question about niche prices

Service: Narrative

question about niche prices

Service: Narrative

Hello,

I won 2 auctions yesterday and when I proceeded to payment I realized they were much more expensive than I expected! I don't think I understood the whole NRVE/fiat thing.

Basically, I want to pay with PayPal as I don't want to go into crypto now.

Previously I read that each niche starts at 75 USD and the NRVE price depends on the currency rate on that day. That makes sense. Because I always wanted to pay with USD, I didn't pay much attention to the NRVE price. Of course, the nature of auctions is that if someone outbids you, the price goes up but no one placed another bid on those auctions. So I assumed that I'd be paying 75 USD + 15% commission fee, so approx. 87 USD per niche.

But when I proceeded to the payment site I saw it's going to be 167 USD per niche! (incl. the commission fee). It's 80 bucks more than I thought.

Can someone explain this to me, please, or point me towards a place where it is explained? I could swear I read that 75 USD was the bench mark and that wouldn't change, only the crypto price would fluctuate.

Sadly, if the price for a niche is now 167 USD, I won't be completing these transactions as for me this is way too much money for something that hasn't taken off the ground yet (yeah, I know, I'm not a risk-taking investor).

I wonder whether it is the reason other niches that were won were not purchased in the end? When I saw it, I was wondering whether people hadn't thought their bidding decision through, but now I'm wondering if anyone else has been as surprised by the final price as I am now...

 

 

Original Post

Activity Stream

You raise an interesting issue.

I think that what happens in these instances is that since the time the auction started, the value of NRVE went up significantly.  Now that it is time to pay, the system they are using wants you either to pay the NRVE, or pay the USD equivalent of that NRVE.  At the time the auction started, that NRVE was worth $75 USD, but now it is worth roughly double... people are buying NRVE because we're about to launch Beta.

I don't know that there is a happy end to this situation Gosia - I wish I could suggest something that could fix it for you.  NRVE will be volatile in its earlier days, and the only way to come out on top in this situation is to buy NRVE when it is cheap.

Its cheapest days may be gone, but it will almost certainly go higher still.

Part of me - and part of you, I am sure - wants to think this isn't fair: that we should end up paying $75 USD since that is what the minimum bid was at the time the auction started.  There is an argument to be made to the @Narrative Network Team that that should be honoured, and that they just have to buy whatever NRVE they can with the $75 USD after you have paid.  But it is messy, because it requires a reconciliation stage in their accounting, between the higher NRVE figure the auction closed at, and the lower NRVE amount they would buy with your USD.

Ultimately, the team has to choose between that, and the alternative, which is to alienate some users when NRVE jumps in value, leading to unpaid niches, and in some cases, losing Narrators.  It isn't an easy choice because NRVE, on the whole, should continue to increase in value in the months to come, meaning we'll often have people facing these discrepancies.  The better the platform succeeds, the quicker and higher NRVE will climb, and the worse this problem becomes.

 

 

I agree @Malkazoid this is an interesting dilemma. Given that the @Narrative platform gives themselves a 2 week window to exchange fiat to Nrve and vice versa on payouts, according to the white paper, which would serve to give them a window to optimize the best price for exchanging, it seems only fair that the price should be frozen at the moment of bidding on the auction, for people paying with fiat.

Thanks for bringing this glitch up @Gosia Rokicka. Many of us buy Nrve when it is low, and don't recognize the issues connected with Fiat payments.

Good point @Emily Barnett, regarding the window to buy NRVE giving the team a chance to optimise things...

The situation may still be tricky for the team if the platform executes the way we all want it too.  That would mean a fairly steady rise in the value of NRVE on average, meaning waiting to buy NRVE would generally only make the situation worse.

That said - the company isn't losing a penny - this is money destined for the Network Rewards pool.  And the Network Rewards pool isn't losing anything either - since all it was ever 'promised' was $75 USD, and that would be what it would be getting in NRVE, valued at the time of NRVE purchase by the company.

I think if it were my decision, I'd honour the $75 USD minimum.  That's what we've been telling people, and if they pay in USD, they are going to legitimately expect that's the price they should pay.

Malkazoid posted:

Good point @Emily Barnett, regarding the window to buy NRVE giving the team a chance to optimise things...

The situation may still be tricky for the team if the platform executes the way we all want it too.  That would mean a fairly steady rise in the value of NRVE on average, meaning waiting to buy NRVE would generally only make the situation worse.

That said - the company isn't losing a penny - this is money destined for the Network Rewards pool.  And the Network Rewards pool isn't losing anything either - since all it was ever 'promised' was $75 USD, and that would be what it would be getting in NRVE, valued at the time of NRVE purchase by the company.

I think if it were my decision, I'd honour the $75 USD minimum.  That's what we've been telling people, and if they pay in USD, they are going to legitimately expect that's the price they should pay.

I would honor it too, because it feels like the ethical thing to do, and also because it is the inclusive thing to do, if attracting non-crypto community members is a legitimate concern.

^^^  Yes, and @Gosia Rokicka certainly qualifies as someone it would be terrible to lose as a niche owner.  I think she was wanting to buy the Haiku niche.

I can't do this for every time this situation pops up - in fact I can pretty much promise this is the only time I'll make this kind of offer - but @Gosia Rokicka, if the team can't resolve the situation for you, I'll cover the extra cost for you if we can figure out how I can pay with NRVE for your niche.  

To do this, I think I can just send you my NEO account number - you enter that number when Narrative asks you what account the payment will be coming from.  Narrative will then tell you what account to send the NRVE to, and you send me that account number, and I send the NRVE.  A few minutes later you get an email telling you the payment was received.  Then you can just paypal me $75 USD once the niche is yours.

But please try to resolve this with the @Narrative Network Team - it is obviously better for the platform if nobody has to go through this, and I'm just a stop gap solution for you: I can't do this for everyone!  If you're running out of time to buy the niche (there is some sort of time limit), and you want me to help you, just get in touch.  I'm 'malkazoid' on Telegram.

