Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

For perspective:

If the network were to take 0 fees on everything.
With 1,000,000,000 in reserves, you can safely pay witnesses for 130 years. ($100 per 21 witnesses per month)

$30,000 per year to pay all witnesses. $75 a day.

After 130 years, can BitShares bring in $75 a day? or will we have to dilute? (:

BitShares itself can be seen as a giant FBA, even with 0 fee.  You can buy the token(BTS). Develop your upgrade/smart contract/feature and get paid from the market interest(market-cap) in the platform because of your, or any other, feature.  It becomes even more attractive when your specific feature can also be an FBA and you more directly benefit from its use.

We are all incentivised to build our feature on BitShares because of the market increase. 
We are all further insentivised to charge a fee for our feature that the market will bare and reward us for our effort.

Taxing over-rate-limit use and special or limited-supply core features(SmartCoin creation, Short names, etc) could be enough to cover everything.(after 135 years)

Remarkably, BitShares can actually afford near zero fees.  The wide-open frictionless nature is a huge advantage, simplifies everything, and puts whatever profits can be made, directly in the hands of business. 
 
For a jump start(early on) or later for odd situations where there is no other means or incentive to fund changes or development(unlikely/very rare) we can agree to cut our 135 year cushion or agree on a tax somewhere to pay for it.  With heavy use we would be adding to the cushion. Tax could end once paid for.

I think BitShares is so efficient that this task of paying to maintain the system, when mature, will be laughably easy.   

BitShares can be invisible...        , indestructible(graphene) and suitable for any and every form(~plasma).
Business and entrepreneurs will take BitShares to the moon, we just need get out of the way.

So this is awesome. I just wonder then if Bitshares is going to get to the moon by removing fees as a barrier to entry, what does this mean to businesses using FBA to build with Bitshares? Right now Stealth is going to contribute a hefty 20% of its revenues to its operation in Bitshares. Would FBAs looking to build on Bitshares likewise be allowed to build with lower to zero fees?

[vegolino]

For perspective:

If the network were to take 0 fees on everything.
With 1,000,000,000 in reserves, you can safely pay witnesses for 130 years. ($100 per 21 witnesses per month)

$30,000 per year to pay all witnesses. $75 a day.

After 130 years, can BitShares bring in $75 a day? or will we have to dilute? (:

BitShares itself can be seen as a giant FBA, even with 0 fee.  You can buy the token(BTS). Develop your upgrade/smart contract/feature and get paid from the market interest(market-cap) in the platform because of your, or any other, feature.  It becomes even more attractive when your specific feature can also be an FBA and you more directly benefit from its use.

We are all incentivised to build our feature on BitShares because of the market increase. 
We are all further insentivised to charge a fee for our feature that the market will bare and reward us for our effort.

Taxing over-rate-limit use and special or limited-supply core features(SmartCoin creation, Short names, etc) could be enough to cover everything.(after 135 years)

Remarkably, BitShares can actually afford near zero fees.  The wide-open frictionless nature is a huge advantage, simplifies everything, and puts whatever profits can be made, directly in the hands of business. 
 
For a jump start(early on) or later for odd situations where there is no other means or incentive to fund changes or development(unlikely/very rare) we can agree to cut our 135 year cushion or agree on a tax somewhere to pay for it.  With heavy use we would be adding to the cushion. Tax could end once paid for.

I think BitShares is so efficient that this task of paying to maintain the system, when mature, will be laughably easy.   

BitShares can be invisible...        , indestructible(graphene) and suitable for any and every form(~plasma).
Business and entrepreneurs will take BitShares to the moon, we just need get out of the way.

 

[liondani]

One of the major benefits of basing this off of stake is that it prevents sybils.  If you create 10000 empty accounts you wont be able to them to get free transactions since they all have 0 stake.  If you spread your stake out to these 10000 accounts then you will get the same amount of free transfers that you would get from all of your stake being in one account.

 

[xeroc]

@Xeldal   

[Zapply]

No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?

I don't work for free too.

[puppies]

@Xeldal   

[Xeldal]

For perspective:

If the network were to take 0 fees on everything.
With 1,000,000,000 in reserves, you can safely pay witnesses for 130 years. ($100 per 21 witnesses per month)

$30,000 per year to pay all witnesses. $75 a day.

