234 BTS for issue/burn asset?!?!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Thanks for your fast response - metaexchange has now re-enabled our IOU markets:

https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.BTC/BTC
https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.ETH/ETH
https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.NXT/NXT

  .. Time for Metaexchange volume to go TO THE MOON!

[monsterer]

Thanks for your fast response - metaexchange has now re-enabled our IOU markets:

https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.BTC/BTC
https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.ETH/ETH
https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.NXT/NXT

[Shentist]

I made a new proposal https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.100 which will only make changes to asset_issue and asset_reserve operations (according to last BTS price). In contrast https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.99 makes changes to all fees according to newest BTS price.

Erm... you really took much care to define a process for changing fees where everyone's input is considered and can be discussed at length. I think that was exactly the right way to handle such things.

And now you're going to throw all of that out of the window because a single user complained about a single fee?

i think, this is just a point everybody missed. we missed it, the committee missed it and the community missed it, how this will impact services like metaexchange if we issue and burn our UIAs instantly and not creating in bulk.

so we are thankful, that the committee can react fast and you should just think bigger. What would you do if metaexchange would be poloniex and they are running their business on bitshares. You would just say "sorry, guys. You had your chance now live with it?".

issuing and burning assets are transfering assets from one person to another person, so the fees should be realivly the same.

we thanks for the fast reactions, so we have not the need to change our codebasis and in the future we hope to find this issues before they are happen.

[xeroc]

And now you're going to throw all of that out of the window because a single user complained about a single fee?

The committee has discussed it quite a bit and we know that it has a bad taste ..
but we have the obligation to ensure operations of core technology partners and simply missed the use-case of just-in-time issuing and burning of assets.
Leaving those fees at $1 for the next 6 months would ruining them or force them to implement an alternative method to keep supply consistent with debt.
But we prefer the just-in-time use-case because of all-time-match of supply and thus felt the need to support this use-case.

We hesitated to change the fee as well and we will certainly discuss these particular fees in future ..

I appreciate your criticism still!

[pc]

I made a new proposal https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.100 which will only make changes to asset_issue and asset_reserve operations (according to last BTS price). In contrast https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.99 makes changes to all fees according to newest BTS price.

Erm... you really took much care to define a process for changing fees where everyone's input is considered and can be discussed at length. I think that was exactly the right way to handle such things.

And now you're going to throw all of that out of the window because a single user complained about a single fee?

[abit]

I made a new proposal https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.100 which will only make changes to asset_issue and asset_reserve operations (according to last BTS price). In contrast https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.99 makes changes to all fees according to newest BTS price.

The command used to create this proposal is:

Code: [Select]

propose_fee_change abit "2016-03-09T11:59:00" {"14":{"fee":420955,"price_per_kbyte":233864},"15":{"fee":23386}} true


[xeroc]

Most of the committee seems to be fine with reducing issuer/burn fees out of schedule to support our existing business partners. We are evaluating out options

Take your future business partner's needs into account as well; any cross blockchain IOU issuing will struggle on bitshares with perception and trust issues with this new fee schedule.

I personally don't care much about potential future business but prefer to do what is needed to keep existing ones first ..

Anyway .. a few of the committee members have come up with an update and we will try to convince sufficient committee members to approve aswell

the proposal would change the asset_reserve to anti-spam ($0.001c) and asset_issue to the same amount as a simple transfer!

[monsterer]

Most of the committee seems to be fine with reducing issuer/burn fees out of schedule to support our existing business partners. We are evaluating out options

Take your future business partner's needs into account as well; any cross blockchain IOU issuing will struggle on bitshares with perception and trust issues with this new fee schedule.

[xeroc]

Most of the committee seems to be fine with reducing issuer/burn fees out of schedule to support our existing business partners. We are evaluating out options

[cube]

i think this shows a potential risk, we need to consider more. I am not full aware which fees are connected to our business. and to expect a
proposal to lower fees to come out this way is ......, but as i said i would probably missed this point anyway.

So, i think the "issuing" assets should be in the same category as "transfering" something, then in reality it is the same.

which fees do we have to consider?

- transfer fees
- issuing fees

we use daily and with coded programs.

- creating and updaten assets , somedays

i do believe this covers every fee we have to consider?

I am aware you are busy with your business/work and you may have missed the recent fee change.  You may be worrying its impact on your business.  But fret not, the committee is actively discussing this issue and it has been positive so far.