EDIT - sorry just noticed you had two niches you were interested in.  I can help you get one of them. 

 

I had this issue with one of my auctions recently. I kept reloading my invoice page for days to see if I could find myself a better fiat value before time ran out to pay. There was one point where the fiat price for a niche I had no competition in bidding would have been $175 via PayPal...more than twice the $86.25 I was expecting! I ended up paying something like $110, which still sucked, but it was nothing like the price I'd seen for several days.

It's a problem. I try to time my bids now for when NRVE is worth the most, when the opening bid is 4k-5k NRVE. Then when the auction ends, I'm less likely to owe more than the expected $86.25.

Yeah I've cost myself a pretty penny or two by purchasing at inopportune times. On the other hand, lamboing to the moon isn't always a bad thing 

Malkazoid posted:

^^^  Yes, and @Gosia Rokicka certainly qualifies as someone it would be terrible to lose as a niche owner.  I think she was wanting to buy the Haiku niche.

I can't do this for every time this situation pops up - in fact I can pretty much promise this is the only time I'll make this kind of offer - but @Gosia Rokicka, if the team can't resolve the situation for you, I'll cover the extra cost for you if we can figure out how I can pay with NRVE for your niche.  

 

Thank you very much, @Malkazoid, for your kind offer!! I don't know what to say. I'd be very happy to accept your offer but I'll try to reach out to @Narrative Network Team first. And yes, your help with the Haiku niche would be very much appreciated as this is the one I wanted the most.

Although, in all honesty, I'm not sure if the Team can do anything about it now for a couple of reasons.

1/ It would be unfair to other niche owners like @Christina Gleason who already coughed up higher fees in USD.

2/ If they allow ppl to spend 87 USD per niche regardless of how much it should have been with respect to the current USD/NRVE exchange rate, it may turn out to be more profitable to always pay in USD, which would defeat the point and be counterproductive, right?

But this whole issue worries me for a different reason. Niches are simply too expensive. 75 USD (or an equivalent) is steep enough, IMHO. But when NRVE goes up in value (which I guess is what everyone who bought it wants!) they can become ridiculously expensive. And as we discussed ad nauseam in a different topic, the fact that unpurchased niches cannot be tagged and content can't be added to them, when combined with the high price of niches it may lead to the collapse of the whole system.

Not to mention the fact that when Beta opens up tomorrow (is it tomorrow, right?) there will be no guarantee that newcomers are even mildly interested in crypto or currency exchange in general. I can imagine signing up - not reading any rules because an average person relies on intuitive navigation now - being surprised by the fact some tags don't work - reading up about niches - deciding to give it a chance and bid on a niche I want to write about - winning the auction - trying to pay with PayPal because I don't give a rat's arse about crypto - having a fit seeing I'm supposed to pay 250 USD (which can easily happen) for something that I considered a TAG in the first place. Guess what? I would never come back to Narrative.

I really hope @Narrative Network Team will have a look at this topic. Any input from @MOLLY O@Ted@Rosemary would be very much appreciated! thank you

Gosia Rokicka posted:

Although, in all honesty, I'm not sure if the Team can do anything about it now for a couple of reasons.

1/ It would be unfair to other niche owners like @Christina Gleason who already coughed up higher fees in USD.

I think that's ok.  A few people having suffered something unfair is not a reason for people to continue suffering it!  

2/ If they allow ppl to spend 87 USD per niche regardless of how much it should have been with respect to the current USD/NRVE exchange rate, it may turn out to be more profitable to always pay in USD, which would defeat the point and be counterproductive, right?

That's a good point - although to be fair, it can also go the other way at times, when paying with NRVE turns out to be the cheaper option, especially because there is a 15% surcharge to pay with Paypal.  And at the end of the day, it is ok if everyone pays with Paypal.  The team still turns around and buys NRVE with the funds...

But this whole issue worries me for a different reason. Niches are simply too expensive. 75 USD (or an equivalent) is steep enough, IMHO. But when NRVE goes up in value (which I guess is what everyone who bought it wants!) they can become ridiculously expensive. And as we discussed ad nauseam in a different topic, the fact that unpurchased niches cannot be tagged and content can't be added to them, when combined with the high price of niches it may lead to the collapse of the whole system.

Not to mention the fact that when Beta opens up tomorrow (is it tomorrow, right?) there will be no guarantee that newcomers are even mildly interested in crypto or currency exchange in general. I can imagine signing up - not reading any rules because an average person relies on intuitive navigation now - being surprised by the fact some tags don't work - reading up about niches - deciding to give it a chance and bid on a niche I want to write about - winning the auction - trying to pay with PayPal because I don't give a rat's arse about crypto - having a fit seeing I'm supposed to pay 250 USD (which can easily happen) for something that I considered a TAG in the first place. Guess what? I would never come back to Narrative.

I really hope @Narrative Network Team will have a look at this topic. Any input from @MOLLY O@Ted@Rosemary would be very much appreciated! thank you

As you know from the ad nauseam part, I agree with you 150%.  I can only hope that because the team is well aware of our discussions, they have solid plans to fix this once the need arises.  I do worry though that the problem might be largely silent - after all it may never reach our ears what the majority of those people think of Narrative when they leave.  For every person who complains in a way that gets back to us, there will be likely 5-10 others who just leave.  I'd be keeping a very close eye on all aspects of adoption stats going forwards, and I'd assume any suspicious slumps to be due to this issue.  I've already noticed that the percentage of people who actually sign up after being on the waitlist has dwindled pretty strongly over the past few months.  There was a time when maybe 200-250 of the 500 on the waitlist signed up.  Now it feels more like 100.

The team will have more data at their disposal to analyse things as we progress after launch.  Fingers crossed we navigate this delicate time successfully.  You and I and the rest of the community are like passengers on an experimental boat, setting out to cross an ocean!

Seems to me if the niche price is set at $75, then this amount is simply converted to the current equivalent in NRVE, no matter what this happens to be at purchase time. If the NRVE value is increasing, then it just comes out to fewer tokens for the purchase price. There's something backwards here, and I'm really wondering where @Narrative team is on this issue.

