Topic: [LAUNCHED] Staisybit - Universal Online Staking Wallet - page 28. (Read 58617 times)

We are contacting one by one every user who has bought a contract, giving 2/3 different options to solve this "problem" (one of this options is indeed a complete refund in BTC).

You will be contacted soon.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

Hi,

What happens to the persons who got paid contracts like myself?

Will I be refunded from my 0.02 BTC? May I retrieve all my funds without any fee%?

I do not think it is adequate to change the rules of the game for ongoing contracts.

Thanks

'cmon my friend, you can do better then that
WE made the effort and provided some numbers, why we think its cheaper.
So why not do some math and provide the numbers, to tell us, we are wrong?
We are a dynamic company, if you convince us for a better approach, for us all,
we will shamelessly migrate to that model and show our appreciation to you,
in some profitable way.
DEAL?

We are not greedy (oh sorry in fact we are, but we know, we can't achieve anything without YOU)
We are pioneers is some sense, we sometimes have to poke around, to find out whats best, help us and profit!

have fun
Matthias


.

Have you read above?


This simple mechanism allow us decent incomes to continue the development (this is only the beginning of our platform) with small costs for our users. Also, since staking in pool ensures more revenue than staking on your home PC, even with "full" 5% fees you would earn more than staking "in solo".

That said, your post completely makes no sense since the 5% fees stuff has been explained 200px above.

Please let me know what you think about 5% fees AFTER reading the explanation.

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!

"Fee have been set as follow:

- deposits: 0.25%
- withdrawals: 1%
- generated coins: 5%"


5% FEE ON GENERATED COINS?? WTF, you guys started so nice and now turned to be EXTREMELY GREEDY. Only a total fool would pay 5% for online staking wallet. After all, what s stopping me from staking it on my own machine.

I m out, thank you but NO thank you.

Trust in your staking pool is not an issue for me, incognito recommended you and everything to me, I will start staking soon as I like the interface and support, keep up the good work.

not the main point, but straightly forward correct, we are not a multipool, you get what you stake, and earn if you hold,
because we are trying to stake only  trustworthy coins. We are even holding our stake fee, witch we (naturally) can't prove yet,
but will be able to show over time. TRUST is a matter of time anyway. Our avantage may be the fact, we have possibly proven our
trustworthiness long before this project started, through our work in former projects (I'd like to hope)

have fun
Matthias

.

This is very good, BTC will make the pool or users lose because of price drop/raise as you will be dumping coins for BTC to payout users, this will keep coins stable, and reward users with the same coin. did I get that right?

Thank you for you support Jan. Cheers.

ps. i've replied to the question in your thread

Thank you for adding EnergyCoin to your service.
link to EnergyCoin

There was a question about safari on iPad: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13165977

EnergyCoin wallet looks great on Staisybit:


The first 10 new users for EnergyCoin with 10000 ENRG get 1000 ENRG reward if they post their wallet with ENRG depostit addres in our topic the same way I did abouve.

Important update - 6th Dec. 2015


Contracts:
After a month of stable service, having received hundred feedback, we have decided to change our business model regarding BTC contracts to use our service. I'm here to announce that Staisybit will no more use a BTC contract approach.

Fees:
Getting rid of BTC contracts, we anyway need incomes to keep up the whole thing. The natural approach is using fees % on every transaction, like, for example, exchanges do.

Fee have been set as follow:

- deposits: 0.25%
- withdrawals: 1%
- generated coins: 5%


It's worth to point out that 5% fees on the mined amounts may seem high, but actually the impact on the single user is negligible and it decreases as the number of users. Indeed, the 5% fee is applied on the value of the block generated, therefore the fee itself is shared among all the participants, ensuring a very lower impact on the single one.

I put below a brief example with numbers of how users share fees:


Example coin: BLK
Number of users:  2

Block value		Fees		User gets (with Fees)		User would get (without Fees)		Impact
100		5 BLK		47,5 BLK		50 BLK		50 - 47,5 = 2,5 BLK
200		10 BLK		95 BLK		100 BLK		100 - 95 = 5 BLK
						Total Impact for 300 BLK mined		7,5 BLK for each user

Example coin: BLK
Number of users:  50

Block value		Fees		User gets (with Fees)		User would get (without Fees)		Impact
100		5 BLK		1,90 BLK		2 BLK		2 - 1.9 = 0.1 BLK
200		10 BLK		3,80 BLK		4 BLK		4 - 3.80 = 0.2 BLK
						Total Impact for 300 BLK mined		0.3 BLK for each user

Feel free to ask more.

