[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.

[Bhuz]

- 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%

[xeroc]

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 ..

[xeroc]

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!


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?

[xeroc]

To be clear this particular fee I do not think should be a reason for not approving the current proposal. I do however want to see a way to communicate the LTM-only related fees more clearly. For the sake of future Workers I think it will be an important element in the messaging to be considered.

This feature being a LTM only thing can be seen from the wallet internal
fee schedule page in the browser. I updated that page recently!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I agree that $150 is way too high.  [...] The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

I totally agree. It is not in BitShares interest to deter or make prohibitive making worker proposals. We need development.

1. Please keep in mind that lifetime members get 80% cash-back. Worker proposal is a LTM-only feature. So a 150$ creation fee means $30 for them. Is it really that expensive? Or you're just too miserly/lazy? If you're able to get your worker voted in, you can always ask for reimbursement of the worker creation fee by including it in the payment.

2. If we don't set a barrier on the creation of workers, funds in the reserve pool can be stolen much more easily. If alt withdraw his votes from the refund workers NOW, every LTM can create a worker with whatever amount of payment and vote for herself and get paid FROM NEXT HOUR, no need to beg for other stake holders' approval. And worse, she can create a worker every hour so others have no chance to vote against her. And even worse, she can create more than 1000 workers so technically no one can vote against all these workers. Current design of worker feature is flawed, the only way we can secure it is the fee.

Makes sense?

Can you explain this risk a little more?  How is it possible that someone could just create a worker and start collecting funds without anyone being able to stop them?  That sounds crazy.   

And by the way, we have pressure to lower the worker proposal fee because the anti "dilution" (i.e. ignorant/uneducated) segment of this community makes it risky to create even a reasonable proposal.  You can call it lazy or miserly, but it's an actual factor that developers will have to contend with.  And yes, the LTM cost is lower, but they still have to tie up those funds for 90 days.  Submit two proposals and now you have $300 tied up for 3 months.  That's just stupid considering the unreasonably low chance of getting approved with the anti-developer idiots running around here.  These people are killing Bitshares.

At present it costs essentially nothing to create a Worker.

Someone with a sufficient proxy stake like alt can make a worker for maximum payout, vote for it, and inside of an hour start taking BTS from the reserve.

Worse.. they can make a simple bot to just keep doing this en'mass for hours and hours.. and stake holders would not be able to vote all of them down.

Before you know it.. they have taken whatever BTS was in the reserve pool that is left besides other existing workers that are voted in.

To put it simply... the vault door to the reserve is WIDE OPEN to any whale.

Raising the fee to $150 is enough of a deterrent even for a whale to not make such an attempt.. and closes the door to potentially bad players.

[tonyk]

I agree that $150 is way too high.  [...] The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

I totally agree. It is not in BitShares interest to deter or make prohibitive making worker proposals. We need development.

1. Please keep in mind that lifetime members get 80% cash-back. Worker proposal is a LTM-only feature. So a 150$ creation fee means $30 for them. Is it really that expensive? Or you're just too miserly/lazy? If you're able to get your worker voted in, you can always ask for reimbursement of the worker creation fee by including it in the payment.

2. If we don't set a barrier on the creation of workers, funds in the reserve pool can be stolen much more easily. If alt withdraw his votes from the refund workers NOW, every LTM can create a worker with whatever amount of payment and vote for herself and get paid FROM NEXT HOUR, no need to beg for other stake holders' approval. And worse, she can create a worker every hour so others have no chance to vote against her. And even worse, she can create more than 1000 workers so technically no one can vote against all these workers. Current design of worker feature is flawed, the only way we can secure it is the fee.

Makes sense?

Can you explain this risk a little more?  How is it possible that someone could just create a worker and start collecting funds without anyone being able to stop them?  That sounds crazy.   

And by the way, we have pressure to lower the worker proposal fee because the anti "dilution" (i.e. ignorant/uneducated) segment of this community makes it risky to create even a reasonable proposal.  You can call it lazy or miserly, but it's an actual factor that developers will have to contend with.  And yes, the LTM cost is lower, but they still have to tie up those funds for 90 days.  Submit two proposals and now you have $300 tied up for 3 months.  That's just stupid considering the unreasonably low chance of getting approved with the anti-developer idiots running around here.  These people are killing Bitshares.

I find the explanation very good...might not be so for the " ignorant/uneducated"...or the  "idiots", but never the less very self explanatory .

[tbone]

I agree that $150 is way too high.  [...] The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

I totally agree. It is not in BitShares interest to deter or make prohibitive making worker proposals. We need development.

1. Please keep in mind that lifetime members get 80% cash-back. Worker proposal is a LTM-only feature. So a 150$ creation fee means $30 for them. Is it really that expensive? Or you're just too miserly/lazy? If you're able to get your worker voted in, you can always ask for reimbursement of the worker creation fee by including it in the payment.

2. If we don't set a barrier on the creation of workers, funds in the reserve pool can be stolen much more easily. If alt withdraw his votes from the refund workers NOW, every LTM can create a worker with whatever amount of payment and vote for herself and get paid FROM NEXT HOUR, no need to beg for other stake holders' approval. And worse, she can create a worker every hour so others have no chance to vote against her. And even worse, she can create more than 1000 workers so technically no one can vote against all these workers. Current design of worker feature is flawed, the only way we can secure it is the fee.

Makes sense?

Can you explain this risk a little more?  How is it possible that someone could just create a worker and start collecting funds without anyone being able to stop them?  That sounds crazy.   

And by the way, we have pressure to lower the worker proposal fee because the anti "dilution" (i.e. ignorant/uneducated) segment of this community makes it risky to create even a reasonable proposal.  You can call it lazy or miserly, but it's an actual factor that developers will have to contend with.  And yes, the LTM cost is lower, but they still have to tie up those funds for 90 days.  Submit two proposals and now you have $300 tied up for 3 months.  That's just stupid considering the unreasonably low chance of getting approved with the anti-developer idiots running around here.  These people are killing Bitshares.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I agree that $150 is way too high.  [...] The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

I totally agree. It is not in BitShares interest to deter or make prohibitive making worker proposals. We need development.

1. Please keep in mind that lifetime members get 80% cash-back. Worker proposal is a LTM-only feature. So a 150$ creation fee means $30 for them. Is it really that expensive? Or you're just too miserly/lazy? If you're able to get your worker voted in, you can always ask for reimbursement of the worker creation fee by including it in the payment.

2. If we don't set a barrier on the creation of workers, funds in the reserve pool can be stolen much more easily. If alt withdraw his votes from the refund workers NOW, every LTM can create a worker with whatever amount of payment and vote for herself and get paid FROM NEXT HOUR, no need to beg for other stake holders' approval. And worse, she can create a worker every hour so others have no chance to vote against her. And even worse, she can create more than 1000 workers so technically no one can vote against all these workers. Current design of worker feature is flawed, the only way we can secure it is the fee.

Makes sense?

Thanks for mentioning the LTM factor.

Having to be an LTM in order to post a Worker is something at face value is not easily factored in.

At a $50 rate it ends up being $10 for a Worker and a 90 day vesting for them to get their $40 back. At $150 they are vesting $120.

While $150 on it's face is really does appear on the high end, it shows that some of the fee schedules we are dealing with can only be understood in light of the LTM being applied to understand the true price.

If there is an effective way for us to communicate this so that on it's face it doesn't have the same reactions we see filling this thread, then we can probably better handle it.

With the scale of economies on one end $50 with $10 being the true cost, the $150 with $30 being the true cost is still within proximity to what I think would be ideal.

To be clear this particular fee I do not think should be a reason for not approving the current proposal. I do however want to see a way to communicate the LTM-only related fees more clearly. For the sake of future Workers I think it will be an important element in the messaging to be considered.

[abit]

I agree that $150 is way too high.  [...] The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

I totally agree. It is not in BitShares interest to deter or make prohibitive making worker proposals. We need development.

1. Please keep in mind that lifetime members get 80% cash-back. Worker proposal is a LTM-only feature. So a 150$ creation fee means $30 for them. Is it really that expensive? Or you're just too miserly/lazy? If you're able to get your worker voted in, you can always ask for reimbursement of the worker creation fee by including it in the payment.

2. If we don't set a barrier on the creation of workers, funds in the reserve pool can be stolen much more easily. If alt withdraw his votes from the refund workers NOW, every LTM can create a worker with whatever amount of payment and vote for herself and get paid FROM NEXT HOUR, no need to beg for other stake holders' approval. And worse, she can create a worker every hour so others have no chance to vote against her. And even worse, she can create more than 1000 workers so technically no one can vote against all these workers. Current design of worker feature is flawed, the only way we can secure it is the fee.

Makes sense?

[valtr]

I agree that $150 is way too high.  [...] The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

I totally agree. It is not in BitShares interest to deter or make prohibitive making worker proposals. We need development.

[pc]

I agree that $150 is way too high.  [...] The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

[mindphlux]

My personal opinion:

I decided against creating a worker proposal to develop features on the BTS UI because of the current anti-dilution discussion and the proposed $50-$150 worker creation fee.

I'm working on a react project at work so I should be more than qualified to contribute, but I can't be bothered to pay $50 - $150 so alt and his supporters can vote any legit proposal down, regardless of the actual nature and content of the proposal. Of course, it's up to the shareholders to decide, but voting down proposals just because you can and dislike dilution really scares away people, especially if they're going to loose money because of this.

My point is:

This is already a hostile environment towards freelance workers, and I'd rather invest my time finding projects at the free market that can pay me MUCH better and I don't have to deal with emotions and politics. My 2 cents.

