[Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar

[xeroc]

Since that worker is voted out and hardly even pays for the infrastructure i provide for it (let alone all the coding to offer detailed analysis on the registered accounts), I cannot put more time and efforts into this faucet.

Maybe some hobbyist has fun digging into elasticsearch, but I have to feed a family.

[clockwork]

Here is the thing: The worker was proposed in a certain way (defined in the worker proposal).
Changing terms in the middle is not good business. If you want to have it 0%, it may be viable long term, but a subsequent worker needs to propose it that way.
This worker and its parameters are set in stone.

Can you provide numbers for the income by reducing registrar from 15% to 0?

What percentage is non-LTM signup and LTM-referrral signup?

i would be interested to know these as well for fee-schedule calculations if you can get them Fabian.

[bench]

Here is the thing: The worker was proposed in a certain way (defined in the worker proposal).
Changing terms in the middle is not good business. If you want to have it 0%, it may be viable long term, but a subsequent worker needs to propose it that way.
This worker and its parameters are set in stone.

Can you provide numbers for the income by reducing registrar from 15% to 0?

What percentage is non-LTM signup and LTM-referrral signup?

[xeroc]

Tell me, if registering accounts cost BTS, and the faucet doesn't earn BTS from referral reward, how long do you think this can be self-sustained? (ignoring the expense for hosting the faucet even).

I need to tell you, if registration costs BTS?

The onboarding account does still earns 80% from BTS and market fees for every non-LTM signup, when registrar = 0%. This is not enough to cover the 2 cents registration fee and worker costs?

The bts++ team is generating 5 figures only from the market fee share per month!

Here is the thing: The worker was proposed in a certain way (defined in the worker proposal).
Changing terms in the middle is not good business. If you want to have it 0%, it may be viable long term, but a subsequent worker needs to propose it that way.
This worker and its parameters are set in stone.

[bench]

@binggo
This BSIP was for OL gateway coins designed. This has nothing to do with bitAssets market fees.

[binggo]

Please mention the BSIP so we can push for it

The initial version is limited to market fees and not flat BTS fees:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/133/files#diff-6ff5a943ba1c6c4da49be09c93482041

This is a very naive bsips, it can't get any Motivation which describe.
now we have low fee for trading,  the LM only have 0.02% fee,

if 0.02% fee can't get these motivation, how this BSIP can?!

With this BSIP, people will run away from this market.

## Motivation
- To provide additional marketing tools to encourage traders.
- To increase trading volume on BitShares.
- To attract traders to the ecosystem.

\> 50K | 0.01% | 0.07% 

     

[bench]

Please mention the BSIP so we can push for it

The initial version is limited to market fees and not flat BTS fees:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/133/files#diff-6ff5a943ba1c6c4da49be09c93482041

[Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)]

There was a recent fee structure rebalancing proposal, but it was rejected IIRC. Could request the committee does that too. 👍

Taker fee could be 3 times higher than maker fee, but BSIP is not yet implemented.

Please mention the BSIP so we can push for it

[bench]

There was a recent fee structure rebalancing proposal, but it was rejected IIRC. Could request the committee does that too. 👍

Taker fee could be 3 times higher than maker fee, but BSIP is not yet implemented.

[R]

RE Changing the fee taken, why not propose changing the redistribution of fees from 80:20 so that the network gets more?

Network gets more, faucet gets less. Problem increased!

When the main faucet is not sustainable with the new referral system, we should update our fees.

There was a recent fee structure rebalancing proposal, but it was rejected IIRC. Could request the committee does that too. 👍

[bench]

RE Changing the fee taken, why not propose changing the redistribution of fees from 80:20 so that the network gets more?

Network gets more, faucet gets less. Problem increased!

When the main faucet is not sustainable with the new referral system, we should update our fees.

[R]

At the moment the onboarding.bitshares.foundation takes 15% as registrar.
To stay competitive with OpenLedger the registrar should also be set to 0%.

Registrar cut was introduced to cover costs for signup, but with low signup costs and new referral system(market fee share), this is not needed anymore.

Network onboarding.bitshares.foundation should be the best competing faucet since it's backed by bitshares worker, OL is using his 0% faucet's feature to gain more voting power while advertising his faucet to be competing with the network's official faucet.

The faucet worker proposal has been blocked by refund400k, it may eventually stop working and new users will be impeded from joining.

RE Changing the fee taken, why not propose changing the redistribution of fees from 80:20 so that the network gets more? Problem solved, can remove refund400k vote.

[clockwork]

erm...openledger takes 50%

This is an old value, OL takes now 0%!

oh ok...they switch the referral percentage based on the existence of a referrer param...hadn't realised.

Still, It's a numbers game... Maybe the income from non-referrer vs referrer accounts is enough...maybe it isnt.

Xeroc, wanna run the numbers at some point?

[bench]

erm...openledger takes 50%

This is an old value, OL takes now 0%!

[clockwork]

At the moment the onboarding.bitshares.foundation takes 15% as registrar.
To stay competitive with OpenLedger the registrar should also be set to 0%.

Registrar cut was introduced to cover costs for signup, but with low signup costs and new referral system (market fee share), this is not needed anymore.

erm...openledger takes 50%