Stabilization Of L$

I think we really have to take you seriously, WW, and deal with this proposal of yours. I will use "GOM" as a generic term to represent the currency exchange site, as you have done. No relation to the real "GOM" or its activities is intended.

You suggest
1. That GOM continue merely to bring together sellers and buyers, so that they don't have to sell or buy themselves. Good. So we understand that to do the other would expose them to risk of big personal losses, so trading has to be resident to resident. All agreed.

Now, you further suggest
2. GOM simply declare a fixed rate, and there is no argument or negotiation. Residents either buy/sell at the fixed price, or they don't.

OK, what is wrong with this ?

Answer - if there is any other route at all by which resident can trade with resident at a self-selected price, GOM will quickly fail, getting no trades at all.

This is how it will happen. Suppose one day things get just a little out of balance. There happen to be more L$ sellers than buyers, at this nice fixed price. They are put together, they trade, and lo. Some of the sellers didn't get to sell. There were no buyers left.

GOM says , sorry, no more buyers at the moment. You'll have to wait until some turn up.
OK, just a matter of waiting a few hours perhaps.

But suppose there are consistently more peole wanting to sell. Day after day. Soon a backlog begins to build up. The anxious sellers wait in a queue. The queue grows to 3 days, a week, a month.

Nothing GOM can do. They cant compel more people to become buyers at their nice fixed price.

The people who cannot wait in this crawling, growing, hopeless queue any longer simply turn away in disgust and start trading some other way. If there is no other alternative, they will even start posting in the forums, offering their L$ for US3.50. maybe US3.00 to anyone who will buy. Very quickly someone sets up a web site. Fixing a lower price. All the buyers go there (its cheaper) so the crawling GOM queue stops altogether and GOM is finished.

After a while the same thing happens to the other site. Maybe its fixed price is now to low, and its the sellers who are in short supply, and a buyer queue builds up. It all happens again in reverse.

Then someone catches on. You have to prevent a queue building up, in either direction. You just let everybody make offers to buy and sell at any price they like, and it will all sort itself out as each person takes the best current waiting offer when their patience does run out. If you can't wait at all, you just take the current best, and make do with it, whatever it is. The price fixes itself, and no-one need ever queue longer than they want, because there is always a way out. You can always attract the other sort of trader by offering him a sufficiently attractive price.

Its the only way you can always sell and buy when you need to.

There - now do you see it WW ? Your suggestion looks great, but it is totally unworkable unless you can absolutely prevent people trading any other way, and even then half of them will have to sit in a (often very long) queue waiting for the other half to put in an appearance. They will escape from your queue if they can, and exercise huge ingenuity to do so.

Lovely idea. Killed stone dead by the practicalities.

Of course, it sounds from that description as though the price which it will reach is just a sort of fiction. But far from it. People are not steadily idiotic, and except in times of silly panic or crazy enthusiasm, the price will reflect the realities of the value people put on the things the L$ can buy. And will automatically adjust when that changes.

Phew....that was a bit tedious. But worth it if we can just get this misunderstanding cleared up for once and for all. Otherwise it will just run and run.

An example is when the Lindens charge you L$ for extra services, WW. Like uploading a texture, for example. First Land and Public Land sales are two more. People have suggested a new point-to-point teleport service with a L$10 charge. The money LL gets in all these circumstances is not recycled. It is destroyed. These are LL's "sinks". It seems we need more.

They used to sell some auction land in L$, a great sink. But it lost them the US$ they could have had instead. Because the new servers were real, not virtual, and cost them real money. It had the same effect as them buying L$ on GOM would have done - not good for them at all. Why would they want them? They can print as many of them as they like, the only consequence turning up a little later as inflation. So in effect any extra they print is taken from us all a little later by the market adjusting to the increased money supply. Bit subtle isn't it ?

People will be emotionally more willing to see the sinks increased (more L$ services from the Lindens) than to see the sources diminished (stipend cuts etc).

It's not just emotional. Extra L$ services would probably be mostly optional, so you don't pay if you don't want. So more choice that way. But what should these extra services (sinks) be ? They would have to be things we desire or need. But virtual, ie costing LL little to nothing extra to provide.

Could introduce taxes, of course, but would we want that ?

There is also the issue of what can be done quickly, and what has to become a long term goal. I'm sure in the long run, Linden Labs will come up with plenty of new services that can act as new sinks. If their goal is an immediate change to the economy, however; the decrease in existing sources and increase in existing sink prices becomes the solution. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the existing sinks get targeted for a raise if the price keeps dropping on the $L. Either way people will become angry. People get just as mad about the rising price for something as they do at not getting as much money.

I do agree that the best solution for all residents is the introduction of new Linden Lab services. These services would take work and time to develop though, and the $L paid for them will not directly benefit Linden Labs who makes them. I can't see them being highly motivated to put a great deal of energy into something that will have only indirect benefits.

Personally I think the point to point fee wold be a good sink, however LL has said (can't find the thread) that they won't do this because they don't want to chance telehub land loosing value. I kinda think that the value of telehub land is imagined anyway because most people just take off and fly to their destination before most of the surrounding stuff has a chance to rez. The only place that telehub land might be more valuable is like in the far south of the mainland where there are not many telehubs. I wonder if LL has researched player activity in this manner because if they find as I believe they could implement a place to point to point fee and further stabilize things without hurting anyone really.

read this. I'm too lazy to repost here, plus it's ongoing.

http://forums.gamingopenmarket.com/viewtopic.php?t=318

I agree that LL will probably come up with new services
and sinks, but my strongest feeling is that you are correct
here as well. The cost of uploading/rating/etc will rise for
sure, and probably MOST ALL stipends will go away.

When will this happen? As soon as LL puts in the feature
to buy more $L through the GUI. An amazing number
of new people who dont know or use GOM will start to
have a source of $L for impulse buying.

It will be no trouble to get more $L when you need them,
and then will only come down to the question of how
much is each person willing to spend a month in SecondLife.

With the removal of just about all stipends and higher costing
sinks they will easily have control of not having too much
$L flood the market.

Things will stablize soon.

Gabrielle

I dont know why this proposal is so outrageous.
Real micropayment systems have a fixed exchange rate and nobody seems to complain.

There could be another side to this. If it is easier to buy and sell small amounts of L$, a lot more people will do BOTH.

Lots of people have some $L but don't want to bother to set up a GOM account and a PayPal account just for a few bucks. (Phillip is right about that.) I think it is likely that all those pent-up sellers will flood this new outlet with small sell orders, while the small buy orders will trickle in over time. The "new market players" (i.e., people buying and selling $L who weren't previously doing so) will *NOT* be balanced, the new sellers will vastly outnumber the new buyers because of the pent-up supply of $L sitting in accounts of avatars that do not have GOM accounts.

So my prediction is that the $L will drop like rock when everyone dumps their excess cash. (I mean faster and farther than the ongoing GOM slide.)

In the long run, what's to stop everybody from putting their stipend up for sale the moment they get it? There had better be something, like really high fees for selling small quantities, or at least something that gives people an incentive to keep $L in their accounts. Otherwise too many people will just put every $L they get for sale, and the whole idea of stipends quickly becomes unworkable.

I am afraid that the natural level for the money supply might settle at a fraction of what it is now, and it will take a long, LONG time to work the excess $L out of the system.

Buster

This is a very worrisome possibility to the small people who don't want to or can't afford to buy $L.

You're right to an extent: a great deal of telehub land is without much value; it just gets ignored as people irritatingly fly out of it.

BUT if telehub land is used correctly, it is VERY valuable. Ie, if it is used to market theme goods in a theme area... if the telehub has value itself (such as a game area in the middle of a vendor area), then it can have real value.

Right on the nail Buster, which is why it is so important to stabilize the value of the L$. That will elimiate such a slide. People won't be able to devaluate the L$. They'll either buy/sell at the going price, or they'll retain/do without. Linden labs will have absolute control over the availability of L$ by siphoning off excess L$ until the economy is stabilized. Won't be long before everything balances.