[tbone]

@committee: The proposal has been published and will expire in 7 days:     1.10.96
(Do not vote for 95, it has bugs that resulted from integer forcing fees for convenience, we can fix that later on)

This is how the proposal compares to the current fees:

Code: [Select]

        price_per_kbyte price for                                  transfer differs by    0.113x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                  transfer differs by    0.136x (network:    0.1324 USD / proposal:    0.0180 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_create differs by    0.023x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_cancel differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                         call_order_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
            premium_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.283x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
              basic_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.239x (network:    0.4192 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_create differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                            account_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                         account_whitelist differs by    3.777x (network:    0.0265 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
membership_lifetime_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    1.360x (network:   88.2446 USD / proposal:  120.0000 USD)
  membership_annual_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    0.850x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:   15.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                          account_transfer differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                symbol3 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.813x (network: 4412.2282 USD / proposal: 8000.0000 USD)
            long_symbol price for                              asset_create differs by    2.266x (network:   22.0611 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                symbol4 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.743x (network: 1147.1793 USD / proposal: 2000.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_create differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_update differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                     asset_update_bitasset differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for               asset_update_feed_producers differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                               asset_issue differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                               asset_issue differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             asset_reserve differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_fund_fee_pool differs by   56.661x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.5000 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_settle differs by    0.057x (network:    0.8824 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_global_settle differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                        asset_publish_feed differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_create differs by    1.133x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_create differs by    5.666x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_create differs by    0.850x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.567x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0050 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_delete differs by    0.000x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_create differs by   16.998x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by  999.000x (network:    0.0000 USD / proposal:    0.0144 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_delete differs by    0.000x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_create differs by  566.607x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_update differs by 1133.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
                    fee price for committee_member_update_global_parameters differs by    0.000x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                    vesting_balance_create differs by    0.113x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                  vesting_balance_withdraw differs by  226.643x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             worker_create differs by 16998.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:  150.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                                    custom differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                    custom differs by   11.332x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
                    fee price for                                    assert differs by   56.661x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                         override_transfer differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                         override_transfer differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
       price_per_output price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0700 USD)
                    fee price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)
                    fee price for                       transfer_from_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)

Note, that currently there is a discussion among some committee members whether the proposed $150 for creating a fee is too high.
I encourage committee members and shareholders to take a position and tell us what they think but keep in mind that changing a fee now will only result in a delay of at least another 7 days.

Thanks Xeroc!

Regarding the cost of creating a worker proposal being set to $150, I think considering we need more workers from around the world, the $150 premium is very prohibitive of getting any competing offers from weaker economy countries where dev work could be less.

I also think that there should be a premium to ensure the applications are serious and committed and also regarding the potential attack vector.

A premium should also send a signal to everyone who votes that someone was serious enough to put up money for the work they are going to perform should be given a fair review for voter support.

Therefore, with consideration of scale of economies, I am recommending $50  be the cost for the creation of a Worker.

Looking forward to other thoughts on this.

I agree that $150 is way too high.  This shouldn't be a profit center.  The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

You can see it that way, with a150$ barrier every worker could be approved into a trial period worth $150. If they deliver something, they can stay, if they dont they get fired and we get what ever was worked + the what ever has not yet been paid back from the 150$. In the end this allows shareholders to approve any worker and give them a trial. They can proove they are worth it. Win-Win.

But a worker proposal is just that, a proposal.  It will get debated by the stakeholders and may get rejected or accepted.  It makes no sense to have such a huge barrier for a worker to just submit a proposal.  Sounds like what you're describing in your last post is having them make a deposit just before work actually begins.  That is something else entirely and I won't speak to its merits although it looks like @kenCode doesn't like it. 

[kenCode]

Sorry guys, paying out $15, $150 or even $1150 just gets you bottom feeders. That is not the way to hire talent.

[xeroc]

@committee: The proposal has been published and will expire in 7 days:     1.10.96
(Do not vote for 95, it has bugs that resulted from integer forcing fees for convenience, we can fix that later on)

This is how the proposal compares to the current fees:

Code: [Select]

        price_per_kbyte price for                                  transfer differs by    0.113x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                  transfer differs by    0.136x (network:    0.1324 USD / proposal:    0.0180 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_create differs by    0.023x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_cancel differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                         call_order_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
            premium_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.283x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
              basic_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.239x (network:    0.4192 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_create differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                            account_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                         account_whitelist differs by    3.777x (network:    0.0265 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
membership_lifetime_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    1.360x (network:   88.2446 USD / proposal:  120.0000 USD)
  membership_annual_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    0.850x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:   15.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                          account_transfer differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                symbol3 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.813x (network: 4412.2282 USD / proposal: 8000.0000 USD)
            long_symbol price for                              asset_create differs by    2.266x (network:   22.0611 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                symbol4 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.743x (network: 1147.1793 USD / proposal: 2000.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_create differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_update differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                     asset_update_bitasset differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for               asset_update_feed_producers differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                               asset_issue differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                               asset_issue differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             asset_reserve differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_fund_fee_pool differs by   56.661x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.5000 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_settle differs by    0.057x (network:    0.8824 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_global_settle differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                        asset_publish_feed differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_create differs by    1.133x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_create differs by    5.666x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_create differs by    0.850x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.567x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0050 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_delete differs by    0.000x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_create differs by   16.998x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by  999.000x (network:    0.0000 USD / proposal:    0.0144 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_delete differs by    0.000x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_create differs by  566.607x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_update differs by 1133.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
                    fee price for committee_member_update_global_parameters differs by    0.000x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                    vesting_balance_create differs by    0.113x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                  vesting_balance_withdraw differs by  226.643x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             worker_create differs by 16998.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:  150.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                                    custom differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                    custom differs by   11.332x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
                    fee price for                                    assert differs by   56.661x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                         override_transfer differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                         override_transfer differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
       price_per_output price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0700 USD)
                    fee price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)
                    fee price for                       transfer_from_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)

Note, that currently there is a discussion among some committee members whether the proposed $150 for creating a fee is too high.
I encourage committee members and shareholders to take a position and tell us what they think but keep in mind that changing a fee now will only result in a delay of at least another 7 days.

Thanks Xeroc!

Regarding the cost of creating a worker proposal being set to $150, I think considering we need more workers from around the world, the $150 premium is very prohibitive of getting any competing offers from weaker economy countries where dev work could be less.

I also think that there should be a premium to ensure the applications are serious and committed and also regarding the potential attack vector.

A premium should also send a signal to everyone who votes that someone was serious enough to put up money for the work they are going to perform should be given a fair review for voter support.

Therefore, with consideration of scale of economies, I am recommending $50  be the cost for the creation of a Worker.

Looking forward to other thoughts on this.

I agree that $150 is way too high.  This shouldn't be a profit center.  The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

You can see it that way, with a150$ barrier every worker could be approved into a trial period worth $150. If they deliver something, they can stay, if they dont they get fired and we get what ever was worked + the what ever has not yet been paid back from the 150$. In the end this allows shareholders to approve any worker and give them a trial. They can proove they are worth it. Win-Win.

[xeroc]

I think a better starting point for custom operations is $0.01, not $0.10. As a "dumb" operation, they add very little overhead, aside from storage. So the base cost should be low and the fee_per_kbyte can be higher. Instead of $0.10 for the op and $0.01/kb, something like $0.01 for the op and $0.05 per kb.

Also, is there a reason different ops have different proposed per_kbyte prices? Why not start them all at the same value?

the per_kbyte prices differ because you can do different stuff with the transactions ... the more open the operation is to user-input, the more expensive it should be not that people store wikipedia on the blockchain.

The custom operation could be used for anything .. and we of course would love to see people use it .. but until we see some businesses evolving around it I don't see why it should be opened up cheaply ..

I agree with @roadscape.  Keep the cost of a transaction as low as possible, but charge per kb for storage.  You mentioned wanting to prevent storing wikipedia on the blockchain.  Wouldn't a per kb charge either a) prevent that or b) earn the network fees commensurate with storing that information?  Am I missing something?

Fine .. then have it reduce ..
seems I need a new proposal then .. gonna do so tomorrow

[tbone]

@committee: The proposal has been published and will expire in 7 days:     1.10.96
(Do not vote for 95, it has bugs that resulted from integer forcing fees for convenience, we can fix that later on)

This is how the proposal compares to the current fees:

Code: [Select]

        price_per_kbyte price for                                  transfer differs by    0.113x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                  transfer differs by    0.136x (network:    0.1324 USD / proposal:    0.0180 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_create differs by    0.023x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_cancel differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                         call_order_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
            premium_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.283x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
              basic_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.239x (network:    0.4192 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_create differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                            account_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                         account_whitelist differs by    3.777x (network:    0.0265 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
membership_lifetime_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    1.360x (network:   88.2446 USD / proposal:  120.0000 USD)
  membership_annual_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    0.850x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:   15.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                          account_transfer differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                symbol3 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.813x (network: 4412.2282 USD / proposal: 8000.0000 USD)
            long_symbol price for                              asset_create differs by    2.266x (network:   22.0611 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                symbol4 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.743x (network: 1147.1793 USD / proposal: 2000.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_create differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_update differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                     asset_update_bitasset differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for               asset_update_feed_producers differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                               asset_issue differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                               asset_issue differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             asset_reserve differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_fund_fee_pool differs by   56.661x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.5000 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_settle differs by    0.057x (network:    0.8824 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_global_settle differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                        asset_publish_feed differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_create differs by    1.133x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_create differs by    5.666x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_create differs by    0.850x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.567x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0050 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_delete differs by    0.000x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_create differs by   16.998x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by  999.000x (network:    0.0000 USD / proposal:    0.0144 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_delete differs by    0.000x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_create differs by  566.607x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_update differs by 1133.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
                    fee price for committee_member_update_global_parameters differs by    0.000x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                    vesting_balance_create differs by    0.113x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                  vesting_balance_withdraw differs by  226.643x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             worker_create differs by 16998.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:  150.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                                    custom differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                    custom differs by   11.332x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
                    fee price for                                    assert differs by   56.661x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                         override_transfer differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                         override_transfer differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
       price_per_output price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0700 USD)
                    fee price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)
                    fee price for                       transfer_from_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)

Note, that currently there is a discussion among some committee members whether the proposed $150 for creating a fee is too high.
I encourage committee members and shareholders to take a position and tell us what they think but keep in mind that changing a fee now will only result in a delay of at least another 7 days.