After 130 years, can BitShares bring in $75 a day? or will we have to dilute? (:

BitShares itself can be seen as a giant FBA, even with 0 fee.  You can buy the token(BTS). Develop your upgrade/smart contract/feature and get paid from the market interest(market-cap) in the platform because of your, or any other, feature.  It becomes even more attractive when your specific feature can also be an FBA and you more directly benefit from its use.

We are all incentivised to build our feature on BitShares because of the market increase. 
We are all further insentivised to charge a fee for our feature that the market will bare and reward us for our effort.

Taxing over-rate-limit use and special or limited-supply core features(SmartCoin creation, Short names, etc) could be enough to cover everything.(after 135 years)

Remarkably, BitShares can actually afford near zero fees.  The wide-open frictionless nature is a huge advantage, simplifies everything, and puts whatever profits can be made, directly in the hands of business. 
 
For a jump start(early on) or later for odd situations where there is no other means or incentive to fund changes or development(unlikely/very rare) we can agree to cut our 135 year cushion or agree on a tax somewhere to pay for it.  With heavy use we would be adding to the cushion. Tax could end once paid for.

I think BitShares is so efficient that this task of paying to maintain the system, when mature, will be laughably easy.   

BitShares can be invisible...        , indestructible(graphene) and suitable for any and every form(~plasma).
Business and entrepreneurs will take BitShares to the moon, we just need get out of the way. 

[Riverhead]

[

[puppies]

IMO we need to find the money to implement this.  This would be best with a worker proposal paid direct from the shareholders.  If they are unwilling to spend the money of such a massive upgrade then we should fund it with an FBA.  How would this FBA make money?  Perhaps on transactions that are above and beyond the rate limit a portion goes to the FBA.

[Bhuz]

BM's proposal was to eliminate only TRANSFER fees, and similar low revenue producing fees like updating account info.

Let's just say that bm idea is about giving the ability to the network to not charge fee and still be spam resistant.

What sounded like the aforementioned politician was the omission of where funds come from to pay expenses

Same source of now maybe? The fact that the network could operate even without any fee does not mean we would remove them all.

Would the remaining fees need to be raised?

This depends on some factors we can not easily foresee, but in general this question could be asked already in the current fee implementation.

Which fees could be eliminated and which must remain?

Looking at all the network fee is quite easy to find some fees that could be easily removed, others that instead should definitely remain to guarantee revenue, and others that could bring some heated discussion in the community.

Still, these decisions would be on shareholders. It is not about the implementation of the new fee system.

ps: I made some example in my post on the first page.

The analysis to determine how zero-cost transfer fees could be accomplished without increasing dilution and covering expenses must be done, and until I see those numbers I am very bearish on this.

Those numbers are already out there, in some other post of some other thread.
AFAIR the revenue from transfer fee is only a tiny part of the overall revenue (coming from account_upgrade)

[abit]

Thus SOME fees are absolutely necessary. BM's proposal was to eliminate only TRANSFER fees, and similar low revenue producing fees like updating account info. What sounded like the aforementioned politician was the omission of where funds come from to pay expenses. Would the remaining fees need to be raised? Which fees could be eliminated and which must remain? The analysis to determine how zero-cost transfer fees could be accomplished without increasing dilution and covering expenses must be done, and until I see those numbers I am very bearish on this.

Please check this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21368.0.html

[abit]

No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?

No, me as one of the bastards don't want to work for free.

um , dude, have you not seen the number of fees in BTS?  This ain't bitcoin, if you had not noticed.  Our fee structure is anything but simple.

blah blah blah

Sorry dude, TL;DR.

I think I've spent much more time than you on the fee structure  If you want to educate me, please make it short 

Thank you for replied to my post anyway.

[Ander]

One of the major benefits of basing this off of stake is that it prevents sybils.  If you create 10000 empty accounts you wont be able to them to get free transactions since they all have 0 stake.  If you spread your stake out to these 10000 accounts then you will get the same amount of free transfers that you would get from all of your stake being in one account.

That works, and its also a reason to hold BTS!

[Thom]

As I said I am not sure how all this works and who pays who..
We  need people to verify the transactions (witness) , people who want to develop further bitshares (workers) and people who make decisions (committee) about the fees and other things not the salary of witness . The way I am thinking it is that these are 3 different and separate categories of people who can be paid by the shareholders proportionally to each shareholder holdings i.e. everyone's shares will be reduced everyday by a small amount and be paid to those people. If one wants to retain his % of holdings on the system he will have to buy back the shares..it is a circular mechanism and no need for fees..

