Petition to allow small amount of free storage for all accounts

mr1mr1 Posts: 359 Bronze ✭✭✭
edited June 2017 in Wishlist for Goldmoney
Please respond to this post on whether you think Goldmoney should offer a small amount of free gold storage for all accounts. I think it would be good for Goldmoney to see user feedback collected in one place. And in order to keep this thread as user friendly and readable as possible, please give concise answers to the following questions:

Questions:

1)Should Goldmoney offer some amount of free gold storage for all accounts? Yes/No
2)If necessary, would you be willing to pay higher buy/sell fees in order to subsidize the cost of offering some amount of free gold storage to all? Yes/No
3)If necessary, would you be willing to pay higher storage costs on amounts over a certain threshold, in order to provide free storage for all below that threshold? Yes/No



Additional background:
I understand that there are inherent costs to storing and insuring gold that Goldmoney incurrs every month, and I personally think Goldmoney's fees are very cheap and I do not mind paying them. However, I would like to see Goldmoney offer some amount of free storage for all accounts in order to help attract new customers. Now matter how small the storage fee is, I think it will scare away some users, and I would like to the platform become as widespread as possible.

Comments

  • mr1mr1 Posts: 359 Bronze ✭✭✭
    edited June 2017
    I'll start with my answers:
    1)Yes
    2)Yes
    3)Yes
  • TheRaveneerTheRaveneer Posts: 101 Bronze ✭✭✭
    1) Yes
    2) Yes
    3) Yes
    As a sub-threshold saver right now, of course I'd want to push off the fees in #2 to #3, in my own self interest. But like I said elsewhere, why on earth would you want to penalize only your largest savers?
  • BigMouseBigMouse Posts: 87 Bronze ✭✭✭
    @mr1 @GoldIsCurrency, well done! I couldn't agree more.

    1)Yes
    2)Yes
    3)Yes
  • MurphyMurphy Posts: 96 Copper ✭✭
    Does anyone know how much it costs Goldmoney to store their entire holdings of Gold? Which i think is around the 2 billion american dollar mark.
  • PinkdogPinkdog Posts: 511 Silver ✭✭✭✭
    No.
    No.
    No.
    I believe Goldmoney should charge a storage fee. There is a real cost to store gold in a vault. For just $120 for $100,000 worth of vaulted gold per year that is audited, insured and ultra sound tested, that is a bargain. If we want Goldmoney to prosper, they must cover their costs.

    The reality is, not everyone is a good quality client. You really have two choices, you need to buy/sell enough gold to generate enough credits to offfset storage fees or you buy and hold. In which case you need to pay a strorage fee.

    There will be many Goldmoney members that just leave the platform. That is Ok. Why would any company want a client that is costing them money?

    Show me another service like Goldmoney where I can buy and store gold cheaper. I'll move my account tomorrow. There isn't one.

  • GoldIsCurrencyGoldIsCurrency Posts: 1,770 Gold ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2017
    @Pinkdog You are correct $120 to store 100K of gold is fantastic pricing for people that understand gold. The problem is that the majority don't understand gold as money and to get them to dip their toe in a 100 grams of free storage is a cost worth eating. It is just logical marketing. If the gold is used as money all the buy and sell transactions would cover those costs with ease. They could do this with an inclusion that users must transact X amount of buy and/or sell transactions per annum to help encourage platform activity / the gold to be used as money.

    Once a newbie user becomes more comfortable with gold as money they will keep stacking and once they get over that 100 gram threshold they will feel FAR more comfortable with paying for storage. I presume what it comes down to is do people want to see real growth of Goldmoney as a payments and savings platform where gold can be used as money or keep it niche/bullion storage. I personally prefer to see substantial growth that will make Goldmoney a house hold name. Share price dropping to a close of $2.77 shows me the market doesn't like this recent change.
  • mr1mr1 Posts: 359 Bronze ✭✭✭
    edited June 2017
    Pinkdog said:

    I believe Goldmoney should charge a storage fee. There is a real cost to store gold in a vault. For just $120 for $100,000 worth of vaulted gold per year that is audited, insured and ultra sound tested, that is a bargain. If we want Goldmoney to prosper, they must cover their costs.

    I'm not saying they shouldn't cover their costs overall, I'm just saying I think it makes more long-term business sense to use the small amount of free storage as a loss leader and subsidize it through other revenue streams in order attract more customers to the platform.
    Pinkdog said:

    There will be many Goldmoney members that just leave the platform. That is Ok.

    Yes, we can't keep absolutely everyone from leaving, but I think it is important to keep as many as possible in order for the Goldmoney payment platform to be more viable. It needs mass adoption. For example, paypal isn't as useful when most people don't have an account.
    Pinkdog said:

    Why would any company want a client that is costing them money?

    Because they may only be costing them money when looking at them in a silo. Google spends tons of money on things they give away for free in order to attract a large user base that they can make money off of in other ways. Google Drive is free, but it has upsells, and it keeps people on google's platform. Goldmoney may loose money on some customers by providing a small amount of free storage to everyone, but I'm hoping they can make it up by attracting more and more customers to make payment options and business tools more viable, which I'm hoping can more than offsets the costs of that free storage.
    Pinkdog said:

    Show me another service like Goldmoney where I can buy and store gold cheaper. I'll move my account tomorrow. There isn't one.

    That's not my point. The free storage isn't to convince you to stay, or convince someone to choose Goldmoney over BullionVault, it is to overcome the concerns of the gold novice that is woto give the platform a try and to get started as opposed to keeping all their cash in a bank.
  • TexTex Posts: 197 Bronze ✭✭✭
    Yes
    No
    No

    As far as free storage, 10gm would even work. That would give people time to get on and take baby steps. Trust is earned and not given so I would imagine a lot of current and potential customers tip toe and dabble around the platform before putting a good sum of money in. (Lord knows I have been tip toeing around for the past 10 months testing it all out.) By the time they hit 10gm they should have a good savings routine setup that cancels out any storage fees as well as a much better understanding of what this is all about.

    They should also have educational videos that are simple and easy to understand. Something a kid could watch and would understand. Our education system doesn't educate our children on money. Therefore their are billions of adults who don't understand how money works and what it is.

    The more customers Goldmoney has the better the platform is and the more attractive the platform is. A retailer I doesn't want to touch a payment platform that only has 40k users. They want to team up with a platform that has millions and millions of users. Plus diversification is always a must. For example, if you have a network with $2 million dollars in it but, only has two users, that makes you very vulnerable. However, if you have two million users with $1 each in the network that will make the platform more stable and make the growth prospects a million times better.

    Just my 2 grams

  • GoldmattersGoldmatters Posts: 3,751 Admin
    @Tex I nominate @TauntFourstar for this as he is awesome at these videos!
  • KatyMillingtonKatyMillington Posts: 49 Tin ✭
    Hi all, Goldmoney does in fact offer free storage on its Goldmoney Holdings for active traders using a credits based system.

    https://www.goldmoney.com/dealing-rates-and-storage-fees <- this link explains how it works. Please let your Relationship Manager know if you have any queries around how it works and the team will be pleased to assist you!

    Katy, Group General Counsel
  • KlausKlaus Posts: 102 Copper ✭✭
    1) Yes
    2) Yes
    3) Yes, only if that threshold is high enough (very) so I can assume those are professional investing clients who just want a vault company and today are "investing" in gold and tomorrow they may change to investing in something else
  • Marco_1983Marco_1983 Posts: 152 Bronze ✭✭✭

    Hi all, Goldmoney does in fact offer free storage on its Goldmoney Holdings for active traders using a credits based system.

    https://www.goldmoney.com/dealing-rates-and-storage-fees <- this link explains how it works. Please let your Relationship Manager know if you have any queries around how it works and the team will be pleased to assist you!

    Katy, Group General Counsel</p>

    @KatyMillington I think this credit based system is a very good thing and will be a game changer. Because for someone who buys certain amounts of metals each month (almost everyone) the fees will basically always be lower (if not none) than the starting fees. If I understood correctly, each time we pay fees during buying, exchanging and/or selling, we cut off that same amount of fees from the monthly storage fees. This should be a win win situation for both customers and company. I'm curious to try it out.

    p.s. I know this is a little off topic but I would like to know how I can link my Personal account to my new Holding and transfer gold from Personal account to Holding. I tried doing it via redemption but it says my Holding is not verified, even though it is verified.

    Thanks in advance!
  • mr1mr1 Posts: 359 Bronze ✭✭✭

    Hi all, Goldmoney does in fact offer free storage on its Goldmoney Holdings for active traders using a credits based system.

    @KatyMillington
    Thanks for pointing that out for everyone. I probably should have mentioned that in my original post to make sure it was clear.

    I do think the credits based system is nice, however that does not satisfy my reason for starting this thread. For me, and many others it seems, we would love to see at least a small amount of free storage made available to all users, not just active traders.