Frankly, when you are doing your business on top of bitshares, you DO need to know bts fee structure well. Your business depends on it!  The committee can only make sound decisions with active feedbacks from its community and business partners.  I hope to hear valuable feedback from you.

[abit]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

I agree, if you have an asset issued in two different places, ie.. Ethereum and BTS, if you want to keep them inline it will be great that it will be minimal the readjustment of assets issued / burning.

May I ask what's the cost of issuing an asset in Ethereum?

To create an asset, it will be the cost of deploying a contract, depends on how complex is your contract. ~ $1 for the standard token. To burn, change supply it will be  ~ the same cost as a transaction.

Thanks! But sorry I didn't understand.

So $1 for creating a new type of asset, or creating some amount of an already existed asset type? "Standard" means transferable only? Looks like it's much cheaper than in BitShares.

How about trading between assets? What's "the same cost as a transaction"?

[Shentist]

@monsterer @Shentist

I would like to point out that we give almost a month to evaluate the fee schedule.

We repeatedly asked for community review and comments.
We repeatedly bumped the thread about the fee schedule.

Do not follow a discussion about fee that obviously could impact your business, above all when we make clear we needed review from the community and business partners, is a bit strange and not a good behaviour for your business itself, imo.


Anyway, we are already discussing about it, and I personally hope we would be able to push this change asap.

I personally like more the on-demand issue/burn scheme than the pre-issue one.

we had the same discussions a while ago, i think, and our community can not expect that everyone is following how everything is handled here.

i think this shows a potential risk, we need to consider more. I am not full aware which fees are connected to our business. and to expect a
proposal to lower fees to come out this way is ......, but as i said i would probably missed this point anyway.

So, i think the "issuing" assets should be in the same category as "transfering" something, then in reality it is the same.

which fees do we have to consider?

- transfer fees
- issuing fees

we use daily and with coded programs.

- creating and updaten assets , somedays

i do believe this covers every fee we have to consider?

[betax]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

I agree, if you have an asset issued in two different places, ie.. Ethereum and BTS, if you want to keep them inline it will be great that it will be minimal the readjustment of assets issued / burning.

May I ask what's the cost of issuing an asset in Ethereum?

To create an asset, it will be the cost of deploying a contract, depends on how complex is your contract. ~ $1 for the standard token. To burn, change supply it will be  ~ the same cost as a transaction.

[monsterer]

Anyway, we are already discussing about it, and I personally hope we would be able to push this change asap.

I personally like more the on-demand issue/burn scheme than the pre-issue one.

I'm glad you are considering revising these fees; it will be much better for bitshares as a platform to have issue/burn fees the same as transfer, so that exchanges/bridges can move onto bitshares without friction.

[Bhuz]

@monsterer @Shentist

I would like to point out that we give almost a month to evaluate the fee schedule.

We repeatedly asked for community review and comments.
We repeatedly bumped the thread about the fee schedule.

Do not follow a discussion about fee that obviously could impact your business, above all when we make clear we needed review from the community and business partners, is a bit strange and not a good behaviour for your business itself, imo.


Anyway, we are already discussing about it, and I personally hope we would be able to push this change asap.

I personally like more the on-demand issue/burn scheme than the pre-issue one.

[Shentist]

i didn't followed the fee discussion at all, and i wouldn't realized that the issuing fees are a major part how our bridge is working.

as far as i know we are the only entity who is burning and issuing as you use the UIA market, but i dont get it why a normal transaction costs 0.01 cent and to issue something 100 times more.

i realized today what will be a bigger problem in the future. Do we really believe that someone like Poloniex can transit to bitshares, if they have no control of potential
risks? I think the answer is clear and i wish metaexchange would be a chinese whale and the committee would act faster.

So now we have to move and spend time to get more gox like.

to every user of the UIA markets of metaexchange i can only apologize, but we have to recode if this fees are remaining as they are!

cheers!

[abit]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

I agree, if you have an asset issued in two different places, ie.. Ethereum and BTS, if you want to keep them inline it will be great that it will be minimal the readjustment of assets issued / burning.

May I ask what's the cost of issuing an asset in Ethereum?

[betax]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

I agree, if you have an asset issued in two different places, ie.. Ethereum and BTS, if you want to keep them inline it will be great that it will be minimal the readjustment of assets issued / burning.

[dannotestein]

Good point.
Afaik OpenLedger is operating in a pre-issue schema, BlockTrades operates TRADE.BTC in a pre-issue schema as well but on-demand-issue schema for DOGE/DASH.

