bsips
bsips copied to clipboard
bitshares
BSIP79: Allow non-LTM Accounts to be Referrer
Currently only LTMs can be referrers. This caused a problem that in order to earn money, you need to invest some money first, IMHO this drives away potential marketers E.G. small bloggers.
This BSIP proposes a protocol change to allow non-LTM accounts to refer new accounts. The referral income that a non-LTM referrer earned will be split to herself, her registrar and her referrer. If she upgrades to LTM, her future referral income will be kept by herself.
Risks: This change will potentially turn the referral program into a MLM scheme, which could be illegal in some jurisdictions (I am not a lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong), although every account has the option to upgrade to LTM to stop sharing new referral income to the registrar and referrer.
What percentage distribution do you suggest?
We can use current values. E.G. currently 80% fees paid by non-LTM accounts will go to the referral program, I think it's fair if 80% of referral income earned by a non-LTM account goes to the referral program as well. The 80% number is configurable by the committee for new accounts, but won't change for existing accounts. An alternative is to add a new parameter for the committee to decide.
I think the current referral marketers would feel betrayed by this change, because they make the most money from LTM upgrades (just guessing based on previous forum discussions) and this change takes away one reason for upgrading.
On the opposite, due to market fee sharing feature, I'd expect that referrers prefer their referred accounts to not upgrade to LTM. LTM upgrades is around 100 USD per user only, trading fees (and now can be multi-level) can be much more.
What percentage distribution do you suggest?
We can use current values. E.G. currently
80%fees paid by non-LTM accounts will go to the referral program, I think it's fair if80%of referral income earned by a non-LTM account goes to the referral program as well. The80%number is configurable by the committee for new accounts, but won't change for existing accounts. An alternative is to add a new parameter for the committee to decide.
We have 80% - Registrar to distribute:
- referral non-LTM:
20% - referral to the next LTM:
60% - Registrar
This gives everyone a 20% discount without a LTM (fee upgrades!), but gives also the Lifetime Member the possibility to earn extra 60% - Registrar from the non-LTM referral system.
I think the current referral marketers would feel betrayed by this change, because they make the most money from LTM upgrades (just guessing based on previous forum discussions) and this change takes away one reason for upgrading.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong:
Current LTM referral marketers (that are worth mention) is less than 50. Total active ones is less than 30.
Blockchain has average of 4500 active accounts during the day.
@abitmore - This is amazing BSIP and much needed imho, but you would have to convince committee to drastically change the fees between Basic and LTM members, so the incentive for LTM upgrade becomes even better than currently is - with reduced price to ~50$.
@dls-cipher: The current fee for a LTM is fine, because every LTM can still give a discount on the new LTM. Reducing the LTM fees makes it also more unattractive to sell new LTM.
@dls-cipher @froooze please be aware that https://github.com/bitshares/committee-tools is the intended place to discussion current fee schedule.
@ryanRfox I think 79 is better. If I'm correct, 78 has been taken by #213 .
You are correct @abitmore I fixed the title here and updated the readme in #228 (please review)
Thanks.
Lately I found the original idea described in OP has flaws and hard to implement efficiently, so the details is still on hold. I'd like to reserve the BSIP number for a new idea for the referral program (@ryanRfox: up to you to decide). An option is to re-add short-term membership feature with a new design (background: we had annual memberships but it's removed due to flaws in designation and implementation).
I feel we should:
- Leave this BSIP assignment as 79
- Create a new Issue for the redesign of "Short-Term Membership" to assign a new BSIP number (80)
- Consider to update 79 to "Deferred" status with proper documentation in this discussion thread.
Perhaps we can add more status, e.g. drafting, draft completed and etc. This one has no draft yet, so the status Draft in the list is not accurate.
I'd rather not add more status gates at this time. In case of this BSIP, we should have required the draft text be posted into this Issue discussion. Then we can agree the content is to a point where it is ready for a BSIP number assignment. We typically do a good job on this. Other times we like to reserve a BSIP number if we know a draft is coming soon and related to the previously published one (see STEALTH Phase II, Membership).
Non LTM refferer is needed badly .
