Author Topic: [hangout feedback] BitShares fees / Referral program (+ Fav interresting idea )  (Read 9280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EstefanTT

Yep, I agree !

I also think we shouldn't stop there with 10% of the fees. We should keep braistorming and find other things to add so the referral program become so interresting that it will start attarcting to whole crypto community. We have an amazing tool and we do nothing with it.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
@fav
Why not just make a worker proposal that distributes funds to LTMs as a dividend. 
Maybe in BitUSD instead of BTS.

worker can get voted out in a heartbeat. you can't expect marketers to work in this environment, you have to be able to calcuate expenses vs income (ROI).

needs to be something steady in my opinion

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
yes it would be hard to get a worker voted in but not impossible.

Fes distribution might require a hard fork, worker proposal doesn't

As you say its the same funding source (the reserve pool)
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline EstefanTT

Don't you think that it would be very hard to get it voted ? We would have the anti-dilution crowd against this worker.

On the other hand, doing it as Fav propose, we are not diluting, we are just distributing a part of the collected fee.
I'm well aware that it's the same 100% but the perception is really different. People are emocional and base their decisions on feelings, perception is key !

10% of the fees to reanimate the referral program looks amazing !


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
@fav
Why not just make a worker proposal that distributes funds to LTMs as a dividend. 
Maybe in BitUSD instead of BTS.
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline Chronos

ref system as it is now is useless and not profitable to market.
I have to agree with this.  ;)

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
I have been thinking about the sharing depending on BTS holding. It's not a bad idea but maybe it shouldn't have a linear relation with the funds.

If you don't consider the BTS holdings, you can potentially bring lots of new users just for the speculative investment into a LTM.
If they need 1M BTS to have a decent share of the fee, the investment changes compleetely.

With that said, there should be some positive aspects of having BTS sleeping. So we should consider an increase of the revenue depending on BTS holdings but no that much that it wouldn't make sense anymore to buy a LTM without huge funds.

Maybe, to qualify you could need  LTM and a minimum of xxx BTS. There would be a higher revenue as your capital in bts increase. Too low and ppl will start creating several LTM (maybe not that bad)
Too high and nobody except the whales will create LTM.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I think it should work like real world shares... make bitshares work like shares. and that's stake based, another idea you could bundle this dividend pool was @BunkerChain Labs  - locking bts (for ltm) up to get a bigger voting impact (+enable dividend pool shares by locking up bts for x time)

Offline EstefanTT

I have been thinking about the sharing depending on BTS holding. It's not a bad idea but maybe it shouldn't have a linear relation with the funds.

If you don't consider the BTS holdings, you can potentially bring lots of new users just for the speculative investment into a LTM.
If they need 1M BTS to have a decent share of the fee, the investment changes compleetely.

With that said, there should be some positive aspects of having BTS sleeping. So we should consider an increase of the revenue depending on BTS holdings but no that much that it wouldn't make sense anymore to buy a LTM without huge funds.

Maybe, to qualify you could need  LTM and a minimum of xxx BTS. There would be a higher revenue as your capital in bts increase. Too low and ppl will start creating several LTM (maybe not that bad)
Too high and nobody except the whales will create LTM.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline EstefanTT

I like the idea, I like it a lot ! It seems easy to set up.

It would also incentive ppl to get the LTM because you would get your money back through time.
Ppl live the win-for-life kind of stuff.

If we make it that you can have your money back in 2 years in current MC and daily Tx rate, we could see a massive wave of speculators coming in BTS only to create a LTM. That would push up the market, increase our reserve pool in BTS and also in $, increase our available money to spend on dev, have lots of ppl playing with the DEX.

The number of new LTM will at some point reach an equilibrium because the more LTM there are, the less you win and the more time you'll have to wait to have your money back and start earning. Also, the first ppl coming to get their LTM will increase the number of Tx in the DEX and may push forward this equilibrium with a never ending reenforcing circle.

The committee could be responsable of setting the % going into the pool for LTMembers. Adjusting this % could increase or decrease the new creation of LTM.

Damn ... I really find this idea excellent !!

Is there any part of this idea that is not doable or may create problems ?

@Chris4210, another thing to add to your list ;)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 02:43:19 pm by EstefanTT »
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
ref system as it is now is useless and not profitable to market. Fees were changed by the fist committee in an attempt to boost adoption, which did not work and they killed any marketing attempts on top of it.

I'm kinda sick and tired of reading "bts great tech but bad marketing" etc. it's essentially our fault for not coming up with something productive + a decent committee to follow up on stuff.
Fav is one of the most productive promoters of BitShares. He has bring 320 users in BitShares.

This is huge coming from as single person.

The referral program with current fee probably had the same effect on him that it had on BitDhsres FCX team.