Thanks Xeroc!

Regarding the cost of creating a worker proposal being set to $150, I think considering we need more workers from around the world, the $150 premium is very prohibitive of getting any competing offers from weaker economy countries where dev work could be less.

I also think that there should be a premium to ensure the applications are serious and committed and also regarding the potential attack vector.

A premium should also send a signal to everyone who votes that someone was serious enough to put up money for the work they are going to perform should be given a fair review for voter support.

Therefore, with consideration of scale of economies, I am recommending $50  be the cost for the creation of a Worker.

Looking forward to other thoughts on this.

I agree that $150 is way too high.  This shouldn't be a profit center.  The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

[tbone]

I think a better starting point for custom operations is $0.01, not $0.10. As a "dumb" operation, they add very little overhead, aside from storage. So the base cost should be low and the fee_per_kbyte can be higher. Instead of $0.10 for the op and $0.01/kb, something like $0.01 for the op and $0.05 per kb.

Also, is there a reason different ops have different proposed per_kbyte prices? Why not start them all at the same value?

the per_kbyte prices differ because you can do different stuff with the transactions ... the more open the operation is to user-input, the more expensive it should be not that people store wikipedia on the blockchain.

The custom operation could be used for anything .. and we of course would love to see people use it .. but until we see some businesses evolving around it I don't see why it should be opened up cheaply ..

I agree with @roadscape.  Keep the cost of a transaction as low as possible, but charge per kb for storage.  You mentioned wanting to prevent storing wikipedia on the blockchain.  Wouldn't a per kb charge either a) prevent that or b) earn the network fees commensurate with storing that information?  Am I missing something?

[Thom]

Also, is there a reason different ops have different proposed per_kbyte prices? Why not start them all at the same value?

The custom operation could be used for anything .. and we of course would love to see people use it .. but until we see some businesses evolving around it I don't see why it should be opened up cheaply ..

Xeroc, your logic escapes me. If you really want to see people use custom ops then why do you disincentivize it? Rather, you should incentivize it initially. If it becomes a problem, then raise the fees through committee adjustments.

Do you actually think there are so many devs out there who will "spam" the network by creating worthless ops? I just don't see that horde of devs pounding at the door waiting for such an opportunity.

Am I wrong, that implementing a custom op and the transactions that use it is not a trivial user level effort?

[roadscape]

I think a better starting point for custom operations is $0.01, not $0.10. As a "dumb" operation, they add very little overhead, aside from storage. So the base cost should be low and the fee_per_kbyte can be higher. Instead of $0.10 for the op and $0.01/kb, something like $0.01 for the op and $0.05 per kb.

Also, is there a reason different ops have different proposed per_kbyte prices? Why not start them all at the same value?

the per_kbyte prices differ because you can do different stuff with the transactions ... the more open the operation is to user-input, the more expensive it should be not that people store wikipedia on the blockchain.

The custom operation could be used for anything .. and we of course would love to see people use it .. but until we see some businesses evolving around it I don't see why it should be opened up cheaply ..

I'm launching a public demo either today or tomorrow to demonstrate custom ops. Ten cents for each custom op will kill my idea.. The price has been at 2 BTS for a while now and I've been counting on that being the case. Please reconsider...

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

@committee: The proposal has been published and will expire in 7 days:     1.10.96
(Do not vote for 95, it has bugs that resulted from integer forcing fees for convenience, we can fix that later on)

This is how the proposal compares to the current fees:

Code: [Select]

        price_per_kbyte price for                                  transfer differs by    0.113x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                  transfer differs by    0.136x (network:    0.1324 USD / proposal:    0.0180 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_create differs by    0.023x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_cancel differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                         call_order_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
            premium_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.283x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
              basic_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.239x (network:    0.4192 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_create differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                            account_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                         account_whitelist differs by    3.777x (network:    0.0265 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
membership_lifetime_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    1.360x (network:   88.2446 USD / proposal:  120.0000 USD)
  membership_annual_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    0.850x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:   15.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                          account_transfer differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                symbol3 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.813x (network: 4412.2282 USD / proposal: 8000.0000 USD)
            long_symbol price for                              asset_create differs by    2.266x (network:   22.0611 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                symbol4 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.743x (network: 1147.1793 USD / proposal: 2000.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_create differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_update differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                     asset_update_bitasset differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for               asset_update_feed_producers differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                               asset_issue differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                               asset_issue differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             asset_reserve differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_fund_fee_pool differs by   56.661x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.5000 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_settle differs by    0.057x (network:    0.8824 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_global_settle differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                        asset_publish_feed differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_create differs by    1.133x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_create differs by    5.666x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_create differs by    0.850x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.567x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0050 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_delete differs by    0.000x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_create differs by   16.998x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by  999.000x (network:    0.0000 USD / proposal:    0.0144 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_delete differs by    0.000x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_create differs by  566.607x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_update differs by 1133.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
                    fee price for committee_member_update_global_parameters differs by    0.000x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                    vesting_balance_create differs by    0.113x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                  vesting_balance_withdraw differs by  226.643x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             worker_create differs by 16998.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:  150.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                                    custom differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                    custom differs by   11.332x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
                    fee price for                                    assert differs by   56.661x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                         override_transfer differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                         override_transfer differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
       price_per_output price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0700 USD)
                    fee price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)
                    fee price for                       transfer_from_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)

Note, that currently there is a discussion among some committee members whether the proposed $150 for creating a fee is too high.
I encourage committee members and shareholders to take a position and tell us what they think but keep in mind that changing a fee now will only result in a delay of at least another 7 days.

Thanks Xeroc!

Regarding the cost of creating a worker proposal being set to $150, I think considering we need more workers from around the world, the $150 premium is very prohibitive of getting any competing offers from weaker economy countries where dev work could be less.

I also think that there should be a premium to ensure the applications are serious and committed and also regarding the potential attack vector.

A premium should also send a signal to everyone who votes that someone was serious enough to put up money for the work they are going to perform should be given a fair review for voter support.

Therefore, with consideration of scale of economies, I am recommending $50  be the cost for the creation of a Worker.

Looking forward to other thoughts on this.

[xeroc]

@committee: The proposal has been published and will expire in 7 days:     1.10.96
(Do not vote for 95, it has bugs that resulted from integer forcing fees for convenience, we can fix that later on)

This is how the proposal compares to the current fees:

Code: [Select]

        price_per_kbyte price for                                  transfer differs by    0.113x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                  transfer differs by    0.136x (network:    0.1324 USD / proposal:    0.0180 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_create differs by    0.023x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                        limit_order_cancel differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                         call_order_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
            premium_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.283x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
              basic_fee price for                            account_create differs by    0.239x (network:    0.4192 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_create differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                            account_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                            account_update differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0044 USD / proposal:    0.0010 USD)
                    fee price for                         account_whitelist differs by    3.777x (network:    0.0265 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
membership_lifetime_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    1.360x (network:   88.2446 USD / proposal:  120.0000 USD)
  membership_annual_fee price for                           account_upgrade differs by    0.850x (network:   17.6489 USD / proposal:   15.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                          account_transfer differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                symbol3 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.813x (network: 4412.2282 USD / proposal: 8000.0000 USD)
            long_symbol price for                              asset_create differs by    2.266x (network:   22.0611 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                symbol4 price for                              asset_create differs by    1.743x (network: 1147.1793 USD / proposal: 2000.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_create differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                              asset_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_update differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                     asset_update_bitasset differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for               asset_update_feed_producers differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                               asset_issue differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                               asset_issue differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             asset_reserve differs by    5.666x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_fund_fee_pool differs by   56.661x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.5000 USD)
                    fee price for                              asset_settle differs by    0.057x (network:    0.8824 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                       asset_global_settle differs by    1.133x (network:    4.4122 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                        asset_publish_feed differs by    0.227x (network:    0.0004 USD / proposal:    0.0001 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_create differs by    1.133x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:   50.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                            witness_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_create differs by    5.666x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0500 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_create differs by    0.850x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_update differs by    0.567x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0050 USD)
                    fee price for                           proposal_delete differs by    0.000x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_create differs by   16.998x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1500 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_update differs by    0.057x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                 withdraw_permission_claim differs by  999.000x (network:    0.0000 USD / proposal:    0.0144 USD)
                    fee price for                withdraw_permission_delete differs by    0.000x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_create differs by  566.607x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                   committee_member_update differs by 1133.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
                    fee price for committee_member_update_global_parameters differs by    0.000x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:    0.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                    vesting_balance_create differs by    0.113x (network:   44.1223 USD / proposal:    5.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                  vesting_balance_withdraw differs by  226.643x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    2.0000 USD)
                    fee price for                             worker_create differs by 16998.214x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:  150.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                                    custom differs by    1.133x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0100 USD)
                    fee price for                                    custom differs by   11.332x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.1000 USD)
                    fee price for                                    assert differs by   56.661x (network:    0.1765 USD / proposal:   10.0000 USD)
        price_per_kbyte price for                         override_transfer differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0088 USD / proposal:    0.0070 USD)
                    fee price for                         override_transfer differs by   22.664x (network:    0.0441 USD / proposal:    1.0000 USD)
       price_per_output price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    0.793x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.0700 USD)
                    fee price for                         transfer_to_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)
                    fee price for                       transfer_from_blind differs by    2.380x (network:    0.0882 USD / proposal:    0.2100 USD)

Note, that currently there is a discussion among some committee members whether the proposed $150 for creating a fee is too high.
I encourage committee members and shareholders to take a position and tell us what they think but keep in mind that changing a fee now will only result in a delay of at least another 7 days.

