network's interests with the registrar's interests, I propose to make the network's income proportional to the registrar's income from AM sales (the network gets a 20% cut).
EDIT: To align the network's interests with the registrar's interests, I propose to make the network's income proportional to the registrar's income from AM sales but not bigger than certain threshold defined by the committee.

It can be argued that *unless* competition between hosted wallet providers becomes very intense, no revenue will be lost for the network.

Currently, the proposal is listed as a BSIP draft in the BSIP repository:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/12
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 09:44:36 am by jakub »