[COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation

[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.