[xeroc]

I think a better starting point for custom operations is $0.01, not $0.10. As a "dumb" operation, they add very little overhead, aside from storage. So the base cost should be low and the fee_per_kbyte can be higher. Instead of $0.10 for the op and $0.01/kb, something like $0.01 for the op and $0.05 per kb.

Also, is there a reason different ops have different proposed per_kbyte prices? Why not start them all at the same value?

the per_kbyte prices differ because you can do different stuff with the transactions ... the more open the operation is to user-input, the more expensive it should be not that people store wikipedia on the blockchain.

The custom operation could be used for anything .. and we of course would love to see people use it .. but until we see some businesses evolving around it I don't see why it should be opened up cheaply ..

[abit]

I think I should translate it Chinese.. or ask someone to do it.

//Update:
Due to the new year holidays, Chinese people would be busying visiting families and/or traveling these days (1-3 weeks). It's likely that most people will go to places where is no good Internet connection. And most people may have no much time to spend on BitShares. So I suggest that we postpone the deadline of decision making (read: voting) and give more time to Chinese community. Thanks.

What would you recommend? An additional week perhaps? So 14 days for discussion and feedback instead of 7?

Yes I think that's better.

By the way, I saw "a low 0.1% trading fee for committee owned assets such as bitUSD" in the non-tech summary, but haven't found related command/code in the technical summary. Am I missing something?

That has to be done in a different op (for each asset) and i havent coded it yet

I suggest not do this, to help liquidity.

[roadscape]

I think a better starting point for custom operations is $0.01, not $0.10. As a "dumb" operation, they add very little overhead, aside from storage. So the base cost should be low and the fee_per_kbyte can be higher. Instead of $0.10 for the op and $0.01/kb, something like $0.01 for the op and $0.05 per kb.

Also, is there a reason different ops have different proposed per_kbyte prices? Why not start them all at the same value?

[bitcrab]

2 weeks passed, any further inputs?

[abit]

bump. Is it better to move this post to Committee Proposal board?

[abit]

Also, we propose to implement this new fee schedule for LTM-only for a period of time, and offer it to basic members only later. This way, we effectively upgrade memberships into premium products. As more and more features are added to LTM, we may increase the account upgrading fee accordingly.

I think the fee schedule should be offered to all the members from the beginning, to make a distinction in offering time regarding core fee schedule will make the basic user feel even worse and is not good for attracting more new users.

Sorry I didn't get your point. Imo it's a good strategy that provide difference services to VIPs and normal users.

they are already offered different service in the proposed fee schedule, for transfer fee:
for LTM: $0.018, 80% cash back.
for basic user :$0.018 no cash back.
right?
what I said is no need to implement this in different time for LTM and basic user.

I see.
I think the text you quoted from the proposal refers to only some special features and/or new features.

[Musewhale]

i like this
do it 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I am mainly upset by the way this change is being introduced. Instead of starting with a forum thread "Let's revise the target/purpose of the referral program" to present arguments pro and con, the whole thing has been obfuscated and wrapped into a bigger package that required a lot of prior work done by you and other people. As a result, this strategy change is now entangled with other much less controversial stuff. The fact that you have put so much effort to revise every single fee, validates the purpose of this change in the eyes of many people here and allows you to have less solid arguments about the justification itself. I'm sure you are going to defend this by saying that all of this is interconnected and can only be viewed as a single package, but I disagree. I perceive this as an intentional measure, often used in politics.

I always appreciate your bright ideas and ability to articulate your points well.

As a third-party to the matter, if I may speak out on it.

It did not come across to me (and likely other committee members) that we were getting onto a topic of "Let's revise the target/purpose of the referral program" .  We were thinking of what can be done to enable both the trading/exchange and referral businesses to function well and to prosper together in the bts network.  When one side (trading/exchange) is asking for lower transfer fee, the other side AM/LTM and referral program can continue to be attractive and useful (with other kinds of fee revised).  xeroc has offerred to work on the fee schedule and we are thankful for his work.  In short, we were focusing on fees and their implications (and not just the referral program per se).  As a referrer, it is natural that the matter to you centres around the referral program and that your POV is therefore xeroc 'revise target of referral program'.  Consequently, a misunderstanding arised because of the difference in POV.

As for the transfer fee, the main thing to consider is why we expect users to make transfers in the first place. If a user does not have a good reason to do a transfer, she will not do it, no matter what the fee is. For me this is the main issue: most people currently do have any reason to move their funds around. And there is only one way to give people this badly needed reason: businesses building useful apps around BitShares. For this we need to patiently wait, like a good gardener waits for her plants to grow, and while waiting we must not change the rules.

I believe users do want to transact freely, be it to trade for BTC, to send some bts/bitassets to friends and/or family members, or some other reasons.  However, any transaction of value USD2 or below would mean a transfer fee of 5% -  (30bts or approx USD0.10) too costly and prohibitive. 

As a referrer, one may wait patiently for a potential future that some businesses would build on this fee structure and reap the benefits then.  As a user, one would not see the rationale to continue to suffer the prohibitive transfer fee and to wait for a future that may never come.

Well thought out reply @cube 

I agree with what you stated.

[bitcrab]

Also, we propose to implement this new fee schedule for LTM-only for a period of time, and offer it to basic members only later. This way, we effectively upgrade memberships into premium products. As more and more features are added to LTM, we may increase the account upgrading fee accordingly.

I think the fee schedule should be offered to all the members from the beginning, to make a distinction in offering time regarding core fee schedule will make the basic user feel even worse and is not good for attracting more new users.

Sorry I didn't get your point. Imo it's a good strategy that provide difference services to VIPs and normal users.

they are already offered different service in the proposed fee schedule, for transfer fee:
for LTM: $0.018, 80% cash back.
for basic user :$0.018 no cash back.
right?
what I said is no need to implement this in different time for LTM and basic user.

[cube]

I am mainly upset by the way this change is being introduced. Instead of starting with a forum thread "Let's revise the target/purpose of the referral program" to present arguments pro and con, the whole thing has been obfuscated and wrapped into a bigger package that required a lot of prior work done by you and other people. As a result, this strategy change is now entangled with other much less controversial stuff. The fact that you have put so much effort to revise every single fee, validates the purpose of this change in the eyes of many people here and allows you to have less solid arguments about the justification itself. I'm sure you are going to defend this by saying that all of this is interconnected and can only be viewed as a single package, but I disagree. I perceive this as an intentional measure, often used in politics.

I always appreciate your bright ideas and ability to articulate your points well.

As a third-party to the matter, if I may speak out on it.

It did not come across to me (and likely other committee members) that we were getting onto a topic of "Let's revise the target/purpose of the referral program" .  We were thinking of what can be done to enable both the trading/exchange and referral businesses to function well and to prosper together in the bts network.  When one side (trading/exchange) is asking for lower transfer fee, the other side AM/LTM and referral program can continue to be attractive and useful (with other kinds of fee revised).  xeroc has offerred to work on the fee schedule and we are thankful for his work.  In short, we were focusing on fees and their implications (and not just the referral program per se).  As a referrer, it is natural that the matter to you centres around the referral program and that your POV is therefore xeroc 'revise target of referral program'.  Consequently, a misunderstanding arised because of the difference in POV.

As for the transfer fee, the main thing to consider is why we expect users to make transfers in the first place. If a user does not have a good reason to do a transfer, she will not do it, no matter what the fee is. For me this is the main issue: most people currently do have any reason to move their funds around. And there is only one way to give people this badly needed reason: businesses building useful apps around BitShares. For this we need to patiently wait, like a good gardener waits for her plants to grow, and while waiting we must not change the rules.

I believe users do want to transact freely, be it to trade for BTC, to send some bts/bitassets to friends and/or family members, or some other reasons.  However, any transaction of value USD2 or below would mean a transfer fee of 5% -  (30bts or approx USD0.10) too costly and prohibitive. 

As a referrer, one may wait patiently for a potential future that some businesses would build on this fee structure and reap the benefits then.  As a user, one would not see the rationale to continue to suffer the prohibitive transfer fee and to wait for a future that may never come.

[xeroc]

I tend to agree with the assert operation and we can certainly reduce it but I have not seen a single practical use case for it. Could you give me a hint?

I have to admit I haven't checked what the assert operation can do. :-)
What I was thinking of is for example an arbitrage bot that places orders only if it can be sure that there will be existing orders to match his. Not sure if that can be done using assert.

If you want to have this, you can set the 'fill-or-kill flag' when creating
your order. This is already available but not exposed to the UI (@svk:
maybe we can have a checkbox for this in the GUI).

My hopes are that this reduces the sell pressure.

For workers and witnesses this should be much of a deal, is it?

IMO sell-pressure is a non-issue with those people who have vesting balances.

For a witness who withdraws his payments monthly $2 fees don't hurt. For a worker who typically might only withdraw once or twice it'd hurt even less.

I was really thinking of "small" referrers who have only a handful of referrals. Like PTS38Warrior (just guessing, haven't checked his numbers).

.. but would you really claim $2 already or wait until BTS goes up and
be surprised about what you have still in vesting?

I can see your point though.

[pc]

I tend to agree with the assert operation and we can certainly reduce it but I have not seen a single practical use case for it. Could you give me a hint?

I have to admit I haven't checked what the assert operation can do. :-)
What I was thinking of is for example an arbitrage bot that places orders only if it can be sure that there will be existing orders to match his. Not sure if that can be done using assert.