Colleen Ryer posted:

Seems to me if the niche price is set at $75, then this amount is simply converted to the current equivalent in NRVE, no matter what this happens to be at purchase time. If the NRVE value is increasing, then it just comes out to fewer tokens for the purchase price. There's something backwards here, and I'm really wondering where @Narrative team is on this issue.

I am sure someone will weigh in as soon as the launch happens. It has to be crazy busy there today.

I think it is important that all transactions on the system use NRVE as the primary currency, after all, that is token we are trying to promote.  I think the $75 USD min Niche price wording should probably be changed.  We need to communicate clearly to the user that the initial opening bid NRVE price is based on the $75 exchange price to buy that much NRVE.  The user needs to be made very aware that if they are planning on paying in fiat, not only is there the extra 15% fee, but that the conversion from Fiat to the needed NRVE will happen at the time of purchase and that if the price of NRVE goes up between the time of the user's last bid and the time they purchase the Niche, they will be paying the difference which will be more than their last bid.  I think if this is explained more clearly, at the very least people will understand the risk they are taking when paying with Fiat, and perhaps it will drive them to prefer NRVE to fiat, which is what we want anyhow in the long term.

 

This a brand new platform that seems to bill content and community as core to the reward system. In order for either to thrive, there have to be venues for quality content. Are even a quarter of the available niches active?

How many people were turned off at the idea of even $75 for a niche in an untested beta level start-up?

Sure, have an auction if there's more than one person interested in a particular niche, but keep the price set as advertised - other wise great content will have no place, no way to be rewarded, and people will give up.

 

 

Banter posted:

I think it is important that all transactions on the system use NRVE as the primary currency, after all, that is token we are trying to promote. 

I don't see any conflict here - everything internal to Narrative is NRVE.  The whole idea about allowing fiat payment is to allow the vast majority of people who don't care about crypto yet, to not have to deal with it.

I think the $75 USD min Niche price wording should probably be changed.  We need to communicate clearly to the user that the initial opening bid NRVE price is based on the $75 exchange price to buy that much NRVE. 

But surely that's a level of complexity the average social network user isn't expecting to have to deal with?  We'll fail being accessible to the mainstream if we have to explain that sort of thing.  The $75 USD price tag, though too high, is at least straight forward and familiar to everyone.  

If crypto is to ever become mainstream, it has to be perceived as an advantage, not an extra complication one must take into account.  

The user needs to be made very aware that if they are planning on paying in fiat, not only is there the extra 15% fee, but that the conversion from Fiat to the needed NRVE will happen at the time of purchase and that if the price of NRVE goes up between the time of the user's last bid and the time they purchase the Niche, they will be paying the difference which will be more than their last bid. 

Understanding this won't make it any more palatable when someone ends up paying 200 dollars for something that was supposed to be $75, because of a volatile cryptocurrency they don't care about.  They'll just say, crypto sucks.  

Replying: 'you should choose the alternative and buy NRVE' won't do any good for two reasons.  

1) If the person isn't interested in crypto, they aren't going to forced into the elaborate steps of joining an exchange, downloading a wallet, buying probably ETH or NEO, then exchanging it for NRVE.  

2) It is already too late: they've bid on the niche and now the NRVE is worth way more than 75 usd... whether they buy the NRVE or pay in USD, they'll still be out of pocket for 200 USD

 

I think if this is explained more clearly, at the very least people will understand the risk they are taking when paying with Fiat, and perhaps it will drive them to prefer NRVE to fiat, which is what we want anyhow in the long term.

I really don't think it will.  It will just make most people think: "I loved the sound of being able to pay in fiat, but reading the fine print, I still have to deal with understanding crypto and timing the market of a volatile currency that I don't understand the first thing about".  

Lets remember the prerogative to make this truly accessible to people, whether they understand crypto or not. 

There is no downside to Narrative, the content economy, and NRVE, if people pay in fiat.  We shouldn't be thinking there is any upside to discouraging them from paying in fiat.  All activity on Narrative will translate into demand for NRVE, whether the user purchases it directly, or the platform purchases it when users pay in fiat.  That's the beauty of it: we don't have to force NRVE on anyone.

I agree in parts with both of you @Banter and @Malkazoid.

I feel this is an unfair glitch that serves the Narrative rewards pool when it is convenient for the platform, and forgoes the goodwill at convenience as well. At this point, I probably think it is just a glitch and not an intentional position to get more money from fiat payers. Hopefully it will be rectified as soon as the team launches beta.

But if this is not a glitch, and the team knows that this is how the platform works. Then the messaging needs to change, asap. This is where I agree with Banter. The fact is, Narrative is a crypto token platform, that has found a way to make it more inclusive to people who don't want to deal with crypto. That is super fair. But like Banter said, let people know right off the bat that the primary currency is NRVE, and that things may cost more if you choose not to learn the system. 

This seems only fair.

Emily Barnett posted:

But like Banter said, let people know right off the bat that the primary currency is NRVE, and that things may cost more if you choose not to learn the system. 

This seems only fair.

Most people will choose not to learn the ins and outs of crypto, whether you warn them or not.  This is undeniable: most people either don't care about crypto, or worse: distrust it. 

The platform that will become mainstream, and make crypto mainstream in the process, is one that doesn't force people to buy crypto (or pay the penalty sometimes of paying multiple times the original price more for an already expensive niche fee).  I think you are underestimating how massive a turn off that is when it happens.  Is there any transaction you ever entered into, where when it came time to pay, the seller told you the price is now double... and you didn't walk away vowing to never do business with them again?

Malkazoid posted:

The platform that will become mainstream, and make crypto mainstream in the process, is one that doesn't force people to buy crypto (or pay the penalty sometimes of paying multiple times the original price more for an already expensive niche fee).  I think you are underestimating how massive a turn off that is when it happens.  Is there any transaction you ever entered into, where when it came time to pay, the seller told you the price is now double... and you didn't walk away vowing to never do business with them again?