Not unless they were only expecting to issue 25 BTC worth!

https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/asset/TRADE.BTC

Or 230 worth:

https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/asset/OPEN.BTC

OpenLedger works on a purely pre-issued basis.
BlockTrades can auto-issue, but it only auto-issues when it "needs" to (it doesn't auto-issue if it has a sufficient balance on hand).

[monsterer]

The Committee will take your valuable input into considerations. I've added a remark to our current fee schedule:
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/commit/dd23653e17b24ee5a1e6c8a25378022b9f9c2eba

@monsterer .. In the meantime, what would be the argument of having a next-to-burn account that collects some of those assets and burns them after a couple of weeks to spare fees?
In the end, if they are held by the issue, your customers can have the same kind of trust that put into you not just issuing new shares. All they need to do is take another balance into consideration to verify that the supply matches the debt, not?

It works in principle but I means I have to completely change the way our back-end works for issuing IOUs; it just makes the whole process a PITA. Bare this in mind if you are trying to attract exchange partners to build on top of bitshares, because they will have the same issue as I do with this work around.

[xeroc]

The Committee will take your valuable input into considerations. I've added a remark to our current fee schedule:
https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/commit/dd23653e17b24ee5a1e6c8a25378022b9f9c2eba

@monsterer .. In the meantime, what would be the argument of having a next-to-burn account that collects some of those assets and burns them after a couple of weeks to spare fees?
In the end, if they are held by the issue, your customers can have the same kind of trust that put into you not just issuing new shares. All they need to do is take another balance into consideration to verify that the supply matches the debt, not?

[abit]

Good point.
Afaik OpenLedger is operating in a pre-issue schema, BlockTrades operates TRADE.BTC in a pre-issue schema as well but on-demand-issue schema for DOGE/DASH.

Not unless they were only expecting to issue 25 BTC worth!

https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/asset/TRADE.BTC

Or 230 worth:

https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/asset/OPEN.BTC

https://cryptofresh.com/u/openledger-wallet
openledger-wallet issue 100 OPEN.BTC to openledger-wallet
16 hours ago
openledger-wallet issue 60 OPEN.BTC to openledger-wallet
5 days ago

[monsterer]

Good point.
Afaik OpenLedger is operating in a pre-issue schema, BlockTrades operates TRADE.BTC in a pre-issue schema as well but on-demand-issue schema for DOGE/DASH.

Not unless they were only expecting to issue 25 BTC worth!

https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/asset/TRADE.BTC

Or 230 worth:

https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/asset/OPEN.BTC

[abit]

Somebody had better inform open ledger / blocktrades about this otherwise any unscrupulous individual could rack up some serious fees for them by sending tiny amounts repeatedly to their bridge

@dannotestein @ccedk

Good point.
Afaik OpenLedger is operating in a pre-issue schema, BlockTrades operates TRADE.BTC in a pre-issue schema as well but on-demand-issue schema for DOGE/DASH.

[monsterer]

Somebody had better inform open ledger / blocktrades about this otherwise any unscrupulous individual could rack up some serious fees for them by sending tiny amounts repeatedly to their bridge

@dannotestein @ccedk

[cube]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

I am not sure why you did not raise an issue during the fee schedule change discussion.  Now that it was approved, you would need to present your case in detail so that the committee can review it.

[abit]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

Every business have costs. And ways to compensate costs.
If you believe your business benefited BitShares much, but lost/cost too much due to the fee, and you can't compensate the cost in other ways, setup a worker for compensation of your cost. Stake holders will judge.

[monsterer]

These are horrible ideas. It means the available supply is no longer representative of  currency in use.

This change won't just affect metaexchange, but any business issuing IOU bitshares tokens for crypto/fiat.

[xeroc]

You can reduce your costs by collecting to-be-burned assets first and only burn them quarterly ..

[cube]

Who increased the issue/burn asset fee to 234 BTS?! That fairly badly affects metaexchange's business model, since we swallow all transfer/issue/burn fees.

I've had to temporarily disable metaexchange's IOU markets.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21368.msg282139.html#msg282139

and

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21368.msg281599.html#msg281599

Look for asset_issue.

[abit]

Good question.

An alternative is to pre-issue a large amount of assets to yourself, then transfer with little fee.

[monsterer]

Who increased the issue/burn asset fee to 234 BTS?! That fairly badly affects metaexchange's business model, since we swallow all transfer/issue/burn fees.

I've had to temporarily disable metaexchange's IOU markets.