My hopes are that this reduces the sell pressure.

For workers and witnesses this should be much of a deal, is it?

IMO sell-pressure is a non-issue with those people who have vesting balances.

For a witness who withdraws his payments monthly $2 fees don't hurt. For a worker who typically might only withdraw once or twice it'd hurt even less.

I was really thinking of "small" referrers who have only a handful of referrals. Like PTS38Warrior (just guessing, haven't checked his numbers).

[jakub]

@xeroc ,

I started to reply to your replies but I when I finished, I felt sick and I erased all this, as I realized I don't want to do that any more.
We are wasting our time in those endless discussions.

My point is only this: manipulating with the fees should be the last thing on our list, to be considered only after a serious attempt has been made to bootstrap liquidity.

I've shown BitShares to many people, there were many different questions and concerns, but none of those concerns was ever related to fees.
This makes me think that most probably fees are *not* our issue.

But I cannot prove that, just as you cannot prove the opposite.

I have a feeling I must apologize to you, I may have been a little harsh with my last reply to you.
In the end, I don't know what is best for BitShares. All I know is that our customers are complaining about A and our business partners want B and shareholders want C.
I further fully agree that we should be manipulating fees, but the current situation was this:
- we had a predefined (from genesis) set of fees denoted in BTS
- BTS is volatile so are the fees
- some businesses approached me and complained about these volatile fees and why there are not pegged to USD/EUR or whatever.

Then I actually started to write a script to track the USD value of the fees and ended up with .. well .. strange fees simply because BTS went somewhere different after genesis.
I took the time to go through every fee and think of it and tried to pick more rational fees. Yes, the proposal is most created by me alone with many inputs from committee members.
So if people are unhappy with this and feel that the proposal is bad for BTS, please remove your stake from either my worker, my proxy, or the my committee member. That will at least
show me that I was wrong in taking the time to think about the fees.

My intentions where to offer more incentive for people to enter BitShares and the only thing that we can do is give it more utility and cheaper fees.

Interestingly, with the newest development about zero-fee option for operations, no one complained about the consequences for the referral program, but people see the marketing buzz it could have. So why don't we start with that buzz already and give them yet another incentive to join once we have 0-fees implemented?

@xeroc , I feel I owe you an apology as well, as I was quite harsh too.

I am mainly upset by the way this change is being introduced. Instead of starting with a forum thread "Let's revise the target/purpose of the referral program" to present arguments pro and con, the whole thing has been obfuscated and wrapped into a bigger package that required a lot of prior work done by you and other people. As a result, this strategy change is now entangled with other much less controversial stuff. The fact that you have put so much effort to revise every single fee, validates the purpose of this change in the eyes of many people here and allows you to have less solid arguments about the justification itself. I'm sure you are going to defend this by saying that all of this is interconnected and can only be viewed as a single package, but I disagree. I perceive this as an intentional measure, often used in politics.

As for the transfer fee, the main thing to consider is why we expect users to make transfers in the first place. If a user does not have a good reason to do a transfer, she will not do it, no matter what the fee is. For me this is the main issue: most people currently do have any reason to move their funds around. And there is only one way to give people this badly needed reason: businesses building useful apps around BitShares. For this we need to patiently wait, like a good gardener waits for her plants to grow, and while waiting we must not change the rules.

[abit]

Also, we propose to implement this new fee schedule for LTM-only for a period of time, and offer it to basic members only later. This way, we effectively upgrade memberships into premium products. As more and more features are added to LTM, we may increase the account upgrading fee accordingly.

I think the fee schedule should be offered to all the members from the beginning, to make a distinction in offering time regarding core fee schedule will make the basic user feel even worse and is not good for attracting more new users.

Sorry I didn't get your point. Imo it's a good strategy that provide difference services to VIPs and normal users.

[bitcrab]

Also, we propose to implement this new fee schedule for LTM-only for a period of time, and offer it to basic members only later. This way, we effectively upgrade memberships into premium products. As more and more features are added to LTM, we may increase the account upgrading fee accordingly.

I think the fee schedule should be offered to all the members from the beginning, to make a distinction in offering time regarding core fee schedule will make the basic user feel even worse and is not good for attracting more new users.

[abit]

There is no extra cost for brokers to do larger trades today... that's why you don't see fee's associated with doing large trade sizes.  In bts there is also nothing different between trading 5bts vs 50,000,000bts.  The work required is the same.  Attempting to charge exorbitant fees for large transactions will be seen as a tax and it will drive traders away.  Their needs to be a ceiling on trading fee's if % based fees are implemented.  I have said before though that traders do not care if the fee is 1 cent or 1 dollar, that amount is minuscule and won't effect demand.  The problem arises when the fees start approach the triple digit mark for large trades and the double digit mark for smaller ones.

To Cubes question:  I could put a trade on in forex for 100 lots ($10,000 per lot = $1million) and not be charged any commision.  I would pay a decent amount for the spread (probably around $3000), but still no fee or maybe a very small commission.  I could also do this with only $50K as collateral, but lending is a story for another day.

Long story short:  Percentage based fee's may be helpful for low volume traders, but they are the death of the liquidity providers we desperately need.  A fee cap is absolutely essential.

I see you are referring to forex trading while I was talking about stock trading.

It makes sense for forex traders who typically trade more than $100,000 USD, not to mind a 1USD fee.  1USD for a 100K trade is after all a 0.001% fee.  I do not think they would not mind a 1USD fee if the trade is say $10.

I think it is important that we identify which market bts should go after - the forex trading market, the stock market or the crypto-trading market.  These markets have different attributes and fee structures.

I'm now very encouraged to make a per-asset or per-market fee schedule.
Bond markets need to have different fee structure than normal markets.
CFD markets have different fee schedule.
Margin trading charges different fee.
Stock market.
etc.

We'll evolve as time goes by.

[abit]

EXCELLENT work!

The only point where I strongly disagree with your analysis is the assert operation. I say make it cheap (it doesn't permanently consume resources) and let the users figure out what to do with it.

Good point. So let's reduce it.

I also disagree with the withdraw_vesting fee (but less strongly). This seriously impacts smaller referral businesses that don't earn lots of fees. It also doesn't permanently consume resources and cannot be used for spamming. (Disclaimer: as a witness I'm biased here.)

Good point too. It's a tax anyway. Imo setting it to some value around 0.1$ would make sense.
Wish more feed back from other people though.

[abit]

The trading fee's portion of this proposal is terrible.

Percentage based fees or commissions are non existent in current trading.  Doing large orders is already a disadvantage, because much of the order book has to be chewed through to fill the order.  So the effective spread that the trader is experiencing is larger than what may be quoted.  Add on top of that a tax for doing a large order and I guarantee you we will attract 0 traders.

Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented.  There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell.  Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system.  The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit.  This effectively screws the trader twice though.

I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges.  Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms.  The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission.  This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.

Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares.  It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain.  Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away.  You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders.  Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.

Personally I agree with your opinion at some level.
I'd like to introduce a percentage-based "fill order fee" with a cap and a bottom for trading, which will perfectly solve the issue you described. In additional, if combines it with the 0 fee proposal, we'll have a ultimate product.

[xeroc]

The problem is you have to pay for a LTM membership.  I can sign up with
dozens of forex and stock brokers right now, get better tools and better
trade reporting, without having to pay a dime.

As far as your comment about how poloniex and btc38 have good volume...
You could take all the volume of every crypto traded today and it is
less than 0.002% of the daily forex market.  There are bank traders that
individually do multiples of what the entire crypto market does daily.
Those guys are not using percentage based fee's and neither are the guys
trading much lower amounts.  If you charge 0.1% on the forex market, the
daily fee's would be $6 billion dollars.  That number would never be
attained because the fee's would eliminate the volume.  The lowered
volume would then eliminate much of the liquidity that is seen today.

There is no extra cost for brokers to do larger trades today... that's
why you don't see fee's associated with doing large trade sizes.  In bts
there is also nothing different between trading 5bts vs 50,000,000bts.
The work required is the same.  Attempting to charge exorbitant fees for
large transactions will be seen as a tax and it will drive traders away.
Their needs to be a ceiling on trading fee's if % based fees are
implemented.  I have said before though that traders do not care if the
fee is 1 cent or 1 dollar, that amount is minuscule and won't effect
demand.  The problem arises when the fees start approach the triple
digit mark for large trades and the double digit mark for smaller ones.

To Cubes question:  I could put a trade on in forex for 100 lots
($10,000 per lot = $1million) and not be charged any commision.  I would
pay a decent amount for the spread (probably around $3000), but still no
fee or maybe a very small commission.  I could also do this with only
$50K as collateral, but lending is a story for another day.

Long story short:  Percentage based fee's may be helpful for low volume
traders, but they are the death of the liquidity providers we
desperately need.  A fee cap is absolutely essential.

Very valiable input here . Thank you very much. I think a cap can be
implemented and we should propose such a change. But in the meantime, we
need to attract some more poeple from the crypto space first since they
know the tech already and we should make live easier for FOREX traders
to enter the platform.

[xeroc]

EXCELLENT work!

The only point where I strongly disagree with your analysis is the assert operation. I say make it cheap (it doesn't permanently consume resources) and let the users figure out what to do with it.

I also disagree with the withdraw_vesting fee (but less strongly). This seriously impacts smaller referral businesses that don't earn lots of fees. It also doesn't permanently consume resources and cannot be used for spamming. (Disclaimer: as a witness I'm biased here.)

I tend to agree with the assert operation and we can certainly reduce it but I have not seen a single practical use case for it. Could you give me a hint?

As for withraw_vesting, we thought quite a bit about this particular fee as well and my initial proposal was actually $5, until other committee members made me aware of this operation to be used by the referral program as well. The idea to have it relatively high is to discourage people to take out everything they can as quickly as they can to sell it on the market. You can think of this $2 fee as an incentive to have the fees not on the sell side of order books. My hopes are that this reduces the sell pressure.