This. When I placed my bid on Smart Property, the opening bid in NRVE was equivalent to $86.25. The auction ended within the last 24 hours, and the current fiat price of $111.72 is the lowest I've seen since I could access the invoice. (It WAS higher at the time the auction ended, because I checked immediately.)

I've been thinking about trying to pay in NRVE, but Coinbase was telling me it was going to take two weeks to be able to move any ETH I bought there to my personal wallet and then to use on LATOKEN, so it was already too late . So I'm stuck forever refreshing the invoice screen to see if I can find the 5 minutes when NRVE is worth about the same as it was when I placed my bid.

I'm only hoping the time comes when I CAN pay the $86.25, because I've been waiting for my content clients  to pay me, and I can't afford to lose $30 (or more!) on the deal right now.

Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:

But like Banter said, let people know right off the bat that the primary currency is NRVE, and that things may cost more if you choose not to learn the system. 

This seems only fair.

Most people will choose not to learn the ins and outs of crypto, whether you warn them or not.  This is undeniable: most people either don't care about crypto, or worse: distrust it. 

The platform that will become mainstream, and make crypto mainstream in the process, is one that doesn't force people to buy crypto (or pay the penalty sometimes of paying multiple times the original price more for an already expensive niche fee).  I think you are underestimating how massive a turn off that is when it happens.  Is there any transaction you ever entered into, where when it came time to pay, the seller told you the price is now double... and you didn't walk away vowing to never do business with them again?

?????

@Malkazoid there is nothing to be combative about. 

1. the team is busy. We don't even know if this is intentional or not. Personally I think it is an oversight, as I have stated three times. They lock in the NRVE price at the time of bidding. I think this can easily be coded in, to lock in the price in fiat as well. I just think they forgot to do that. -- In theory, the price of NRVE could go up to 10cents tomorrow, do you honestly think the team will be building a platform that for some people niches cost $75USD and others $750 USD depending on daily token activity. I don't. I think it will get fixed.

2. If it doesn't get fixed, then yes a warning is entirely in order.

 

Christina Gleason posted:

And the price has gone up $10 in the last 10 minutes.

the price will jump. Pre ICO we all bought the token at .33 cents -- it fell off a cliff after alpha launched, mainly do to the dramatic drop in crypto in general. but also because working product became increasingly important around that time. Now that Narrative is launching, there will be a lot of speculation again. 

We may or may not see a one penny token again. Or maybe we will.

I would wait to pay for niches until the team has time to address this thread. Or @Gosia Rokicka  perhaps you want to reach out to someone on telegram and see if you cannot get help getting your wallet started and buy some tokens before they go up too much, Which in the long run will save you 15% through out your Narrative financial dealings. It is worth learning!

Which I believe was @Banter point. 

This type of price jump just wasn't happening when I bought my first niches, so this was a big shock. And by the time I knew what was happening, it was too late to even buy the crypto to exchange because of the ridiculous amount of time Coinbase won't let you move the currency you've already paid good money for. And I'm not a new member here, I have a lot invested here already, so I will have to figure this one out. But other people are just going to jump ship if the same thing happens to them as new members trying to buy their first niche.

Christina Gleason posted:

This type of price jump just wasn't happening when I bought my first niches, so this was a big shock. And by the time I knew what was happening, it was too late to even buy the crypto to exchange because of the ridiculous amount of time Coinbase won't let you move the currency you've already paid good money for. And I'm not a new member here, I have a lot invested here already, so I will have to figure this one out. But other people are just going to jump ship if the same thing happens to them as new members trying to buy their first niche.

I get that. The movement has been stagnant, that is why i think it has gone this long to figure out the problem. It is good that @Gosia Rokicka posted it today, because the problem can get alot worse. when we were declining in price the fiat option was probably was a big happy surprise that it wasn't properly pegged and people were probably paying less than...sadly also not good for Narrative.

Thankfully there is a time for the process to take place before new members have to bid and pay for a niche. Hopefully they will fix it starting Wednesday. 

Or start in on revamping messaging. Because yes people will not be happy.

Emily Barnett posted:
Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:

But like Banter said, let people know right off the bat that the primary currency is NRVE, and that things may cost more if you choose not to learn the system. 

This seems only fair.

Most people will choose not to learn the ins and outs of crypto, whether you warn them or not.  This is undeniable: most people either don't care about crypto, or worse: distrust it. 

The platform that will become mainstream, and make crypto mainstream in the process, is one that doesn't force people to buy crypto (or pay the penalty sometimes of paying multiple times the original price more for an already expensive niche fee).  I think you are underestimating how massive a turn off that is when it happens.  Is there any transaction you ever entered into, where when it came time to pay, the seller told you the price is now double... and you didn't walk away vowing to never do business with them again?

?????

@Malkazoid there is nothing to be combative about. 

1. the team is busy. We don't even know if this is intentional or not. Personally I think it is an oversight, as I have stated three times. They lock in the NRVE price at the time of bidding. I think this can easily be coded in, to lock in the price in fiat as well. I just think they forgot to do that. -- In theory, the price of NRVE could go up to 10cents tomorrow, do you honestly think the team will be building a platform that for some people niches cost $75USD and others $750 USD depending on daily token activity. I don't. I think it will get fixed.

2. If it doesn't get fixed, then yes a warning is entirely in order.

 

Combative?

So here is an idea..... When the first bid is logged for an auction, the NRVE and USD rate is locked for that auction....so the user knows from that point forward, whatever their bid cost in USD or nrve, that is all that they will have to pay.  The only way for this to work without the user or Narrative potentially getting soaked while buying NRVE on the open market at the time of purchase is for Narrative to have a store house, if you will, of NRVE tokens to cover all of the Niche auctions at any point in time that may be paid with Fiat.  This would prevent the kind of surprises buying NRVE on the open market that Narrative or a user may encounter.  If for some reason this 'storehouse' runs empty or isn't replenished fast enough, then those particular auctions affected would only support NRVE.  This truly isn't a simple problem to solve since ultimately someone must by the NRVE on the market, and the question then becomes, who should pay the difference in cost (if the NRVE tokens were not bought ahead of time), the user, or Narrative?