This is crazy logic! Who pays who are the shareholders in your scheme. A scheme of proportional taxation based on their stake, irrespective of their use of the BitShares resources and irrespective of their contribution to those resources. It's just a wealth redistribution scheme.

I gotta say, that it was an interesting introduction of a topic, but it now reminds me of a politician's "New Plan" for XYZ, a fantastic program to feed the poor, create jobs, conquer unemployment, heal the sick etc. When asked how will the program be funded given that same politician's statement, "READ MY LIPS: I will filibuster anybody that seeks to raise taxes!" Yeah, right. A non-answer!

As BM went on to flush out the details as he talked and mentioned using the reserve pool to fund liquidity, I connected the dots like  lil_jay890 and have to wonder how will the network maintain itself without fees?

Thus SOME fees are absolutely necessary. BM's proposal was to eliminate only TRANSFER fees, and similar low revenue producing fees like updating account info. What sounded like the aforementioned politician was the omission of where funds come from to pay expenses. Would the remaining fees need to be raised? Which fees could be eliminated and which must remain? The analysis to determine how zero-cost transfer fees could be accomplished without increasing dilution and covering expenses must be done, and until I see those numbers I am very bearish on this.

[Erlich Bachman]

No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?

No, me as one of the bastards don't want to work for free.

um , dude, have you not seen the number of fees in BTS?  This ain't bitcoin, if you had not noticed.  Our fee structure is anything but simple.

He's not talking about giving away "FREE" premium account names.

Don't get your panties in a bunch:

When BM says "FREE"

he does not mean that "EVERY" fee is free for everyone

You only get a few "FREE" trades based on how much stake you own, and how many "coin days" you hold it.

Ever hear the term "coin days"?

Geez, it's like we have not been talking about this for the past 20 years... er, um, I mean 2

Here, let me proceed to "blow" your mind:

TIME = MONEY

yeah, no shit, in business it is anyway, and BM is applying this simple basic economic math to our fee structure finally (you know, like how people are finally learning that Bitcoin2.0 ain't no joke (via ETH).  If he had applied this simple math to our fee structure from day one (when we launched a year before Ethereum), then we might not be begging for the tinniest little taste of their table scraps.  You spent the past 2 years trying to convince the world that crypto 2.0 even existed, while Ethereum was busy designing a simple consistent, logical and simple structured pitch based on basic shit that the masses intuitively understand.  You know, basic common sense shit like:

TIME = MONEY

Well, OK, I realize that that just blew your mind because you geniuses are obviously do not in any way shape or form think like the masses do.  But the Ether team had a few marketers who did, and that is why they are kicking your ass royally right now (and it is well within you right to want to continue this ass beatin, but don't count on me to stick around genius).

Don't worry man, there are still plenty of "expensive" fees that will pay your salary..

The only difference here is that:

There are going to be more people paying you cash money making you rich than there are currently

(if that is indeed what you are into)

(if not, then feel free to vote no, it's within your right)

Or maybe I'm no longer "hip" to today's "jargon" and "coin day" means "to steal coins from miners every single day"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW80639zCTU

The pitch is:

FREE TRADES ON BITSHARES!!!

The fine print is:

limited to 10 free trades per staked coin day on a minimum of 500 share purchase, unlimited time offer, side effects may include drowsiness, vomiting, erections lasting longer than 5 days, and witnesses getting filthy rich as 5       15 year old Ethereum investors diversify 1/100th of their their crypto 2.0 portfolio to invest in the number 2        2.0 crypto causing the BTS volume, user base, and market cap to skyrocket

So, yeah, genius, we are not actually talking about FREE FEES

We are talking about FREE SAMPLES

But "FREE FEES IN BITSHARES"  has a nicer ring to it eh genius?

Get it yet?

NOT FREE EVERYTHING!

Am I the only guy here who would be thrilled with just a teeny tiny "piece" of Ethereum's 15k BTC daily volume (today) (we only hit 0.071k BTC in volume today if you had not noticed)

and here, I thought that an offer of wealth, riches, and plain old cash money was an offer that no one could refuse: