[COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation

[Yao]

Over the past year or so, I conducted a variety of exploration on the BitShares 2.0, I am not a programmer, I don't have a say in the code, but as a user, I tried all kinds of operations I can, and based on these experiences I write some tutorial for newbie of Chinese community.

Such as:

• Explain the relationship between the Max supply, the current supply, the reserve pool of BTS tokens, and the wages of witness and worker proposal.
• WHY&HOW to vote for witnesses, committee members, worker proposals.
• How to set up proxy voting.
• Popularly explain the Financial Smart-contracts of BitShares 2.0: Margin call & Force settlement and why&how Smartcoins could to be a MPA(Market Pegged Asset)
• Membership of BitShares 2.0: how&why to be a LTM(Lifetime Member) and how to earn returns by referral registration.
• Popularly explain the relationship between Wallet, Public-key and Private-key, as well as the Permissions of BTS account and how to apply Multi-Signature escrow funds.
• ...
• How to do bot-trading with BTSBots, I run yao-bot with BTSBots.com

As an experienced user,
About the Fee Schedule, I have some views.



BitShares 2.0 blockchain provides a wide variety of operations for the users, in my opinion, they can generally be divided into 2 categories:

• High Frequency Operations:
  - Some are for ordinary users, such as transfer(&memo), place/cancel order, update margin, account blacklist/whitelist and so on.
  - Some are for advanced users, such as creat/update proposal, publish feed, asset settlement, global asset settlement, update asset, reserve asset, override transfer, transfer account, upgrade account and so on.
  
  
  
• System Scarce Resource related operations:
  Creat Acccount(especially Premium Names)
  Creat Asset(especially 3/4 Characters)

In order to improve user activity(transfer, trading, manage assets and doing business), encourage third parties to build applications based on BitShares 2.0 blockchain, we should measure the High Frequency Operation fee by Fiat (USD/CNY/...), if the fee is dynamically adjusted with the change of BTS price will be the best choice.

System Scarce Resource related operations fee should be measured by BTS amount, adjust if necessary.




在最近这一年左右的时间里，我对 BitShares 2.0 进行了一系列的探索，我不是程序员，所以在代码层面没有发言权，但作为一个用户，我尝试了我可以玩的各种操作，基于这些探索的经验我写了一系列面向中文社区新手的教程。比如：

• 解释 BTS 最大总量、当前流通量、储备资金池、见证人和 worker 的工资之间的关系
• 为什么要参与投票，如何投票给见证人、理事会成员、Worker 提案
• 如何设置投票代理
• 通俗解释比特股 2.0 的金融智能合约——强制平仓和强制清算，为什么智能货币可以通过市场锚定，如何锚定
• BitShares 2.0 的会员体系：为什么以及如何成为终身会员，如何通过引荐注册获得系统返现
• 通俗解释钱包、公钥、私钥之间的关系，介绍 BTS 账户的权限结构以及如何应用多重签名来托管资产
• ……
• BTSBots——比特股内盘做市机器人开放使用教程，我运行的其中一个机器人是 yao-bot

作为一个经验丰富的用户，关于系统的手续费费率表，我有如下观点：

BitShares 2.0 区块链为用户提供了各种各样的操作，在我看来，她们大体上可以划分为两类：

• 高频操作：
  - 有些是普通用户经常会用到的，比如 转账(以及通过转账 memo 来传递信息)、挂单撤单、调整抵押仓、账户白名单/黑名单、……等等。
  - 有些是进阶用户常用的，比如 创建提案/更新提案、发布喂价、发起清算、资产全局清算、更新资产、销毁资产、优先覆盖转账、转让账号、升级账号（购买会员）、……等等。
  
• 系统稀缺资源相关的操作:
  创建账号（特别是高级账号）
  创建资产（特别是 3字母、4 字母资产）
• 
  为了提高用户活跃度（转账、交易、管理资产、开展业务），鼓励第三方基于 BitShares 2.0 区块链来构建应用，我们应该以法币（CNY、USD、……）尺度来衡量 高频操作的手续费，如果能随着 BTS 价格动态调整那就再好不过了。
  
  对于系统稀缺资源相关操作的手续费应该以 BTS 数量来计价，必要时再调整。

[xeroc]

It looks as if they majority of committe agrees with proposal 1.10.98 which has the $50 worker_creation fee.
The whole proposal and the corresponding USD denoted fees can be seen over here:
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/blob/master/usd-denominated-fees/config.py#L248-L302

@shareholders and proxies: This proposal will expire on march 3! If you do not agree with the proposed fee, please let us know by voting out the approving committee members before that date!