Yes, combative. telling me that i am underestimating the situation because I am not 100% in agreement with an approach seems argumentative. We don't even know if this is a major issue, or a simple oversight.

And although I want to see mass adoption happen, I also respect that this is first and foremost a crypto platform. @Banter is right in suggesting that. Obviously we all have money invested here and want to see a return, there for we want to see growth. But using the token IS the smartest thing to do financially. Why not inform people of that?

There are plenty of tones of grey to see in this issue, given the information.

Banter posted:

So here is an idea..... When the first bid is logged for an auction, the NRVE and USD rate is locked for that auction....so the user knows from that point forward, whatever their bid cost in USD or nrve, that is all that they will have to pay.  The only way for this to work without the user or Narrative potentially getting soaked while buying NRVE on the open market at the time of purchase is for Narrative to have a store house, if you will, of NRVE tokens to cover all of the Niche auctions at any point in time that may be paid with Fiat.  This would prevent the kind of surprises buying NRVE on the open market that Narrative or a user may encounter.  If for some reason this 'storehouse' runs empty or isn't replenished fast enough, then those particular auctions affected would only support NRVE.  This truly isn't a simple problem to solve since ultimately someone must by the NRVE on the market, and the question then becomes, who should pay the difference in cost (if the NRVE tokens were not bought ahead of time), the user, or Narrative?

Personally, I think that is what they meant to do. That's why i keep sticking to I think this is an oversight, that just hasn't reared its head until now. I cannot see them wanting to do this intentionally. It just doesn't make sense as a business practice.

Ok.  I am out on the thread. Gotta focus on finishing a post. 

@Gosia Rokicka I too may be able to help you out by loaning you tokens for one niche. You could pay me back with earned tokens when you get them. 

But i see a challenge in that too, because you need to get your wallet set up to do that anyway. I think the content makers that create how to set up your wallets for non-crypto peeps, will do well on Narrative.

Emily Barnett posted:

Yes, combative. telling me that i am underestimating the situation because I am not 100% in agreement with an approach seems argumentative. We don't even know if this is a major issue, or a simple oversight.

Ok, no worries.  Next time, if I think you are underestimating something, I won't say anything, lest you feel I'm being combative.  We won't be able to have meaningful exchanges if that's your idea of fighting words, but that's ok too.

Banter posted:

So here is an idea..... When the first bid is logged for an auction, the NRVE and USD rate is locked for that auction....so the user knows from that point forward, whatever their bid cost in USD or nrve, that is all that they will have to pay.  The only way for this to work without the user or Narrative potentially getting soaked while buying NRVE on the open market at the time of purchase is for Narrative to have a store house, if you will, of NRVE tokens to cover all of the Niche auctions at any point in time that may be paid with Fiat.  This would prevent the kind of surprises buying NRVE on the open market that Narrative or a user may encounter.  If for some reason this 'storehouse' runs empty or isn't replenished fast enough, then those particular auctions affected would only support NRVE.  This truly isn't a simple problem to solve since ultimately someone must by the NRVE on the market, and the question then becomes, who should pay the difference in cost (if the NRVE tokens were not bought ahead of time), the user, or Narrative?

I think this makes sense - although I'm hoping the volatility will not be a problem too far into the future.  For now, just letting people pay $75 + 15% on niches could be a temporary policy... the NRVE goes into the Rewards Pool, and you can't really consider there to be a loss if the amount of NRVE purchased with the fiat is lower than what the auction reached...  While the value of NRVE is climbing on average, the value of the Rewards Pool will be too, overall...

You're right, it isn't a simple problem, but hopefully we can present a simple policy because that's all today's average user will have any appetite for...

Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:

Yes, combative. telling me that i am underestimating the situation because I am not 100% in agreement with an approach seems argumentative. We don't even know if this is a major issue, or a simple oversight.

Ok, no worries.  Next time, if I think you are underestimating something, I won't say anything, lest you feel I'm being combative.  We won't be able to have meaningful exchanges if that's your idea of fighting words, but that's ok too.

there is nothing here to argue about. Banter had a good point and so did you.I pointed that out, and you accused me of underestimating the situation. That seemed like overkill, and so does your heavily sarcastic last point. 

I am free to disagree (or agree for that matter), without being told I don't understand the situation. This is the second time you have said that to me, and frankly I don't find that to be meaningful conversation at all. I find it very condescending. so yes, please do refrain from telling me i don't understand, simply because I am not in agreement with you.

 

About holding a store - I'm not sure the store would need to be equal to 100% of NRVE in play in current auctions.  The only scenario in which that would be necessary is if the currency crashed to zero or flew up insanely...

Emily Barnett posted:
Malkazoid posted:
Emily Barnett posted:

Yes, combative. telling me that i am underestimating the situation because I am not 100% in agreement with an approach seems argumentative. We don't even know if this is a major issue, or a simple oversight.

Ok, no worries.  Next time, if I think you are underestimating something, I won't say anything, lest you feel I'm being combative.  We won't be able to have meaningful exchanges if that's your idea of fighting words, but that's ok too.

there is nothing here to argue about. Banter had a good point and so did you.I pointed that out, and you accused me of underestimating the situation. That seemed like overkill, and so does your heavily sarcastic last point. 

I am free to disagree (or agree for that matter), without being told I don't understand the situation. This is the second time you have said that to me, and frankly I don't find that to be meaningful conversation at all. I find it very condescending. so yes, please do refrain from telling me i don't understand, simply because I am not in agreement with you.

 

It wasn't sarcasm.

Online written medium is notoriously difficult to read as to intent, because we're not seeing each other's faces, mannerisms, etc.

I'm genuinely surprised at your reaction to me telling you how I see things, in response to a quoted portion of your words.

Lets just avoid each other if we are prone to reading hostility in innocent exchanges.  Deal?

And I was genuinely surprised, that you think I don't understand a situation as basic as this. I stated all through this thread my clear comprehension of the issue, and even provided insights you hadn't considered. 

Of course i understand the mass turn off @Malkazoid please don't insult my intelligence!

I am pretty confident the "glitch" as I have called it all through the thread will get fixed. and if it doesn't get fixed...then offer messaging that this is a crypto platform and that financial preference for the token is in effect, seems also like an ethical thing to do....will it slow growth yes. of course it will! Is Narrative incorporated in my name. No it isn't....so there isn't much else I can do. 

 

 

 

Emily Barnett posted:

Of course i understand the mass turn off @Malkazoid please don't insult my intelligence! 

The intent was not to insult your intelligence.  I'm seeing a pattern here.

You say I'm combative.  I say I'm just relaying my impressions, with no combative language.

You say I'm sarcastic.  I say I'm genuinely surprised.

You say I'm insulting your intelligence.  I say that was not my intent, after giving you a hint that intent can easily be misjudged in this sort of situation.

Three instances of you wanting to take offence is enough for me to give up - sorry.

If I was wrong about you underestimating the turn off, maybe that's all you needed to say?  I like being told when I'm wrong - much more fun than getting into an argument that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and seems to revolve around ruffled feathers...

Have a great night everyone: big day tomorrow!

Wow... That's... Yuck.

If I were the devs, I'd completely rework the auction system on realizing this.

An auction doesn't work with fluctuating numbers, the bid keeps increasing. They need to remove the market fluctuations from the equation (or verify that people have enough NRVE at the time of bidding to purchase it).

Even if the transactions occur in NRVE, the auctions should be tracked in US$. This way they don't need to worry about people failing to pay because the market changes. It also makes it more consistant with the renewal process

https://spec.narrative.org/docs/niches

"The niche ownership fee grants the winner ownership rights for one year. A renewal fee will apply on each anniversary and that fee will be the greater of US$75 in NRVE tokens or 20% of the previous year's revenue paid to the niche owner."

(Although now I'm also wondering how they will calculate the value of revenue...)

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention!

Now I'm even less likely to every get a niche to call my own

Malkazoid posted:
 

 

Banter posted:

I think it is important that all transactions on the system use NRVE as the primary currency, after all, that is token we are trying to promote. 

I don't see any conflict here - everything internal to Narrative is NRVE.  The whole idea about allowing fiat payment is to allow the vast majority of people who don't care about crypto yet, to not have to deal with it.

I think the $75 USD min Niche price wording should probably be changed.  We need to communicate clearly to the user that the initial opening bid NRVE price is based on the $75 exchange price to buy that much NRVE. 

But surely that's a level of complexity the average social network user isn't expecting to have to deal with?  We'll fail being accessible to the mainstream if we have to explain that sort of thing.  The $75 USD price tag, though too high, is at least straight forward and familiar to everyone.  

If crypto is to ever become mainstream, it has to be perceived as an advantage, not an extra complication one must take into account.  

The user needs to be made very aware that if they are planning on paying in fiat, not only is there the extra 15% fee, but that the conversion from Fiat to the needed NRVE will happen at the time of purchase and that if the price of NRVE goes up between the time of the user's last bid and the time they purchase the Niche, they will be paying the difference which will be more than their last bid. 

Understanding this won't make it any more palatable when someone ends up paying 200 dollars for something that was supposed to be $75, because of a volatile cryptocurrency they don't care about.  They'll just say, crypto sucks.  

Replying: 'you should choose the alternative and buy NRVE' won't do any good for two reasons.  

1) If the person isn't interested in crypto, they aren't going to forced into the elaborate steps of joining an exchange, downloading a wallet, buying probably ETH or NEO, then exchanging it for NRVE.  

2) It is already too late: they've bid on the niche and now the NRVE is worth way more than 75 usd... whether they buy the NRVE or pay in USD, they'll still be out of pocket for 200 USD

 

I think if this is explained more clearly, at the very least people will understand the risk they are taking when paying with Fiat, and perhaps it will drive them to prefer NRVE to fiat, which is what we want anyhow in the long term.

I really don't think it will.  It will just make most people think: "I loved the sound of being able to pay in fiat, but reading the fine print, I still have to deal with understanding crypto and timing the market of a volatile currency that I don't understand the first thing about".  

Lets remember the prerogative to make this truly accessible to people, whether they understand crypto or not. 

There is no downside to Narrative, the content economy, and NRVE, if people pay in fiat.  We shouldn't be thinking there is any upside to discouraging them from paying in fiat.  All activity on Narrative will translate into demand for NRVE, whether the user purchases it directly, or the platform purchases it when users pay in fiat.  That's the beauty of it: we don't have to force NRVE on anyone.

 

@Banter brings up some very thoughtful perspectives on on Nrve and Fiat, and if this is the way the @Narrative team is going, then his suggestion of providing some transparency seems very beneficial. 

I  agree with @Emily Barnett this seems more like a "glitch" (her word) than anything, and I have faith in the team to quickly correct this. Generally speaking, I agree with Emily throughout this thread, and I don't believe from what I read, that she is underestimating anything, as you have implied @Malkazoid. You mention your quest for meaningful discussion, but that does not usually employ conjecture. 

Regarding personal statements towards Emily, you do come off sounding  condescending and sarcastic. If it isn't your intention, I don't think you can blame her, or wag a finger at her so called "patterns", for reading it that way.

Just thought you should hear another person's perspective on how you sometimes come off sounding, even if your intentions are good.

 

Ledeir posted:

Wow... That's... Yuck.

If I were the devs, I'd completely rework the auction system on realizing this.

An auction doesn't work with fluctuating numbers, the bid keeps increasing. They need to remove the market fluctuations from the equation (or verify that people have enough NRVE at the time of bidding to purchase it).

Even if the transactions occur in NRVE, the auctions should be tracked in US$. This way they don't need to worry about people failing to pay because the market changes. It

Now I'm even less likely to every get a niche to call my own

Well, this is really a problem for old niches. However, if you plan to suggest and buy a new niche, you can assess the future NRVE price and then decide.

If you think that NRVE will rise, then you can secure a lower price for your niche.

Otherwise you can just wait until the price drops.

However, I would not expect that. Narrative is really a very rare opportunity in my opinion, extremely low marketcap and an existing product and a strong community. The community consisting of so many creative individuals is Narrative's strongest asset and the current marketcap is still 1 million USD.

The ICO price was about 30 Cents, which could be reached again quite soon I believe. So you must decide yourself, but I am superbullish on Narrative.

 

New Social Media posted:

And you other guys, could you please stop your squabbling for a day or two? Today we want to celebrate and be good friends.

Agreed - I was hoping this would end yesterday evening... 

Bart posted:

I  agree with @Emily Barnett this seems more like a "glitch" (her word) than anything, and I have faith in the team to quickly correct this. Generally speaking, I agree with Emily throughout this thread, and I don't believe from what I read, that she is underestimating anything, as you have implied @Malkazoid. You mention your quest for meaningful discussion, but that does not usually employ conjecture. 

Regarding personal statements towards Emily, you do come off sounding  condescending and sarcastic. If it isn't your intention, I don't think you can blame her, or wag a finger at her so called "patterns", for reading it that way.

Just thought you should hear another person's perspective on how you sometimes come off sounding, even if your intentions are good.

 

Hello Bart,

@New Social Media is right, this is a big day that shouldn't be about any of this. 

I'll just let you know that given your relationship to Emily, your injection here is very understandable to me, though possibly not the most objective.  And that's really ok.  Just keep in mind that thinking someone is underestimating something isn't really a personal comment, since it is focused on the issue being potentially underestimated.  Saying someone is being combative for saying so, and making that an issue, is a much more personal statement, and that is how it got personal, in my view. 

I've never before seen anyone take it personally, when it is suggested they are underestimating something... being called combative is much more likely to be taken personally (although you'll notice I didn't - I just started to announce the wish to no longer interact since my every statement was being interpreted with hostility).  You are free to disagree of course, and I will assume that you indeed do disagree: perhaps this can save you the need to prolong this any further.  I'm happy for us to simply disagree.

Moving back to the actual topic - I disagree with you about the 'glitch'.

I would give the team more credit here - I don't think such an important aspect as the cost of niches would be subject to a 'glitch' for a full 12 months of alpha.  I think this was a deliberate choice by the team.  This is partly why I feel justified in saying Emily was underestimating the issue - by wanting to assume it is a 'glitch'.  A glitch is something everyone can agree needs fixing.  There is much more uncertainty over whether the Team will feel that way. 

We don't know what factors they weighed, but we do know the result: the current system with the drawbacks that have been well-explored earlier in this thread, and which we are now starting to experience with more intensity as the token price rises.

 

 

Ledeir posted:

Wow... That's... Yuck.

If I were the devs, I'd completely rework the auction system on realizing this.

An auction doesn't work with fluctuating numbers, the bid keeps increasing. They need to remove the market fluctuations from the equation (or verify that people have enough NRVE at the time of bidding to purchase it).

Even if the transactions occur in NRVE, the auctions should be tracked in US$. This way they don't need to worry about people failing to pay because the market changes. It also makes it more consistant with the renewal process

https://spec.narrative.org/docs/niches

"The niche ownership fee grants the winner ownership rights for one year. A renewal fee will apply on each anniversary and that fee will be the greater of US$75 in NRVE tokens or 20% of the previous year's revenue paid to the niche owner."

(Although now I'm also wondering how they will calculate the value of revenue...)

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention!

Now I'm even less likely to every get a niche to call my own

Ledeir posted:

Wow... That's... Yuck.

If I were the devs, I'd completely rework the auction system on realizing this.

An auction doesn't work with fluctuating numbers, the bid keeps increasing. They need to remove the market fluctuations from the equation (or verify that people have enough NRVE at the time of bidding to purchase it).

Even if the transactions occur in NRVE, the auctions should be tracked in US$. This way they don't need to worry about people failing to pay because the market changes. It also makes it more consistant with the renewal process

https://spec.narrative.org/docs/niches

"The niche ownership fee grants the winner ownership rights for one year. A renewal fee will apply on each anniversary and that fee will be the greater of US$75 in NRVE tokens or 20% of the previous year's revenue paid to the niche owner."

(Although now I'm also wondering how they will calculate the value of revenue...)

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention!

Now I'm even less likely to every get a niche to call my own

Hi  @Ledeir, I'm hoping that the situation with recent niche purchasers is due to glitch, and you'll get a niche of your own.

I'm out of bandwidth til Saturday so couldn't go searching for information on buying niches. Thanks for posting the auction rules.

I see there's a set fiat minimum that doesn't change no matter how low the exchange value of the token falls.

But I have never seen a that there's a set NRVE price for a niche.


If there isn't a set NRVE price, then I can't see how the price of a niche can rise with the value of the token. There's no basis to determine niche value in NRVE without this set price.

And if there is a set NRVE price for a niche, then it should have been made very clear what this amount is and that it's this value decides how much a niche will cost.


But from what I can see, fiat is the value used to set the niche price.

There still is a risk when purchasing that the value of NRVE will change in the time it takes to finalize the sale.

This doesn't affect the US dollar value, per se. But it does affect the number of tokens needed. If the token value drops after the buyer buys tokens but before the sale closes - then the buyer suddenly needs more tokens to close. This is a pain in the neck, but shouldn't cost much to fix, unless there are extra fees to deal with.

And if the NRVE price rises before closing then fewer tokens are needed to close, so the buyer has bought too many tokens. The extras can be sold and mabey make a little profit if the price went higher than the fees - or simply held.

Not saying this is how it works - just how I interpreted back when I was trying to figure out how buying niches and auctions work.

So this is why I think the current issue is a glitch.