Very good post Ellie. You bring up some valid concerns. Let me address why these concerns, although valid, are unlikely to happen.

First, you mention a bunch of "if's"... if this happens... if that happens. That's a lot of ifs to happen all together. Consider:




There will be SOME residents that trade directly with residents (even as there are now... and it doesn't hurt GOM). But that L$/US cash base is very limited. There are very few residents who have the kind of L$ to support demand. I know, I tried setting up an L$ sales service that charged MORE than GOM... but was easier to use than GOM. I ran out of L$ so fast it made your head spin. Unless one has an endless supply of L$, this is no threat to GOM. And the reason my system worked was because I offered an absolute fixed rate to buyers and a really easy way to cash in. They liked that.



That's a majorly big if. Millions of L$ are traded every week. Yes, for a while, and on occasion, supply may outweigh demand... and vice versa. That is a possibilityin ANY user-to-user system, not just a stabilized one. While a flexible pricing system may seem to help control such a problem, it doesn't necessarily do so, as it is just as likely to cause the "bankers" to buy massive amounts of L$ when they're low and then wait for everyone else to run out, then sell high.

However, if the L$ is stabilized, the buy/sell ratio tends to even itself out. In fact, if anything, it is more likely that due to the ease of the system, people will buy MORE L$... so the L$ supply will run out before the buyers run out. If that happens, people will just have to wait until their next "paycheck" to buy more toys. Or, there may even open up a direct US$ payment method for those who have PayPal (ie, send US$X to my PayPal account and I'll deliver this gadget for you). So while this "if" you've proposed is definitely a valid concern and well posted, I doubt it would become a reality.




An admitted possiblity, but again, unlikely to happen. If that happens, LL steps in, starts siphoning L$ like crazy, and those who have L$ to sell will start spending them instead of selling them. The market equalizes. That's one of the advantages of a stable market.




Indeed, and in fact, they can do that now. Unless of course, LL makes it against policy to post such sales in forums. Again, LL will have the right to control L$ flow and the ability to do so. As an example: one of the major online game companies that did not want their game to become economy-based, recently set policy that ANYONE found selling or buying game goods anywhere would be permanently removed from their game. In like manner, LL can control how/where L$ are sold.



Another BIG if. Actually, it's not so easy to set up a website like GOM. If it was... it is likely there would already be others competing with GOM for marketplace. IGE has done so (miserably, I might add... like I said, it's not that easy) but I haven't seen anything else... and doubt that there are very many around who have the skill/time/desire to do so. It is very, very time and resource consuming to run such a thing.




Ah but there's the deal. THAT is the way it is done NOW... and the price is by no means "fixing itself". It is running all over the board (what, from $5 / 1000 down to $3.50 now?). Obviously, the current method doesn't work. When something does not work, it is wise to try something else.


Like one other user pointed out... this idea is not without successful precident. There ARE stabilized economic systems already in existence that work just fine. All it takes is someone in the right power position with a head on their shoulders to run the thing properly.

The biggest potential problem that I can foresee in all this is of course, LL itself. Whatever they do (whether they stabilize the L$ or otherwise)... if it's done halfway or illogically, the whole system could crash. I heard LL is working with economists on this. That scares me, because from what I've seen, economics is not a hard science and open to individual interpretation. Many economics "professionals" that I've known have very little or no experience in real world business, have little or no common sense, and can "predict" a company right into bankruptcy.

I'm in an amused mode I guess, because I don't think the linden fluctuates that much. What was it's high point? I'd have to guess about a year ago. LL had a major problem ever since 1.2 came out in January 2004 or so of not releasing enough land. So they started their first auctions which averaged L3?/L5? a meter and climbed and climbed till it was what? L15/meter for a decent plot as I recall? That's a major change. The price of land getting 5 x more expensive. However, the value of the Linden reached about L4.50 as I remember, which was it's high point. I'm sure it was the price of land driving it up. Then LL Finally realized last August or September this is a problem and started releasing land at a rapid pace. The price of land dropping, dropping. I was a big fan of that though I had bought a small amount of land at that price and others had bought a lot and weren't too happy they had lost a lot of the resale value.