For workers and witnesses this should be much of a deal, is it?

[xeroc]

The trading fee's portion of this proposal is terrible.

Percentage based fees or commissions are non existent in current trading.  Doing large orders is already a disadvantage, because much of the order book has to be chewed through to fill the order.  So the effective spread that the trader is experiencing is larger than what may be quoted.  Add on top of that a tax for doing a large order and I guarantee you we will attract 0 traders.

Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented.  There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell.  Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system.  The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit.  This effectively screws the trader twice though.

I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges.  Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms.  The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission.  This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.

Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares.  It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain.  Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away.  You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders.  Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.

Thank you very much for this valuable input. We can certainly need this kind of data when changing the fees in 6-12 months. However, since the crypto currency ecosystem as a total does not have many of these higher-order traders and many exchanges are quite successful with percentage market fees, I think we should go that route first, bootstrap liquidity and only later re-evaluate if a higher flat fee is a good or a bad thing for the customers we will have in the future. Would this work for you?

[xeroc]

@xeroc ,

I started to reply to your replies but I when I finished, I felt sick and I erased all this, as I realized I don't want to do that any more.
We are wasting our time in those endless discussions.

My point is only this: manipulating with the fees should be the last thing on our list, to be considered only after a serious attempt has been made to bootstrap liquidity.

I've shown BitShares to many people, there were many different questions and concerns, but none of those concerns was ever related to fees.
This makes me think that most probably fees are *not* our issue.

But I cannot prove that, just as you cannot prove the opposite.

I have a feeling I must apologize to you, I may have been a little harsh with my last reply to you.
In the end, I don't know what is best for BitShares. All I know is that our customers are complaining about A and our business partners want B and shareholders want C.
I further fully agree that we should be manipulating fees, but the current situation was this:
- we had a predefined (from genesis) set of fees denoted in BTS
- BTS is volatile so are the fees
- some businesses approached me and complained about these volatile fees and why there are not pegged to USD/EUR or whatever.

Then I actually started to write a script to track the USD value of the fees and ended up with .. well .. strange fees simply because BTS went somewhere different after genesis.
I took the time to go through every fee and think of it and tried to pick more rational fees. Yes, the proposal is most created by me alone with many inputs from committee members.
So if people are unhappy with this and feel that the proposal is bad for BTS, please remove your stake from either my worker, my proxy, or the my committee member. That will at least
show me that I was wrong in taking the time to think about the fees.

My intentions where to offer more incentive for people to enter BitShares and the only thing that we can do is give it more utility and cheaper fees.

Interestingly, with the newest development about zero-fee option for operations, no one complained about the consequences for the referral program, but people see the marketing buzz it could have. So why don't we start with that buzz already and give them yet another incentive to join once we have 0-fees implemented?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I think it is important that we identify which market bts should go after - the forex trading market, the stock market or the crypto-trading market.  These markets have different attributes and fee structures.

What if we created some kind of 'silos' that adjusted the rates and structures that each of these markets require so that as a platform we can direct our strengths to each one appropriately?

[cube]

There is no extra cost for brokers to do larger trades today... that's why you don't see fee's associated with doing large trade sizes.  In bts there is also nothing different between trading 5bts vs 50,000,000bts.  The work required is the same.  Attempting to charge exorbitant fees for large transactions will be seen as a tax and it will drive traders away.  Their needs to be a ceiling on trading fee's if % based fees are implemented.  I have said before though that traders do not care if the fee is 1 cent or 1 dollar, that amount is minuscule and won't effect demand.  The problem arises when the fees start approach the triple digit mark for large trades and the double digit mark for smaller ones.

To Cubes question:  I could put a trade on in forex for 100 lots ($10,000 per lot = $1million) and not be charged any commision.  I would pay a decent amount for the spread (probably around $3000), but still no fee or maybe a very small commission.  I could also do this with only $50K as collateral, but lending is a story for another day.

Long story short:  Percentage based fee's may be helpful for low volume traders, but they are the death of the liquidity providers we desperately need.  A fee cap is absolutely essential.

I see you are referring to forex trading while I was talking about stock trading.

It makes sense for forex traders who typically trade more than $100,000 USD, not to mind a 1USD fee.  1USD for a 100K trade is after all a 0.001% fee.  I do not think they would not mind a 1USD fee if the trade is say $10.

I think it is important that we identify which market bts should go after - the forex trading market, the stock market or the crypto-trading market.  These markets have different attributes and fee structures.

[lil_jay890]

Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented.  There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell.  Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system.  The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit.  This effectively screws the trader twice though.

Registrar for MT4 could earn a lot from LTM-fee...much more than what he could earn on trading fee. IMO.
So there would actually be a way to get the development money back etc.

I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges.  Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms.  The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission.  This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.

Probably because we can see a lot of exchange working with % trading fee, and we se a lot of volume in those exchange. Right now:
Poloniex, only on eth/btc, has 28k btc volume.
Btc38 only on cny/btc has 500 btc volume.
They seem to work quite well, and poloniex has 0.2% trading fee per side iirc.

Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares.  It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain.  Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away.  You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders.  Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.

We thought that charging only 0.01% would still make the dex cheaper than the majority of other exchanges.
Would you suggest to have no % trading fee at all until we have more volume?

If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved.  My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.

Having a ceiling is a good idea imo, but it would need development tho.
Thanks for your suggestion.

The problem is you have to pay for a LTM membership.  I can sign up with dozens of forex and stock brokers right now, get better tools and better trade reporting, without having to pay a dime.

As far as your comment about how poloniex and btc38 have good volume...  You could take all the volume of every crypto traded today and it is less than 0.002% of the daily forex market.  There are bank traders that individually do multiples of what the entire crypto market does daily.  Those guys are not using percentage based fee's and neither are the guys trading much lower amounts.  If you charge 0.1% on the forex market, the daily fee's would be $6 billion dollars.  That number would never be attained because the fee's would eliminate the volume.  The lowered volume would then eliminate much of the liquidity that is seen today.

There is no extra cost for brokers to do larger trades today... that's why you don't see fee's associated with doing large trade sizes.  In bts there is also nothing different between trading 5bts vs 50,000,000bts.  The work required is the same.  Attempting to charge exorbitant fees for large transactions will be seen as a tax and it will drive traders away.  Their needs to be a ceiling on trading fee's if % based fees are implemented.  I have said before though that traders do not care if the fee is 1 cent or 1 dollar, that amount is minuscule and won't effect demand.  The problem arises when the fees start approach the triple digit mark for large trades and the double digit mark for smaller ones.

To Cubes question:  I could put a trade on in forex for 100 lots ($10,000 per lot = $1million) and not be charged any commision.  I would pay a decent amount for the spread (probably around $3000), but still no fee or maybe a very small commission.  I could also do this with only $50K as collateral, but lending is a story for another day.

Long story short:  Percentage based fee's may be helpful for low volume traders, but they are the death of the liquidity providers we desperately need.  A fee cap is absolutely essential.

[cube]

I can assure you forex, stock, option, futures traders do take fee's seriously... but only if the fee's are exorbant.

They will not care if a fee is 1 cent or $1.  What they will care about is when they see they could execute a $100,000 trade on ETrade and pay $7 in commissions, but then try to do that same trade in bitshares and pay $100.  Then imagine if people start using leverage with bond market... multiply their costs by 10.

If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved.  My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.

Is that what ETrade charge for a $100K trade?  Wow, that is low. 

I know stock exchanges' brokers go by a percentage of trade for commission.  The percent can go lower if the volume gets high enough.  There is no commission cap that I know of.

[Bhuz]

Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented.  There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell.  Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system.  The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit.  This effectively screws the trader twice though.

Registrar for MT4 could earn a lot from LTM-fee...much more than what he could earn on trading fee. IMO.
So there would actually be a way to get the development money back etc.

I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges.  Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms.  The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission.  This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.

Probably because we can see a lot of exchange working with % trading fee, and we se a lot of volume in those exchange. Right now:
Poloniex, only on eth/btc, has 28k btc volume.
Btc38 only on cny/btc has 500 btc volume.
They seem to work quite well, and poloniex has 0.2% trading fee per side iirc.

Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares.  It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain.  Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away.  You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders.  Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.

We thought that charging only 0.01% would still make the dex cheaper than the majority of other exchanges.
Would you suggest to have no % trading fee at all until we have more volume?

If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved.  My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.

Having a ceiling is a good idea imo, but it would need development tho.
Thanks for your suggestion.

[lil_jay890]

I will say it is very well laid out and very well detailed.  The transparency is very good.

[roadscape]

This is a well thought-out proposal and the most professional work I've seen from committee members.. well done!!

I've briefly scanned the rationale for operations and I'll provide some feedback shortly. Great job documenting this so thoroughly.. https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/blob/master/usd-denominated-fees/fee-schedule-proposed-by-xeroc.py very impressive

[pc]

EXCELLENT work!

The only point where I strongly disagree with your analysis is the assert operation. I say make it cheap (it doesn't permanently consume resources) and let the users figure out what to do with it.

I also disagree with the withdraw_vesting fee (but less strongly). This seriously impacts smaller referral businesses that don't earn lots of fees. It also doesn't permanently consume resources and cannot be used for spamming. (Disclaimer: as a witness I'm biased here.)

[clayop]

I can assure you forex, stock, option, futures traders do take fee's seriously... but only if the fee's are exorbant.

They will not care if a fee is 1 cent or $1.  What they will care about is when they see they could execute a $100,000 trade on ETrade and pay $7 in commissions, but then try to do that same trade in bitshares and pay $100.  Then imagine if people start using leverage with bond market... multiply their costs by 10.

If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved.  My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.