    For conversations with friends, and marketing in general, it would be much easier, clearer, and more appealing to talk about x amount of free storage for all accounts, as opposed to a credit system based on how much you buy and sell. This is especially important for convincing low net worth people and gold newbies that may be hesitant to try the platform. And although many of those newbies may not do much with their account, some of them will definitely become bigger investors and more active on the platform.
  • mr1mr1 Posts: 359 Bronze ✭✭✭
    @GoldMatters @RandianZealot @79Au197 @GMONEY1 @Uvas @TauntFourstar @GoldNRoll @Powerlunchmoney
    Care to respond to the 3 questions in the original post above? I'm interested in how many users agree.
  • GoldIsCurrencyGoldIsCurrency Posts: 1,770 Gold ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2017
    I thought about the numbers behind a first 100 grams of free gold storage offering suggestion. Without having the hard data on accounts it is hard to have accuracy but I estimate around 5-6 tonnes of gold would fall in the 0-100 gram range of being stored for free and about 15 tonnes paid for storage. (estimate of 3.5 tonnes from wealth (35,000 accounts) estimate of 0.5 tonnes from business accounts and estimate of 1.5 tonnes from personal accounts) If those rough numbers are somewhat correct the cost would represent a 25-30% of gold stored for free. That number could also grow however gearing the platform with a little free storage could ultimately be the selling point for some new customers to get over the fence to sign up.

    Over time data could be pulled to see how many new customers become avid users and grow their balance much greater than 100 grams, not to forget about potential additional revenues from growing their account with transactions in other metal offerings. Goldmoney could track the ratio of free gold storage vs paid gold storage and it is possible the free storage could actually become a much smaller percentage over time depending on how users adapt and grow to the platform. Also keep in mind I was only suggesting this for gold so all silver, platinum and palladium would obviously be paid 100% for by customers. Without really knowing what it costs to store gold makes it difficult to know whether or not it would be worth doing as a marketing perk to try and help create a comfort level with new customer acquisitions. Also I would only do this with with an inclusion that users must transact X amount of buy and/or sell transactions per annum to help encourage platform activity. If minimum X transactions are not met then storage fee's should kick in on those accounts.

    I think the 1000 gram offering Goldmoney previously had was a little over kill but reducing it to nothing I think will make new user acquisitions more difficult.

    A 100 gram free gold storage offering was just a suggestion to help with potential customer's comfort level. I also want to state again, I have no problems with paying for the storage on my own gold I am just thinking of future customer acquisitions in an investors mindset with the inclusion of knowing how newbie mindsets also think about gold. This will be my last post on this topic.

    @Pinkdog You are correct $120 to store 100K of gold is fantastic pricing for people that understand gold. The problem is that the majority don't understand gold as money and to get them to dip their toe in a 100 grams of free storage is a cost worth eating. It is just logical marketing. If the gold is used as money all the buy and sell transactions would cover those costs with ease. They could do this with an inclusion that users must transact X amount of buy and/or sell transactions per annum to help encourage platform activity / the gold to be used as money.

    Once a newbie user becomes more comfortable with gold as money they will keep stacking and once they get over that 100 gram threshold they will feel FAR more comfortable with paying for storage. I presume what it comes down to is do people want to see real growth of Goldmoney as a payments and savings platform where gold can be used as money or keep it niche/bullion storage. I personally prefer to see substantial growth that will make Goldmoney a house hold name. Share price dropping to a close of $2.77 shows me the market doesn't like this recent change.

  • TexTex Posts: 197 Bronze ✭✭✭
    In my honest opinion a small amount of free storage would be a plus in order to increase the customer count. After listening to the call tonight they want all customers but it sounds like the focus will be on getting bigger customers. Their main focus is to increase net metal assets under custody. Looking at the numbers roughly 40k wealth accounts have 1.68 billion in the system. Overall there are only 100k to 200k accounts (personal, business, and wealth) that have atleast $1 in their accounts. So that's roughly only 10% of accounts. The payment focus will be shifted to the back (for now) while they increase the number of customers. That makes sense since you need a platform with millions of users to effectively be a payment platform. It does sound like the merger focus is done with (unless an opportunity presents itself) and the total focus will be on customer acquisition. I'm not sure why they risked loosing customers with the sudden change and non clarification on the life span of personal accounts. Its like deciding to run a marathon but not tying your shoes before you start. I guess only time will tell.
  • mr1mr1 Posts: 359 Bronze ✭✭✭
    edited June 2017
    79Au197 said:

    My gut feeling is that this endeavor (BitGold) started out with a simple and easy to understand fee structure for the little guy. Gold, gold, nothing but gold.
    Now we see an explosion of metals, fees, offsets, rebates, and a very complicated set of rules and pricing.
    I too am disillusioned. To overuse that famous quote from StarWars … "I have a bad feeling about this."

    @79Au197
    To me, it seems like a lot of the problems with the new unified Holding accounts is simply due to poor implementation of the change, not in the ultimate changes themselves. Except for the lack of some amount of free storage for Holding accounts, I am actually excited for these changes. Once they can get all the implementation kinks worked out, I think it will be very good for business.

    Goldmoney has a lot of competing needs to balance, especially simplicity vs customer desire for added features. In fact, I remember an old thread where myself and some others thought it would be a good idea to do some type of unification of the accounts, since 3 separate account types can be cumbersome in and of itself:
    http://community.goldmoney.com/discussion/comment/24692#Comment_24692

    If Goldmoney had waited to make the account unification until all features were ready to go (including the simplified sign-up process which is supposedly coming), and had also given clear guidance on the long-term status of existing Personal and Business accounts, I doubt there would be as many problems and push-back. Allowing a small amount of free storage for all Holding accounts would have also helped with push-back.
  • 79Au19779Au197 Posts: 4,047 Gold ✭✭✭✭✭
    @mr1

    Gold has withstood the test of time. @Roy Sebag and @Josh Crumb are right about that.

    Goldmoney is a mere two years old and has re-imaged itself several times (BitGold | GoldMoney | Network | Schiff Gold | Goldmoney Holding). Each re-image (to me at least) has become increasingly more complicated. I thought I understood the road map. Not so sure now.

    I note with some sadness that many of the original features of BitGold (physical gold redemption and the Prepaid Card, etc.) now require a "Full Holding". Which begs the question … why have two types of Holdings (Basic and Full)? Why not a single Holding? @KatyMillington ?
  • GMONEY1GMONEY1 Posts: 426 Silver ✭✭✭✭
    After listening to the recent call, it is evident to me that @Roy Sebag (and @Josh ) are analyzing their data on how customers are using the platform and pivoting the focus of the business model early. Personally, I see that as a smart move in decision-making. If the data is suggesting a fee-for-service model (with lower fees over time as user base scales) is better for the long term health of the company and network, then I support that decision.

    Personally, I am willing to pay their storage fees; and I cannot support a petition on this. I believe in the Goldmoney vision and mission, and I believe that Roy and Josh are wholly capable visionary, transformational, and charismatic leaders to build a prosperous, disruptive, and industry-leading company. They have a very talented team to work with and an accomplished board with unequivocal tacit knowledge in the metals space to guide them.

    If the fee were (in Simon Sinek's term) "blood and sweat and tears" ... I'd pay that.

    That said, I'd ask clients to reflect on why they are here. (Rhetorical: do the recent changes to the GM platform change that?)
  • mr1mr1 Posts: 359 Bronze ✭✭✭
    GMONEY1 said:

    Personally, I am willing to pay their storage fees; and I cannot support a petition on this. I believe in the Goldmoney vision and mission, and I believe that Roy and Josh are wholly capable visionary, transformational, and charismatic leaders to build a prosperous, disruptive, and industry-leading company. They have a very talented team to work with and an accomplished board with unequivocal tacit knowledge in the metals space to guide them.

    I agree, that Roy and Josh seem like they have a lot of great qualities and potential, but that doesn't make them perfect, or incapable to taking missteps with the company. Feedback from customers, in a petition like this, is exactly what a good leader should listen to and consider. Maybe if they realize that customers really care about having a small amount of free storage, they'll decide it is worth eating those costs.

    In spite of all their great qualities, it is quite clear to me that Goldmoney has made big mistakes with the roll-out of the new unified Holding accounts. One clear example: the Goldmoney website currently advertises features of the Holding account that have not been implemented yet (such as ACH deposits, credit card purchases, business tools, etc). We've been told on the forums and other round about ways, that these features are coming soon, but website doesn't say that and there's no information in the account dashboard about it. They jumped the gun on implementation and are not clearly showing the current status of account features.

    I expect Goldmoney to eventually fix all this, but these flaws highlight the fact that Goldmoney, like any other company is imperfect, and they need customer feedback.
  • GMONEY1GMONEY1 Posts: 426 Silver ✭✭✭✭
    The community forum is one source of data; a petition (if backed by enough people) is another source of feedback for decision-makers. @Roy Sebag et al are likely using other sources of feedback that are quantitative in nature and significantly less biased (e.g.customer data, flows, transaction volume, transaction size, payment method, etc) to make big structural decisions like this account consolidation (and the accompanying fee change).

    IMO calling the recent changes a big mistake is premature and snap judgement. It could end up being the decision to which we attribute their success 5 years down the road. Only time will tell on that.
  • mr1mr1 Posts: 359 Bronze ✭✭✭
    GMONEY1 said:

    Roy Sebag et al are likely using other sources of feedback that are quantitative in nature and significantly less biased (e.g.customer data, flows, transaction volume, transaction size, payment method, etc) to make big structural decisions like this account consolidation (and the accompanying fee change).

    Yes, quantitative data is important (I myself am an analyst in the health insurance industry), but it has limitations. In this case, there's no way the past data can accurately predict how network users are going to react to moving to a Holding account with storage fees, and it will take time to see the full impact of the changes in the emerging data. I know they can't base everything on customer feedback, but I wanted to give them feedback to consider along with everything else.
    GMONEY1 said:

    IMO calling the recent changes a big mistake is premature and snap judgement. It could end up being the decision to which we attribute their success 5 years down the road. Only time will tell on that.

    If I wasn't clear, it is not that I think that the announced platform changes are a mistake (except probably that they no longer offer a small amount of free storage for new accounts). I think a lot of the announced changes are good. What definitely was a mistake, was the implementation and communication of those changes.

    Example: They still advertise features on the website that are not available to new users! That is a mistake.
  • GMONEY1GMONEY1 Posts: 426 Silver ✭✭✭✭
    Also consider the dispersion of risk that is inherent to this change. Before, a decent piece of their business was tied to gold and ONLY gold. What if gold and silver were to switch nominal values? (Not saying that is going to happen... just a hypothetical)

    The single holding allows clients to diversify within the precious metals (and currencies), and in doing so, Goldmoney is also dispersing its risk more across different assets as well; from a risk standpoint, the change is favorable for ALL clients and Goldmoney. To me, that risk-reducing change is also worth paying marginal storage fees.
  • 79Au19779Au197 Posts: 4,047 Gold ✭✭✭✭✭
    Questions
    1)Should Goldmoney offer some amount of free gold storage for all accounts? Yes/No
    2)If necessary, would you be willing to pay higher buy/sell fees in order to subsidize the cost of offering some amount of free gold storage to all? Yes/No
    3)If necessary, would you be willing to pay higher storage costs on amounts over a certain threshold, in order to provide free storage for all below that threshold? Yes/No

    Bottom line - KISS (Keep it simple stupid)

    I have no problem with fees as long as they are simple and uncomplicated. Goldmoney must eventually become profitable.

    1) Yes
    2) Yes
    3) Yes

    TNSTAAFL

    @mr1 @GMONEY1 @Tex @GoldIsCurrency @TheRaveneer @BigMouse @Murphy @Pinkdog @GoldMatters @Klaus @Marco_1983 @Roy Sebag @Josh Crumb @KatyMillington @Melanie

    I have been with Goldmoney since it was first offered in the US as BitGold. Since then I have seen many changes, acquisitions, new features, … and new complexity. I am a "little guy". The reason I liked BitGold in the first place was that it seemed to give the "little guy" a fair deal. If one's stature in this community were based on one's Goldmoney holdings, I am certain that I would have no say … and that's fine. Goldmoney is a business, not a charity. I see many things are are truly exciting, Menē being one of them. But I also see many things that on the surface are confusing and disheartening, mostly related to the new Goldmoney Holding and requirement for a "Full Holding" in order to have the same features as the old Personal Network accounts. Perhaps "I just don't get it" or "I don't have a large enough holding to matter". Perhaps the global "powers that be" are making it legally challenging for Goldmoney to operate. Whatever, what seemed simple at one time has become much more complicated … IMO.

    TNSTAAFL … if Goldmoney needs to change its fee structure to pay the bills, that's cool. I am OK with whatever it takes to keep the dream alive.

    To tell the truth, I could just as easily have answered No to all of the above.
  • GoldNRollGoldNRoll Posts: 134 Bronze ✭✭✭
    Hi, I'm a bit off in time but here are my options: 1, 2 and 3 - No
    I base my options on 3 principles (though I don't always practice what I preach :)) )
    - pay for any service that implies a cost (storage has a cost so it should be a fee).
    - treat all clients equally.
    - keep it simple.
    A very low percentage of 1 gram, e.g. 0.1%/year, means 000.1 grams, that's almost nothing so small accounts should not be affected.
    0.1% of 10 kg is 10g/year. About 400 USD to secure that much gold for a year is acceptable. So that works for big accounts too.
    To keep it simple, same fee for all storage and same fee for all transactions.

    Cheers!
Sign In or Register to comment.