Author Topic: [Committee Member] - johnr's proposal to join the BitShares Committee  (Read 11990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2370
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
and i don't think change fee is a good idea, let's consume the Reserve Pool and see what will happen!!!

and you will find soon: you do anything is nothing.

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2370
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
1. Asset-Specific:CREATE ASSET:Longer Symbols.

The standard FEE of Longer Symbols should be 1000 bts at least, to curb the fraudulent and phishing asset.

2. Charge the security deposit from the asset.   the security deposit should be 888bts at least, to curb the fraudulent and phishing asset.

when someone create a asset,the man need to pay the security deposit to active the asset every year, the security deposit is circular, when paid the new security deposit, then return the old security deposit.

when the asset didn't renew the security deposit timely,then forbid the trading of this asset;

if the asset didn't renew the security deposit  two years,then the DEX can confiscate the security deposit.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 06:33:38 am by binggo »

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
I am sure the other committee members, proxies, and large stakeholders who have not voiced an opinion already are beyond busy carrying out their efforts for the general welfare of the blockchain and all constituents. 

That being said I do sincerely hope to engage more people in an honest discussion about the matters discussed already in this thread as well as my continued earnest candidacy for committee membership.

We are entering a phase of legitimacy for distributed enterprise (including BitShares) and I am encouraged by the professionalism being displayed by key community members already.  And I know the future holds more promise of the same.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 368
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 5.2
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
I would also like to ask why the rest of Committee is not welcoming new member proposal and fees discussion ?

I see few of them active around but not in this specific thread for a week, is that a way to welcome new initiatives ?
« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 01:38:06 pm by Digital Lucifer »
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 368
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 5.2
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
LTM Users too, they'll only get 50% instead of 80% cashback.
Right .. that's somewhat of a show stopper assuming LTM upgrades were made with the expectation to spare 80% of the fees .. :-/
I'd say, the most fair approach, if committee chooses to change network percentage was to have it changed independent of the other fees and have a proposal expire after 4 weeks. That at least gives everyone sufficient time to do their math ..

I support the limit order fee increase. I would suggest that the prominent gateways specifically get informed on that with a weeks notice to adjust their market fees. Additionally, if the committee feels like network fee % is a to deep-cutting decision the BTS holders can always be asked.

Since we are setting up Newsletter and Support departments for new bitshares.org - Committee can have department to issue newsletter/updates to gateways who submitted their respective legal contacts for it. If they not comply with it, in worst case can be delisted from wallet.bitshares.org

I support fully these movements towards more success for BitShares as Priority 1 - enforcing some Compliance with 3rd parties.
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline sschiessl

LTM Users too, they'll only get 50% instead of 80% cashback.
Right .. that's somewhat of a show stopper assuming LTM upgrades were made with the expectation to spare 80% of the fees .. :-/
I'd say, the most fair approach, if committee chooses to change network percentage was to have it changed independent of the other fees and have a proposal expire after 4 weeks. That at least gives everyone sufficient time to do their math ..

I support the limit order fee increase. I would suggest that the prominent gateways specifically get informed on that with a weeks notice to adjust their market fees. Additionally, if the committee feels like network fee % is a to deep-cutting decision the BTS holders can always be asked.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
LTM Users too, they'll only get 50% instead of 80% cashback.
Right .. that's somewhat of a show stopper assuming LTM upgrades were made with the expectation to spare 80% of the fees .. :-/
I'd say, the most fair approach, if committee chooses to change network percentage was to have it changed independent of the other fees and have a proposal expire after 4 weeks. That at least gives everyone sufficient time to do their math ..

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
One cool thing about increasing the network's cut on transaction fees is .... wait for it ... the users are not affected. They pay 100% anyways. The only ones impacted are basically
* openledger, who claimed that referral fees are not their business
* cryptobridge, who seems to make money by listing fees and trading
* other frontends that may come with their own assets just like OL and CB
* bitshares europe, which sofar only has referral fees as income (as it's owner, I would rather see BitShares grow than hold back rational business decisions out of pure and stupid greed)

LTM Users too, they'll only get 50% instead of 80% cashback.