Wow I cannot believe you're complaining about high fee...

[lil_jay890]

I can assure you forex, stock, option, futures traders do take fee's seriously... but only if the fee's are exorbant.

They will not care if a fee is 1 cent or $1.  What they will care about is when they see they could execute a $100,000 trade on ETrade and pay $7 in commissions, but then try to do that same trade in bitshares and pay $100.  Then imagine if people start using leverage with bond market... multiply their costs by 10.

If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved.  My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

The trading fee's portion of this proposal is terrible.

Percentage based fees or commissions are non existent in current trading.  Doing large orders is already a disadvantage, because much of the order book has to be chewed through to fill the order.  So the effective spread that the trader is experiencing is larger than what may be quoted.  Add on top of that a tax for doing a large order and I guarantee you we will attract 0 traders.

Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented.  There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell.  Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system.  The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit.  This effectively screws the trader twice though.

I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges.  Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms.  The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission.  This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.

Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares.  It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain.  Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away.  You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders.  Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.

Ok.. can you make a proposal for what those fees should be as you see it?

[clayop]

@xeroc ,

I started to reply to your replies but I when I finished, I felt sick and I erased all this, as I realized I don't want to do that any more.
We are wasting our time in those endless discussions.

My point is only this: manipulating with the fees should be the last thing on our list, to be considered only after a serious attempt has been made to bootstrap liquidity.

I've shown BitShares to many people, there were many different questions and concerns, but none of those concerns was ever related to fees.
This makes me think that most probably fees are *not* our issue.

But I cannot prove that, just as you cannot prove the opposite.

Because the people were not customers/users, they might not care about fees IMO.
There already is an example from bitcrab's customers. Fees are already an issue.

[lil_jay890]

The trading fee's portion of this proposal is terrible.

Percentage based fees or commissions are non existent in current trading.  Doing large orders is already a disadvantage, because much of the order book has to be chewed through to fill the order.  So the effective spread that the trader is experiencing is larger than what may be quoted.  Add on top of that a tax for doing a large order and I guarantee you we will attract 0 traders.

Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented.  There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell.  Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system.  The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit.  This effectively screws the trader twice though.

I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges.  Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms.  The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission.  This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.

Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares.  It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain.  Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away.  You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders.  Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

@xeroc ,

I started to reply to your replies but I when I finished, I felt sick and I erased all this, as I realized I don't want to do that any more.
We are wasting our time in those endless discussions.

My point is only this: manipulating with the fees should be the last thing on our list, to be considered only after a serious attempt has been made to bootstrap liquidity.

I've shown BitShares to many people, there were many different questions and concerns, but none of those concerns was ever related to fees.
This makes me think that most probably fees are *not* our issue.

But I cannot prove that, just as you cannot prove the opposite.

You are welcome to make suggestions and analysis of specific fees. Speaking in generalities of all or nothing only leads to inaction. If you want to make a case for specific items now is the time to do so.

The rest of the community has decided that manipulating the fees is higher priority than you think it should be. You can buy more BTS and try and change the balance of power though.

I am curious to know what you consider a 'serious attempt' though at liquidity. We been at this 4 months going on 5... what is your definition on this? Why hasn't it taken place since 2.0 began?

Perhaps in your part of the world the fees are nothing to be concerned with. However being a global distributed network in a world of inequalities of economies, there has to be a happy medium. Remember this is about life, liberty, and property for all.. not just the folks in advanced economies of the world.

Anyhow.. we have almost two weeks to get into specific items that people want to reconsider. I am just curious about your comments about serious attempts not being made and how that might look in lieu of fee changes.

[jakub]

@xeroc ,

I started to reply to your replies but I when I finished, I felt sick and I erased all this, as I realized I don't want to do that any more.
We are wasting our time in those endless discussions.

My point is only this: manipulating with the fees should be the last thing on our list, to be considered only after a serious attempt has been made to bootstrap liquidity.

I've shown BitShares to many people, there were many different questions and concerns, but none of those concerns was ever related to fees.
This makes me think that most probably fees are *not* our issue.

But I cannot prove that, just as you cannot prove the opposite.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I think I should translate it Chinese.. or ask someone to do it.

//Update:
Due to the new year holidays, Chinese people would be busying visiting families and/or traveling these days (1-3 weeks). It's likely that most people will go to places where is no good Internet connection. And most people may have no much time to spend on BitShares. So I suggest that we postpone the deadline of decision making (read: voting) and give more time to Chinese community. Thanks.

What would you recommend? An additional week perhaps? So 14 days for discussion and feedback instead of 7?

Yes I think that's better.

By the way, I saw "a low 0.1% trading fee for committee owned assets such as bitUSD" in the non-tech summary, but haven't found related command/code in the technical summary. Am I missing something?

I have edited the introduction to this thread to reflect the new timeline.

[abit]

Does Annual Membership stay?
Will it give the user access to advanced features as LTM does?
If not, what is the reason I might want to buy AM?

Due to a bug(or undesirable feature), I think AM upgrading will be disabled in next version of GUI. I expected it to be disabled today, but it hasn't been done. See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21163.msg277851.html#msg277851
No idea when will it be re-enabled.

[xeroc]

Does Annual Membership stay?
Will it give the user access to advanced features as LTM does?
If not, what is the reason I might want to buy AM?

This proposal does NOT introduce a hard fork, how could it. Everything this proposal changes are the fees. Everything else stays the same.

I think this proposal is very poorly justified.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=21265.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21343.30.html
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21183.0/all.html

The core idea is this: let's make basic features very cheap and earn profits on advanced features.
This is a major change of business rules since the outline of BitShares 2.0 was announced back in June 2014.

How is that a major change? BitShares is trying to get profitable and
this requires change.
This is in no way contrary to what BitShares 2.0 was made for.

The justification fails in these areas:

(1) Tell us why this change is needed in the first place.
What are the symptoms you've discovered that make you think that this radical change will improve anything?
What is the expected outcome?

- low market cap
- unhappy investors due to low market cap and low usability
- unhappy businesses because they can't attract customers with the platform
- unhappy traders because trading is expensive
The expected outcome is "a change". No matter where it goes, we can
learn from it. My assumption is that people will not stop using
BitShares just because the fees are lower now. My assuptions are also
that it will be way easier to attrack customers if you can tell them
what low fees they have to pay if they are denoted in USD.

(2) The main motivation to buy a subscription is meant to be access to advanced features, such as "individual assets, withdrawal permissions, proposals, prediction markets".
What is your estimate about the percentage of users interested in this stuff?
Seriously, how come you did not even try to estimate this value?

My crystal ball went offline when I tried to read Bytemasters mind.
Seriously, how can we estimate this value? BitShares is running for 4
months only with almost NO traction at all. Basing any "statistics" on
what we have in the blockchain already is a pure waste of time due to
non-significance.

(3) You write:

Keep in mind that this will be a limited-time offer, as the minimum fee may be raised once BSIP#10 is implemented.

Does it look like a serious offer to businesses? A crucial value might or might not be raised. Depending on what?

The idea is to get a solid user base first. If you wanted to sell drugs,
you give the first shot for (almost) free and make money from your
customers later. However, the committee can TECHNICALLY not say that it
will raise the fees at a later point because committee members can be
replaced quickly. For that reason, we state that the fees "may" be
increase with BSIP#10 .. but NOT EARLIER. And if BSIP#10 is not
approved, the fees cannot be raised with in 6 months.

For me, this is proposal is one more episode in our long-lasting
transfer fee debate (that seems to be our favorite distractor from the
main issue: liquidity), wrapped in a big package containing other
non-controversial stuff, which could be just passed in a standard way by
the committee. And the funny thing is that the single most important
number in this package (i.e. $0.018 for the transfer fee) is defined as
quite transient and likely to be revised once again.

Well, I agree. Most discussions about fees are a distraction given that
we have almost no customers at all. So, tell me, what could possible go
wrong when reducing the fees to something MORE COMPETITIVE?
How come you see the transfer fee as "the most important number"? For
whom? The yet to come customers? Or for the yet to be efficient
businesses that want to make some extra money from referrals?

I will definitely not support it.

Assuming your are a shareholder, that is your right to do!

[jakub]

Does Annual Membership stay?
Will it give the user access to advanced features as LTM does?
If not, what is the reason I might want to buy AM?

[jakub]

I think this proposal is very poorly justified.

The core idea is this: let's make basic features very cheap and earn profits on advanced features.
This is a major change of business rules since the outline of BitShares 2.0 was announced back in June 2014.

The justification fails in these areas:

(1) Tell us why this change is needed in the first place.
What are the symptoms you've discovered that make you think that this radical change will improve anything?
What is the expected outcome?

(2) The main motivation to buy a subscription is meant to be access to advanced features, such as "individual assets, withdrawal permissions, proposals, prediction markets".
What is your estimate about the percentage of users interested in this stuff?
Seriously, how come you did not even try to estimate this value?

(3) You write:

Keep in mind that this will be a limited-time offer, as the minimum fee may be raised once BSIP#10 is implemented.

Does it look like a serious offer to businesses? A crucial value might or might not be raised. Depending on what?

For me, this is proposal is one more episode in our long-lasting transfer fee debate (that seems to be our favorite distractor from the main issue: liquidity), wrapped in a big package containing other non-controversial stuff, which could be just passed in a standard way by the committee. And the funny thing is that the single most important number in this package (i.e. $0.018 for the transfer fee) is defined as quite transient and likely to be revised once again.

I will definitely not support it.

[fav]

"If this proposal is accepted, it will revise the 3x transfer price vision for STEALTH transfers to a 7x factor to let the investor(s) reach their ROI at a faster rate."
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/proposals/blob/master/160208_feeschedule.md

This is not a parameter that is adjustable by the committee. It is to be set by 3 of 5 signatures of the 5 accounts that have voting authority for the Management Account of the STEALTH asset. We may decide that some other multiple is best (ie. 5x, 6x, 10x etc.)