Happy Launch Day Narrativizens!

Just so you know, we have read all this discussion and ideas on this thread.  We will circle back with you once we have had a chance to meet internally on this matter. Today, we need to focus on the Beta.  

MOLLY O posted:

Just so you know, we have read all this discussion and ideas on this thread.  We will circle back with you once we have had a chance to meet internally on this matter. Today, we need to focus on the Beta.  

Fantastic!

3 hours to go!

Hey, y'all, thank you very much for all the explanations! (and a very cultural squabble - if the whole internet looked like that, the world would have been a nicer place  

I think the Beta looks lush. Congratulations, everybody!!!

I'll wait for the input from the Team about the prices and the general policy on that before making a decision what do to with payment for my niches and potentially buying NRVE... 

Let's keep writing )

Hello @MOLLY O@Ted@Rosemary... and the whole amazing Team

Any chance we could get some answers to what the official standing on this issue is? I have a week left to purchase my niches and if the short answer is "no, you can't pay 75 USD + commission fee" now, I'd accept @Malkazoid's kind offer for one of them (if it's still standing, that is) and abandon the other (sacrificing a part of my reputation) - they are now too expensive in USD and even if I wanted to buy NRVE now, I wouldn't make it on time + the niche would be costly anyway at this point (as I haven't bought any NRVE at all). But my feeling is that the wording in the spec on that particular topic wasn't clear enough (especially for non-crypto folks) and as you can see in this thread I'm not the only one who thinks so. 

But I'll understand if the rule is the rule. No hard feelings. I'd just like to know - so I can decide how to proceed.

Gosia Rokicka posted:

Hello @MOLLY O@Ted@Rosemary... and the whole amazing Team

Any chance we could get some answers to what the official standing on this issue is? I have a week left to purchase my niches and if the short answer is "no, you can't pay 75 USD + commission fee" now, I'd accept @Malkazoid's kind offer for one of them (if it's still standing, that is) and abandon the other (sacrificing a part of my reputation) - they are now too expensive in USD and even if I wanted to buy NRVE now, I wouldn't make it on time + the niche would be costly anyway at this point (as I haven't bought any NRVE at all). But my feeling is that the wording in the spec on that particular topic wasn't clear enough (especially for non-crypto folks) and as you can see in this thread I'm not the only one who thinks so. 

But I'll understand if the rule is the rule. No hard feelings. I'd just like to know - so I can decide how to proceed.

The offer still stands @Gosia Rokicka - sorry I can't help you with both!

And please don't consider you owe me anything in return.  I think you will make a great niche owner, so you can consider I'm helping you gift your niche ownership to the platform.  That will benefit all of us!  

@Gosia Rokicka.  Sorry for the wait on a response…lots of things going on this week. We have been discussing the issue internally and plan to make some changes in the future based on your experience (and a few others).  Unfortunately, the changes won't come before your Niche payment is due.  

Thanks for your patience and understanding as we work at these early beta challenges. 

Thank you very much, @Malkazoid!  I will catch you on Telegram on Sunday or Monday then - I want to write an introductory post for Haiku before the niche becomes active.

And thanks @MOLLY O for getting back to me. Fingers crossed the issues will be smoothed out for future

Banter posted:

So here is an idea..... When the first bid is logged for an auction, the NRVE and USD rate is locked for that auction....so the user knows from that point forward, whatever their bid cost in USD or nrve, that is all that they will have to pay.  The only way for this to work without the user or Narrative potentially getting soaked while buying NRVE on the open market at the time of purchase is for Narrative to have a store house, if you will, of NRVE tokens to cover all of the Niche auctions at any point in time that may be paid with Fiat.  This would prevent the kind of surprises buying NRVE on the open market that Narrative or a user may encounter.  If for some reason this 'storehouse' runs empty or isn't replenished fast enough, then those particular auctions affected would only support NRVE.  This truly isn't a simple problem to solve since ultimately someone must by the NRVE on the market, and the question then becomes, who should pay the difference in cost (if the NRVE tokens were not bought ahead of time), the user, or Narrative?

As @MOLLY O said, we plan to make some improvements in the future, though not in the short term.  Things will work more or less as @Banter suggested in the post I have quoted.  Once the first bid is made, we'll lock in the exchange rate and display all additional bids in NRVE with a corresponding USD value based on the locked-in exchange rate. That way, there are no surprises during the bidding period. 

We've already accounted for fiat conversion differences (surpluses and shortfalls) that Banter mentioned, as described in the spec here:

https://spec.narrative.org/doc...sing-of-fiat-revenue

and as elaborated on in more detail here:

https://community.narrative.or...t-payment-processing

We'll let everyone know when the changes to the auction bidding system are made.

How much of a reputation hit does one take if one does not pay for their niche on time? I'm still waiting for my writing clients to pay me (after not having any work for four months) and I just can't afford the increasing fiat price for the auction I most recently won. I have just under 9 days left to pay, but if it keeps getting more expensive, not cheaper, it's just not going to happen. @MOLLY O @Ted

@Christina Gleason I could be completely off but of the three categories that it would most likely hit, would be the conduct negative/positive section. Which even if you get a 0 on only accounts for 10% overall on your rep. If I remember correctly you had roughly 60-70 rep on narrative currently so I’d give an estimate of 6-7 points off your reputation. 

I am however just giving an educated guess and could be completely off basis.

Christina Gleason posted:

How much of a reputation hit does one take if one does not pay for their niche on time? I'm still waiting for my writing clients to pay me (after not having any work for four months) and I just can't afford the increasing fiat price for the auction I most recently won. I have just under 9 days left to pay, but if it keeps getting more expensive, not cheaper, it's just not going to happen. @MOLLY O @Ted

I don't think you get a hit. you get frozen for 24 hours, and then the niche goes back onto the auction, where you start over again. This happened to my husband. In the end he still got the niche he wanted.

Question Answered

This action was taken by MOLLY O.
To follow up on this question, please click here.
×
×
×
×
×