[puppies]

Ill vote as soon as I get to a wallet with my keys.  Probably about 4 hours.

[xeroc]

Regarding worker proposal fee. Although improving standards in many aspects of BitShares is sorely needed and thus I agree with your efforts to do so xeroc, but in this case I lean more towards tbone's position. BunkerCL also raised an issue about the reserve pool being "wide open" for a hostile committee member to drain, but do we have committee members like that? If so that is a more fundamental problem which I frankly don't see a solution for, if their stake is too big to assail by appealing to shareholders / proxies to vote out.

If JP Morgan, Chase or some other hostile adversary decided to "kill" BitShares all they have to do is buy the shares necessary to gain adequate stake then use it to fill committee slots vote everything down. There is no defense against large stake holders that wish to push the self-destruct button.

I think it's too early to use fees as a means to set quality standards for devs. We need to entice them not push them away. You make a good point about getting back 80%, but as tbone says the fees aren't the only factor that repels potential workers. I don't view this environment as all that inviting for devs.

As for using the higher fee as a measure to protect the reserve pool for the scenario BunkerCL raised, that seems like a band aid and rather heavy handed ImO, to change the rules or that purpose.

Very good reasoning ..

[roadscape]

Oh .. @roadscape I reduced the custom fee (as you are not the only one wanting to use it) and hope that the committee members will approve it ..

Much appreciated, @xeroc.. thanks! I understand it may be a good idea to raise this fee, but in the meantime it encourages experimentation with a very interesting feature

[tbone]

Reduced assert_operation and also reduced the custom operation ..

 

[Thom]

Regarding worker proposal fee. Although improving standards in many aspects of BitShares is sorely needed and thus I agree with your efforts to do so xeroc, but in this case I lean more towards tbone's position. BunkerCL also raised an issue about the reserve pool being "wide open" for a hostile committee member to drain, but do we have committee members like that? If so that is a more fundamental problem which I frankly don't see a solution for, if their stake is too big to assail by appealing to shareholders / proxies to vote out.

If JP Morgan, Chase or some other hostile adversary decided to "kill" BitShares all they have to do is buy the shares necessary to gain adequate stake then use it to fill committee slots vote everything down. There is no defense against large stake holders that wish to push the self-destruct button.

I think it's too early to use fees as a means to set quality standards for devs. We need to entice them not push them away. You make a good point about getting back 80%, but as tbone says the fees aren't the only factor that repels potential workers. I don't view this environment as all that inviting for devs.

As for using the higher fee as a measure to protect the reserve pool for the scenario BunkerCL raised, that seems like a band aid and rather heavy handed ImO, to change the rules or that purpose.

[xeroc]

Reduced assert_operation and also reduced the custom operation ..

[abit]

I hereby request the committee members to take a position and finally vote on this fee schedule as soon as possible!
Please vote know so that your supports know your opinion already!

1.10.97 ($150 worker_create)
1.10.98 ($50 worker_create)

Please pick your side, or both .. the latter (98), shall both be approved will overwrite the former!

So the only difference made in 1.10.97 is a reduced assert_operation fee in compare to 1.10.96?

[tbone]

I hereby request the committee members to take a position and finally vote on this fee schedule as soon as possible!
Please vote know so that your supports know your opinion already!

1.10.97 ($150 worker_create)
1.10.98 ($50 worker_create)

Please pick your side, or both .. the latter (98), shall both be approved will overwrite the former!

What about the custom operation that @roadscape was arguing should be lowered from .1 to .01?

[tbone]

Why on earth would someone pay $1000 just to submit a PROPOSAL?  I could see if there was a one-time process of getting set up as a preferred Bitshares developer or something along those lines.  Ok, then $1000 could make sense in that scenario where they would then prove themselves, etc.  But to pay a large fee like that every time you submit a proposal that you don't even know whether the community will approve?  That doesn't make any sense.  Sorry.

Re-read b):

  b) get every worker approved if it only follows some formal
     requirements

Also, these are just my thoughts .. you can of course have a different
opinion!