Although I do not like what the new fee schedule does to the STEALTH asset business model (it makes the use of the feature seem much more expensive as compared to a non-stealth transfer), I do think that the change is good for BitShares overall.  I therefore support it.

And then I thought you are a follower of BM's business model and believes? And doing the 45K donation in clear mind. I mean kissing the 45K goodbye the second you sent them.

I mean... it should have been clear if you have been a follower of him, that the only thing consistent in his view is - 'get the money and claim they were spent on development'. Past Donors/Investors, Whoever, be screwed, when BM has his next even  BIGGER idea (read tomorrow). When this new idea comes, he will have new money to ask for. New money for the next 'would be somewhat finished, maybe 85% maybe less' product...

@tonyk you're asking the wrong questions. I'd start to question if there was some actual fiat movement 

[fuzzy]

May I suggest you amend the roadmap to include some time post-vote to:

• Develops the code
• Test code on the test net
• Solicate active witness intended [adoption | rejection]
• Allow stakeholders 14 days to vote a witness set matching their intended network direction
• Hard fork block (if then active witness set is running revised code base).

Although this proposal is largely a set of parameter changes impacting fees, market order mechanics may be impacted thus the potential to change resource requirements of network nodes. These impacts must be considered and compensated to ensure future success.

Respectfully,
Fox

[edit: formatting]

This fee schedule change doesn't require a hard fork, so nothing to do with witnesses.
If we can't reach a consensus this time, no need to think further.

I think @Fox is thinking in terms of:   "Although this proposal is largely a set of parameter changes impacting fees, market order mechanics may be impacted thus the potential to change resource requirements of network nodes. "

[abit]

May I suggest you amend the roadmap to include some time post-vote to:

• Develops the code
• Test code on the test net
• Solicate active witness intended [adoption | rejection]
• Allow stakeholders 14 days to vote a witness set matching their intended network direction
• Hard fork block (if then active witness set is running revised code base).

Although this proposal is largely a set of parameter changes impacting fees, market order mechanics may be impacted thus the potential to change resource requirements of network nodes. These impacts must be considered and compensated to ensure future success.

Respectfully,
Fox

[edit: formatting]

This fee schedule change doesn't require a hard fork, so nothing to do with witnesses.
If we can't reach a consensus this time, no need to think further.

[xeroc]

I think I should translate it Chinese.. or ask someone to do it.

//Update:
Due to the new year holidays, Chinese people would be busying visiting families and/or traveling these days (1-3 weeks). It's likely that most people will go to places where is no good Internet connection. And most people may have no much time to spend on BitShares. So I suggest that we postpone the deadline of decision making (read: voting) and give more time to Chinese community. Thanks.

What would you recommend? An additional week perhaps? So 14 days for discussion and feedback instead of 7?

Yes I think that's better.

By the way, I saw "a low 0.1% trading fee for committee owned assets such as bitUSD" in the non-tech summary, but haven't found related command/code in the technical summary. Am I missing something?

That has to be done in a different op (for each asset) and i havent coded it yet

[tonyk]

"If this proposal is accepted, it will revise the 3x transfer price vision for STEALTH transfers to a 7x factor to let the investor(s) reach their ROI at a faster rate."
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/proposals/blob/master/160208_feeschedule.md

This is not a parameter that is adjustable by the committee. It is to be set by 3 of 5 signatures of the 5 accounts that have voting authority for the Management Account of the STEALTH asset. We may decide that some other multiple is best (ie. 5x, 6x, 10x etc.)

Although I do not like what the new fee schedule does to the STEALTH asset business model (it makes the use of the feature seem much more expensive as compared to a non-stealth transfer), I do think that the change is good for BitShares overall.  I therefore support it.

And then I thought you are a follower of BM's business model and believes? And doing the 45K donation in clear mind. I mean kissing the 45K goodbye the second you sent them.

I mean... it should have been clear if you have been a follower of him, that the only thing consistent in his view is - 'get the money and claim they were spent on development'. Past Donors/Investors, Whoever, be screwed, when BM has his next even  BIGGER idea (read tomorrow). When this new idea comes, he will have new money to ask for. New money for the next 'would be somewhat finished, maybe 85% maybe less' product...

[Fox]

May I suggest you amend the roadmap to include some time post-vote to:

• Develops the code
• Test code on the test net
• Solicate active witness intended [adoption | rejection]
• Allow stakeholders 14 days to vote a witness set matching their intended network direction
• Hard fork block (if then active witness set is running revised code base).

Although this proposal is largely a set of parameter changes impacting fees, market order mechanics may be impacted thus the potential to change resource requirements of network nodes. These impacts must be considered and compensated to ensure future success.

Respectfully,
Fox

[edit: formatting]

[abit]

I think I should translate it Chinese.. or ask someone to do it.

//Update:
Due to the new year holidays, Chinese people would be busying visiting families and/or traveling these days (1-3 weeks). It's likely that most people will go to places where is no good Internet connection. And most people may have no much time to spend on BitShares. So I suggest that we postpone the deadline of decision making (read: voting) and give more time to Chinese community. Thanks.

What would you recommend? An additional week perhaps? So 14 days for discussion and feedback instead of 7?

Yes I think that's better.

By the way, I saw "a low 0.1% trading fee for committee owned assets such as bitUSD" in the non-tech summary, but haven't found related command/code in the technical summary. Am I missing something?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I think I should translate it Chinese.. or ask someone to do it.

//Update:
Due to the new year holidays, Chinese people would be busying visiting families and/or traveling these days (1-3 weeks). It's likely that most people will go to places where is no good Internet connection. And most people may have no much time to spend on BitShares. So I suggest that we postpone the deadline of decision making (read: voting) and give more time to Chinese community. Thanks.

What would you recommend? An additional week perhaps? So 14 days for discussion and feedback instead of 7?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

"If this proposal is accepted, it will revise the 3x transfer price vision for STEALTH transfers to a 7x factor to let the investor(s) reach their ROI at a faster rate."
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/proposals/blob/master/160208_feeschedule.md

This is not a parameter that is adjustable by the committee. It is to be set by 3 of 5 signatures of the 5 accounts that have voting authority for the Management Account of the STEALTH asset. We may decide that some other multiple is best (ie. 5x, 6x, 10x etc.)

Although I do not like what the new fee schedule does to the STEALTH asset business model (it makes the use of the feature seem much more expensive as compared to a non-stealth transfer), I do think that the change is good for BitShares overall.  I therefore support it.

You are correct. At the last hangout it was clarified that FBA holders of Stealth would be given 100% control over the fees and the fees set in this schedule have no consequence to what fees are set in Stealth other than what you already noted regarding the contrast in expense. I think for those that want to make use of the feature, they will still pay it. You can also experiment with various rates determine the most optimal balance for profitability over a period of time.

So in regards to this review,  please note everyone that FBAs are NOT impacted by our fee schedules. They are completely controlled by their respective owners.

We will adjust the info in the schedule to reflect this.

[Ben Mason]

Thank you to everyone who worked on this and for reaching this point of highly reassuring professionalism and innovative compromise.  The proposal looks fantastic.

[kenCode]

  Data

[onceuponatime]

"If this proposal is accepted, it will revise the 3x transfer price vision for STEALTH transfers to a 7x factor to let the investor(s) reach their ROI at a faster rate."
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/proposals/blob/master/160208_feeschedule.md

This is not a parameter that is adjustable by the committee. It is to be set by 3 of 5 signatures of the 5 accounts that have voting authority for the Management Account of the STEALTH asset. We may decide that some other multiple is best (ie. 5x, 6x, 10x etc.)

Although I do not like what the new fee schedule does to the STEALTH asset business model (it makes the use of the feature seem much more expensive as compared to a non-stealth transfer), I do think that the change is good for BitShares overall.  I therefore support it.

[abit]

I think I should translate it Chinese.. or ask someone to do it.

//Update:
Due to the new year holidays, Chinese people would be busying visiting families and/or traveling these days (1-3 weeks). It's likely that most people will go to places where is no good Internet connection. And most people may have no much time to spend on BitShares. So I suggest that we postpone the deadline of decision making (read: voting) and give more time to Chinese community. Thanks.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Dear Shareholders & Community,

As some of you already know, we (Committee Members) have started work on a new (USD-Denominated) fee schedule to incorporate some business concerns that have been brought to the current fee schedule in Bitshares.

As announced at the Hangout last week, we have started this thread as part of our best practices to get input from shareholders on this schedule so that we may ensure that we have taken all consideration of matters into account prior to putting forth a proposal.

To be absolutely clear: NO decision has been made!

We merely want to engage the community now for further discussion.

We encourage everyone to read the whole thing and only after that give constructive feedback.

Please Review the Following:

Non-technical Fee Schedule Summary

Technical Summary with Rationales for Every Operation

(1500+ lines of text/code)

Roadmap:

• The fee schedule will be discussed for at least 7 14 days. During this period, we will incorporate and discuss shareholders input.
• After those 7 days (unless decided otherwise, but not earlier) we will present the final fee schedule and run a vote on the blockchain.
• This vote period for the blockchain proposal will run another 7 days allowing shareholders to adapt their votes if they see it necessary.
• Following this the roadmap in the proposal will take effect.

Minimum review period to effect: 21 days 28 days.

If you know other shareholders who are not actively involved in the forum, please notify them of this feedback request regarding fees so that we can have as many shareholders bring their collective intelligence to this discussion.

On behalf of the Bitshares Committee, we thank you for your input, and look forward to a progressive and constructive consultation to help make Bitshares grow.

Edit note: 7 day period was extended to 14 in order to allow for the Asian community who are celebrating the Chinese New Year to participate.