One of the biggest problem we had with the referral system was that we didn't have use case to show. It was then complicated to "sell" BitShares.
Now we have OpenLedger products and ICOs, Blockpay, stealth soon,  Echo about to be done, we have an crypto index fund ;), ... we don't have excuses anymore.

We need to find a way to tweek the fee structure without damaging the user experience. Having a the referral system back could potentially solve our bad comercialisation problem.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I feel your pain. I don't particularly care about tx fees to be honest, just give some killer features that make a LTM interesting and we (network + ref + faucet owner) would win.

Showerthought: add an extra dividend pool (allocate 10% network fees) to it, quarterly payouts based on bts holdings and only for LTM members. could be a start
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 01:47:17 pm by fav »

Offline EstefanTT

ref system as it is now is useless and not profitable to market. Fees were changed by the fist committee in an attempt to boost adoption, which did not work and they killed any marketing attempts on top of it.

I'm kinda sick and tired of reading "bts great tech but bad marketing" etc. it's essentially our fault for not coming up with something productive + a decent committee to follow up on stuff.
Fav is one of the most productive promoters of BitShares. He has bring 320 users in BitShares.

This is huge coming from as single person.

The referral program with current fee probably had the same effect on him that it had on BitDhsres FCX team.

One of the biggest problem we had with the referral system was that we didn't have use case to show. It was then complicated to "sell" BitShares.
Now we have OpenLedger products and ICOs, Blockpay, stealth soon,  Echo about to be done, we have an crypto index fund ;), ... we don't have excuses anymore.

We need to find a way to tweek the fee structure without damaging the user experience. Having a the referral system back could potentially solve our bad comercialisation problem.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
ref system as it is now is useless and not profitable to market. Fees were changed by the fist committee in an attempt to boost adoption, which did not work and they killed any marketing attempts on top of it.

I'm kinda sick and tired of reading "bts great tech but bad marketing" etc. it's essentially our fault for not coming up with something productive + a decent committee to follow up on stuff.

Offline kani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
I agree in 100%  !!!
+ "0 fee" for sharedroping.
Maybe this could be some new type of transaction.

I think STEEM has a TX-limited allowance for free transactions.  Maybe a peek at what they're doing for guidance.

When I read the original post, I balked at the "upper-limit" suggested.  NOBODY will pay $100 for a blockchain transaction no matter how much the transferred value.  The fee should be commiserate with the strain on blockchain (transaction network and storage cost, etc).  That said, maybe something like $0.10 - $0.20 might work, but I wouldn't push it too far else you drive away users.

It is quite possible I don't understand the suggestion in relation to bots...  Do remember that bots are already paying 0.05% to 2.00% to trade in some UIAs.  Perhaps adding a fee to committee-controlled SmartCoins could be added for some purpose (maybe as mentioned in your other thread?)



Now, to combine referrals with my favorite love: Bitshares bots!   :) :) :)

If *somebody* could make an easy-to-use lightweight cross-platform bot CLIENT, they could integrate themselves as default referrer (or even registrar) for all these new bot accounts!  (Now THERE'S some potential for getting meaningful referral fees!)  Ideally this client would have built in wizard and analysis tools to help determined users find most profitable trading strategies.

Anyway, I do not wish to detract from useful brainstorming.  Thank you for your ideas.  There's some in here worth discussing and hashing out.
My opinions are my own

Turn up the H.E.A.T.

Offline fractalnode

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
A tricky proposition indeed.

I like the idea for no fees on very small transactions.  But a percentage-based fee on higher value transactions will simply drive users to other blockchains where it is cheaper to conduct business.  I oppose this idea.

Bitshares is special because of its low fees -- you don't see the same bot activity on other platforms due to the relatively high transaction costs on those platforms.  Increased fees just might kill the growing bot ecosystem, which Bitshares gravely needs.

If the referral system can be improved without disrupting the other factors that make Bitshares great, I'm all for it.  But don't kill it with substantially higher fees.

I agree in 100%  !!!
+ "0 fee" for sharedroping.
Maybe this could be some new type of transaction.

Offline EstefanTT

A tricky proposition indeed.

I like the idea for no fees on very small transactions.  But a percentage-based fee on higher value transactions will simply drive users to other blockchains where it is cheaper to conduct business.  I oppose this idea.

Bitshares is special because of its low fees -- you don't see the same bot activity on other platforms due to the relatively high transaction costs on those platforms.  Increased fees just might kill the growing bot ecosystem, which Bitshares gravely needs.

If the referral system can be improved without disrupting the other factors that make Bitshares great, I'm all for it.  But don't kill it with substantially higher fees.

It wouldn't disturb bots, they could operate without fee. That would be even better for them !!
With a system like this one, they would only need to pay a fee when they actually fill an operation. With a low 0.1% that should be a problem at all. Poloniex have lots of bots running with a much higher %.
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)