We should focus on BSIP's first which will bring traffic and assets to bitshares instead of using cores time to improve DEX endlessly
"I think the current referral marketers would feel betrayed by this change, because they make the most money from LTM upgrades (just guessing based on previous forum discussions) and this change takes away one reason for upgrading."
So you demand that DEX won't use the most effective and least costly way to promote DEX ?
People won't promote DEX if they need to pay for it. That's a fact which nobody can change no matter what.
So you demand that DEX won't use the most effective and least costly way to promote DEX ?
I demand nothing. I also don't present speculation as fact (as in "most effective and least costly").
I just see that you guys are constantly changing the rules in your favour, regardless of any promises made to business owners or other users. You are destroying all credibility. Not that there is much left of it anyway.
"I think the current referral marketers would feel betrayed by this change, because they make the most money from LTM upgrades (just guessing based on previous forum discussions) and this change takes away one reason for upgrading."
I wanted to comment on this but lately found I've replied earlier. https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/186#issuecomment-517859072 .
BTW some rough numbers here.
Simple non-Membership Referral System
Referral Chain
LTM -> a -> b -> c
-
LTMgets (80%-Registrar) froma -
LTMgets (60%-Registrar) fromb, andc -
agets 20% fromb -
bgets 20% fromc -
cgets nothing
Yes, c could set up his own referral account with d and save 20% on fees. After this b would loose referral income from c. On the other side b can buy a LTM and get (80%-Registrar) from b and (60%-Registrar) from c
Referral Vesting
The referral option can be tight to account lifetime:
- 10% referral link after 1 year account lifetime
- 20% referral link after 2 year account lifetime
Referral links with 10% are getting upgraded to 20% after one year.
Registration Fee
The first referral income for new referred account can go to the Registrar and cover signup costs.
Advantages
- referral link/income for user
- LTM can earn through multiple levels
- LTM upgrade increases current referral income
Disadvantage
User can save 20% on fees/referral by setting up his own referral account. A small fee upgrade (+10%) should compensate this.
Conclusion
I don't see a real solution to prevent the abuse of a non-Membership referral system on an open blockchain. The advantages have a far bigger weight than the disadvantage.
@froooze thanks for your example. One problem about it is that c can refer himself and create d, e, f and so on to get the chain long, in the end he mainly uses the last account on the link which generate fees, but his original referrer b would probably get nothing by referring him, which kills the purpose of the referral program. For good performance we don't want to encourage long chains, but your idea encourages it in financial sense.
By the way, I guess the small upgrade fee you mentioned fits in https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/232 (so far IMHO it's a better idea).
@abitmore
yes, c can create d, but the creation of e or f doesn't benefit c anymore and is just useless.
We need to minimize the gaming effects on the referral system, but we can't exclude them completely. First step is to introduce Referral Vesting and Registration Fee for non-Membership referrals.
I see the benefits for a non-Membership referral link higher, than the disadvantages, which can be minimized.
Unused Referral Vesting objects consume RAM. So I think it's better that users explicitly pay a small fee to enable the feature which will create the vesting objects for them.
@pmconrad
Why do you think every exchange out there has a refferal system ? Because it's the most effective and less costly solution to get traffic to your exchange. Only users from the biggest refferer from Binance are already making more volume than DEX has.
You refuse bitshares DEX to use that massiv tool ? You really claim we create that refferal progrom for our own favour ?
You clearly have an issue recognizing who an enemy is and who is trying to bring growth to bitshares DEX.
Topic :
Non LTM accounts should also get high % of reward else you won't be able to attract people with 20% refferal income.Binance which is already saturated gives 40% to ANYONE and other major exchanges give 50-60%
@thul3
- the 20% are not to attract new user, but to allow current user to attract more users and build a network
- the 10-20% are only the start and a jump pad to the LTM
- the 40-60% are only possible because CEX have mobile nr., e-mail and cookies for verification, this is not possible on the DEX
- referral values could be increased for a short time to help promotion
@frooze you want to attract big webmasters with big traffic pools you need to give them the best offer you have. Remember bitshares is competing with other exchanges for that traffic, second tier reward should be max 10% with the ability to break out and get full reward when buying LTM
I would suggest to try bringing in selected webmaster(s) and try the solution already possible now provided through bitshares.eu. Any core change will take a while before being in effec.t