Not sure how many bots are depending on that for their profit margin.

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile

As far as trading fees are concerned. Network fees for trading are WAY too low. Market fees (on gateway assets as well as bitAssets) are too high.


I agree with this completely.  The main point I'm trying to get across is that bts:bitUSD & bts:bitCNY are by FAR the most actively traded pairs.  If we want to a have an impact we should focus on variable/marginal fees there.  Since there is already a market fee, already within committee (community) control it seems intuitive to me to start there.  Note the network fee is a flat fee, and since the overwhelming majority of exchange trading pairs have low order creation I'm not sure it will have a huge impact.  Clockwork has a lot of experience here (not to mention put a lot of energy/thought into the matter) so I do support raising network fees while we consider how best to use bitasset market fees.  I can understand not wanting to formally apply some of the current market fee to network integrity (reserve pool).  I'm indifferent between that and simply raising network fees/lowering bitasset fees. 

I do not want to subsidize private gateways either.  I don't immediately see how charging low network fees is bailing out private gateways.  They are basically CEXs leveraging the BTS infrastructure.  In that sense I do see your point - although 'free-riding' is probably the more accurate term.  Probably a longer conversation about how we can better align the incentives there.

One cool thing about increasing the network's cut on transaction fees is .... wait for it ... the users are not affected. They pay 100% anyways. The only ones impacted are basically
* openledger, who claimed that referral fees are not their business
* cryptobridge, who seems to make money by listing fees and trading
* other frontends that may come with their own assets just like OL and CB
* bitshares europe, which sofar only has referral fees as income (as it's owner, I would rather see BitShares grow than hold back rational business decisions out of pure and stupid greed)

I am glad we all seem to agree on this.  A more equitable split between the network and the referrer will make all of our efforts more effective.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
One cool thing about increasing the network's cut on transaction fees is .... wait for it ... the users are not affected. They pay 100% anyways. The only ones impacted are basically
* openledger, who claimed that referral fees are not their business
* cryptobridge, who seems to make money by listing fees and trading
* other frontends that may come with their own assets just like OL and CB
* bitshares europe, which sofar only has referral fees as income (as it's owner, I would rather see BitShares grow than hold back rational business decisions out of pure and stupid greed)

Offline paliboy

Paliboy, are you suggesting unwinding prior accounts or making account names renewable on a going-forward basis?

It should be as non-destructive as possible, we can't just take account names from people.

I don't think we should be touching accounts. They work fine as they are. Just increase fees there because people make more accounts than they need (>1.1m accounts created for 30k active users). Faucet improvements in account creation would help. Large number of accounts also puts unneeded strain on the chain.

Large account creation income does not mean it's a profitable operation. It means that the ratio of fees / op is wrong and that other ops are much cheaper than they should be.

I completely agree that we shouldn't touch accounts as long as there are other ideas to increase income.

Committee asset fee income != reserve pool. I will gladly entertain the suggestion that escrow workers come to an agreement with the committee so that they can always trade worker pay BTS to bitUSD or bitCNY at a fair price if the market doesn't provide enough liquidity. I will not accept treating fee income as part of the reserve pool though.

What do you suggest to do with this income if committee doesn't agree with escrow workers on fair price?

It's not asset creation that brings in a lot of funds but rather asset issuance (as gateways transfer UIA IOUs in and out). That is a fee that should probably be not raised (or even lowered) as it should not be such a big part of the reserve pool income and it is also a large cost gateways need to cover (by setting higher market fees). So I would gladly lower their costs there if that means agreeing to lower market fees.

I misunderstood this income. I agree that asset issuance fees should stay low.

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
Xeroc I think 50/50 makes sense as a starting point.  That would more than double the income from network fees and referrers still retain a strong incentive to splash their ref links and bring on new users.

Your point of concern about trading fees I think is on everyone's mind here.  That's why I suggest leveraging some of the current asset variable fee towards maintaining the network.  I understand the original intent of the asset fee was to increase liquidity on those two asset in a neutral way, managed by committee.  That's a good objective.  But is it worth 10x the capital flow than accrues to the network?  Put more simply: is committee offered liquidity on two bitassets worth ten times more than all witness and worker proposal pay which power the entire platform?  To me it is clearly not worth the discrepancy.