BITZ is happy to now be part of this exciting project 

No i appreciate feedback, don't misunderstand me   I was just saying that we can't disadvantage "whales" too much, considering that thanks to their funds "fishes" have the possibility to earn more (few or much more depends on many things, like PoS diff, particular PoS engine, difference between size of biggest wallets and average size, timing.. but it's generally more).

Anyway, we appreciate feedback, nay we WANT feedback. Because nothing is definitive, we are able to adjust the sharing system at run-time.

Yes, my comment is exactly in that sense, you algorithm tries to even out the whale natural advantage while still giving them something.

I was not a criticism, just my view on the fairness of the eco-system, not the algorithm itself.. Life isn't fair also 

It'd be unfair without the adjustment. But, as i told above, the time will matter always less, day after day, for "whales". I can say you that the firsts 183 days, the weight of the time is already dropped to its 50% .. after 183 days it will decrease more slowly to prevent complains from the "whales". In 365 days the time will matter only its 20% (hence, 365 days will be counted as 73 days).

Some example:

- Whale: funds = 1000 , time = 183 days (counted as 91)
- Fish: funds = 10, time = 183 days                               

Fish/Whale funds ratio: 0.01 (fish holds 1 coin every 100 of the whale)

Weight after 183 days:   Whale = 91000  ; Fish = 1830       

Fish/Whale weight ratio:  0.02 approx

It's the double, and it even grows ...

Thank you for the detailed calculations. It makes sense. It tries to be fair to all users although it will always be a bit "unfair" if there are very large whales of a given currency.

However, currencies where that exist are probably not a good one

I report here a conversation happened on ERC thread for clarity


Hi. Please post this question in Staisybit thread too, i will copy/paste the reply there. This will help others with same question. Thank you.

Shares are based on the weight that the user is able to earn keeping his coins on our system. The weight is a mix between user's average funds and the time he has kept those funds on Staisybit. In this way, we can take into consideration not only the deposits, but also the withdrawals (which decrease the weight), also considering the time, which rewards users for the fact that they keep coins on our wallet (which is, by the way, the same the normally a PoS wallet does when calculating user weight in network). I have also implemented a system to adjust, in medium/long term, the weight of big holders, ensuring to the small holders to have always a chance to get shares even when big holders have kept their (big) deposits on Staisybit for long time (hence having accumulated much much weight).

Example:

- Assumptions: usernames are "A" and "B", now is time "t", cash flows are indicated with "cf", balance is indicated with "b"

Assuming to have:

Then, at time "t" (now), i'd calc the shares as follow:

- User A:

• current balance(b1) = cf_1           then =>     weight for the 1st period (W_A_1) is:    b_1 * [(t-3) - (t-4)]
• current balance(b2) = cf_2 + b1   then =>     weight for the 2nd period (W_A_2) is:    b_2 * [(t-2) - (t-3)]
• current balance(b3) = cf_3 + b2   then =>     weight for the 3rd period (W_A_3) is:    b_3 * [(t-1) - (t-2)]
• current balance(b4) = cf_4 + b3   then =>     weight for the 4th period (W_A_4) is:    b_4 * [(t) - (t-1)]

- User B: the same as user A

Then:

• User A weight: W_A_1 + W_A_2 + W_A_3 + W_A_4 = W_A_T
• User B weight: W_B_1 + W_B_2 + W_B_3 + W_B_4 = W_B_T
• Total Weight of "Staisybit": W_A_T + W_B_T = W_T

Now... the shares:

• User A: W_A_T / W_T * 100
• User B: W_B_T / W_T * 100

The math above is able to take into consideration not just the deposits, but also the withdrawals, and always considering the time you kept a certain balance in our system too; we give importance to the time because, as you know, time matter in PoS coins under the name of "weight" or "coinage".

Recently, an user raised a problem of this system:

Problem: if an user deposit large amounts and keep them there for long time, small users won't have enough weight to even get 0.01% of the shares.

Solution: users whom have more than 20% of total Staisybit funds for a certain coin, will see the weight of the time decrease slowly within 365 days. What does this mean? This mean that i created a function that decrease the weight of the time until 0.4% in 365 days. In other words, users with very high % of funds will end up having their weight calculated almost only by their funds, no matter the time, in 365 days.

I know it's a bit hard to explain on the paper, feel free to ask more if something is not clear.