[COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation

[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