Paliboy, are you suggesting unwinding prior accounts or making account names renewable on a going-forward basis?

Increasing the network's cut is my ideal starting point too. I believe 20% is way too low. At the same time , I believe it will be difficult for the community to accept (especially those that invested in LTM accounts on the premise of 80% cashback) hence why I focused on base fees first.

As far as trading fees are concerned. Network fees for trading are WAY too low. Market fees (on gateway assets as well as bitAssets) are too high.

Ignoring bitUSD/bitCNY for a moment which I also would like to see market fees reduced for since it's a "community" owned asset through the committee (which blurs the lines a bit...it might be so but it's not really equivalent to reserve profits), the rest of the gateway assets are business owned.

Are we seriously suggesting that the network should charge ridiculously low fees so that someone else's for-profit business remains competitive? I'm sorry but I don't see why *I* or xeroc or any other committee member should spend hours studying fee schedules and operation breakdowns etc. trying to "fix" stuff just so that a gateway can make more profit (or incur less loss). If they can't figure out a way to increase their userbase & stay competitive , I really don't see why the network should bail them out by charging less than 1/8th of a cent so they can charge 0.1-0.2%

(This is also the point where I remind you that committee work is unpaid :P)


As far as paliboy's suggestions are concerned.

Committee asset fee income != reserve pool. I will gladly entertain the suggestion that escrow workers come to an agreement with the committee so that they can always trade worker pay BTS to bitUSD or bitCNY at a fair price if the market doesn't provide enough liquidity. I will not accept treating fee income as part of the reserve pool though.

It's not asset creation that brings in a lot of funds but rather asset issuance (as gateways transfer UIA IOUs in and out). That is a fee that should probably be not raised (or even lowered) as it should not be such a big part of the reserve pool income and it is also a large cost gateways need to cover (by setting higher market fees). So I would gladly lower their costs there if that means agreeing to lower market fees.

I don't think we should be touching accounts. They work fine as they are. Just increase fees there because people make more accounts than they need (>1.1m accounts created for 30k active users). Faucet improvements in account creation would help. Large number of accounts also puts unneeded strain on the chain.

Large account creation income does not mean it's a profitable operation. It means that the ratio of fees / op is wrong and that other ops are much cheaper than they should be.


Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Xeroc I think 50/50 makes sense as a starting point.  That would more than double the income from network fees and referrers still retain a strong incentive to splash their ref links and bring on new users.

Your point of concern about trading fees I think is on everyone's mind here.  That's why I suggest leveraging some of the current asset variable fee towards maintaining the network.  I understand the original intent of the asset fee was to increase liquidity on those two asset in a neutral way, managed by committee.  That's a good objective.  But is it worth 10x the capital flow than accrues to the network?  Put more simply: is committee offered liquidity on two bitassets worth ten times more than all witness and worker proposal pay which power the entire platform?  To me it is clearly not worth the discrepancy.

Paliboy, are you suggesting unwinding prior accounts or making account names renewable on a going-forward basis?

Offline paliboy

1) I agree with asset fees on USD/CNY, I would rather use these fund directly to fund worker than to trade
2) totally agree that the network should get bigger share, probably gradually adjusted (e.g. 10 per cent points with every hard fork, target being something between 50% and 80% for network)

I'll copy my Steemit reply to clockwork's post here:

Since account creation and asset creation brings most of the fees, why not to leverage that first?

1. let's start with assets, switch to pricing model similar to domain names... asset creation fee pays it for e.g. 1 year, then you need to renew, assets are being create mainly by businesses so it wouldn't annoy ordinary users; some safety measures would be necessary so that e.g. you cannot "steal" an asset name that issuer forgot to renew; what to do with prefixed assets etc.
2. decouple private keys and account names... similar to first point, human-readable account name is a service that you need to renew annually; users need to be able to get their funds back after their name expires