The barrier isn't the cost alone.  It's the cost in an environment where there is great uncertainty about whether the uneducated, anti "dilution", anti developer crowd will block even a good and reasonable proposal.  That is a concern voiced by a developer on this thread already.  And it's a concern that many reasonable, rational shareholders have.  You didn't address that factor.

I am convinced that this anti-dilution stupidity will end rather
soonish!

No rational-minded shareholder can believe that throwing his voting
power towards a guy that quits the main communication platforms and
hasn't re-appeard for 3 weeks, can really deal with running a business.

I guess we will see.   But if these idiots don't come to their senses, we should have a plan to remove them from the equation.

[xeroc]

I hereby request the committee members to take a position and finally vote on this fee schedule as soon as possible!
Please vote know so that your supports know your opinion already!

1.10.97 ($150 worker_create)
1.10.98 ($50 worker_create)

Please pick your side, or both .. the latter (98), shall both be approved will overwrite the former!

[xeroc]

Why on earth would someone pay $1000 just to submit a PROPOSAL?  I could see if there was a one-time process of getting set up as a preferred Bitshares developer or something along those lines.  Ok, then $1000 could make sense in that scenario where they would then prove themselves, etc.  But to pay a large fee like that every time you submit a proposal that you don't even know whether the community will approve?  That doesn't make any sense.  Sorry.

Re-read b):

  b) get every worker approved if it only follows some formal
     requirements

Also, these are just my thoughts .. you can of course have a different
opinion!

The barrier isn't the cost alone.  It's the cost in an environment where there is great uncertainty about whether the uneducated, anti "dilution", anti developer crowd will block even a good and reasonable proposal.  That is a concern voiced by a developer on this thread already.  And it's a concern that many reasonable, rational shareholders have.  You didn't address that factor.

I am convinced that this anti-dilution stupidity will end rather
soonish!

No rational-minded shareholder can believe that throwing his voting
power towards a guy that quits the main communication platforms and
hasn't re-appeard for 3 weeks, can really deal with running a business.

[tbone]

Let's summarize why I still think $150 for worker creation is fine

- Worker creation requires LTM and results in 80% ($120) be returned to
  the worker after 90 days. This the worker effectively costs $30

- Those workers that don't know that, shouldn't be allowed to work for
  BitShares but instead learn the very basics about how the system
  works, FIRST. Alternatively, we could tell people that they get pay
  $120 after 90 days with no strings attached

- Also, the actual fee can be offset by a slightly higher pay (slightly
  as in 30$)

- If you apply for a regular job offer you also need to send letters,
  visit the people and contribute time and money (sometimes even more
  than $30)

- I would even go so far and ask for WAY more than $150, not to prevent
  an attack vector but to have the option to do the following:

  a) ask every worker to pay $1k
  b) get every worker approved if it only follows some formal
     requirements
  c) let the worker proof that he can deliver in the time it takes to
     pay him tha $1k (*80%)
  d) if he doesn't deliver at all, he can be fired even before we payed
     him back the whole fee.
     if he does deliver only little, we can keep the work, and fire him
     after he received the initial fee (like a trial period)
     if he is awesome, pay him to get him work more!

Why on earth would someone pay $1000 just to submit a PROPOSAL?  I could see if there was a one-time process of getting set up as a preferred Bitshares developer or something along those lines.  Ok, then $1000 could make sense in that scenario where they would then prove themselves, etc.  But to pay a large fee like that every time you submit a proposal that you don't even know whether the community will approve?  That doesn't make any sense.  Sorry.

So .. what is on the side of disadvantages:

- "It is a barrier of entry": I don't think so, if we sell this feature
  properly and educate them about the 80% charge back

Anything else?

The barrier isn't the cost alone.  It's the cost in an environment where there is great uncertainty about whether the uneducated, anti "dilution", anti developer crowd will block even a good and reasonable proposal.  That is a concern voiced by a developer on this thread already.  And it's a concern that many reasonable, rational shareholders have.  You didn't address that factor.

[xeroc]

- Worker creation requires LTM and results in 80% ($120) be returned to
  the worker after 90 days. This the worker effectively costs $30

From the point of view of a new developer approaching bts, this only means that he have to upgrade his account to be able to create the worker.
That means he have to pay LTM-fee + worker-fee*20%

That's what happens if you try to do multi-dimensional optimization: You usually get a local optimum but not a global one.