So now we are at a low point since I started, I think. Well, there are bound to be low points somewhere. And I am not entirely sure why it is at this time. There seem to be some players with a lot of lindens dumping them for their own reasons now. People are worried about LL getting into the trading market. I think it may go a little lower, but not too much, so feel free to panic because I have an order out.

But I am quite certain things will be around L4/1000 again within 4 months. It has always worked out that way.

Well that's my opinion and I'm sticking too it. Feel free to quote me in 4 months for better or worse.

blah blah blah

Huh, just had a crazy idea hit me when I read that. You know how sometimes markets have a self-fulfilling prophesy? examples are, certain stock is afraid it will crash, people freak out and sell-sell-sell, causing the stock to crash. The selling caused the crash, not the market. Or, more recently, people were afraid there may be a gas shortage, so they go out and fill up their cars, regardless of whether they needed to or not. All on the same day. As a result we had a bit of a gas shortage for a few days, but, again, not because of the market. What if LL plays that same trick to their own advantage? Tell everyone that they will start destroying lindens, sucking the market dry, which should bring the value of Lindens back up to $4.00. If that gets out, any smart people with a bit of extra cash would want to go and buy as much $L as they can while it's still cheap, in hopes that they can later sell it for $4.00 and make a profit. That buy-buy-buy part alone should make the market skyrocket, regardless of whether Lindels actually do what they said. Yeah, it would only be a temporary fix, just untill people start selling again, but in combination with them actually removing $L from the market, it might actually work pretty well

I tend to agree somewhat... and it'll be great when it happens. But it doesn't cover the 3 months between now and then... nor the subsequent fluxuations as the L$ continues to bounce up and down according to the whim of GOM users. I like the folks at GOM, but frankly, I'm glad LL is taking over. I just hope LL does a better job of it and that they make it both more stable and easier to buy/sell L$.

Merchants tend to NOT raise prices once they are set (it's a pain to do so). So if the L$ is stable and prices on items are not rising, inflation really doesn't set in. If new merchants try to come in selling things at a higher price... they'll fail (unless their product is really, really good). It all seems to me a win/win situation.

I still hold: when LL takes over, they need to stabilize the L$, make it VERY easy to buy and sell L$ and by doing so, will likely boost the SL economy tremendously.

Personally, I am blaming GOM's restructuring of the way they sell Lindens for the sudden huge decline in the value of $L. It used to be that you put up a certain anuont of $L for a certain price, and that's it. Usually buying $1,000L would cost you around $4.00 or more, while buying in bulk (like $10,000L) would cost much less. You couldn't buy just a small chunk of that $10,000. It was either all or nothing. And that style of market made sense, since it kept large quantities of $L from being sold too quickly for too cheap, and it created a sort of a balance for money lost versus money exchanged. Quick transactions would cost more. It also kept the sales a bit more diversified, instead of having each chunk vary by exactly a penny. So, if you only needed $1000L, you may have had to pay a little extra for it, and if you could afford $5000L instead, it wouldn't save you just $0.01US, making it more profitable to buy in bulk. Soon as that was changed, it seemes as if everything just went to pot.

While there is a lot of uncertainty involving the economics of Linden money, most of the people here seem concerned about the exchange rate between $L and $US. I am also unfamiliar with the presence of certain sources and sinks... but perhaps we can see some part of how all of these balance out..

For Basic members, the cost is free for the first account, but for additional ones, it's $US9.95. If one were to buy a new membership and use it for a year, visiting every week, that comes out to $L2.6k received (ignoring rating bonuses)

9.95/2/2.6=3.82 $US/$kL

Because the initial accounts are free, there really isn't any way to compare them by this method, and the numbers are completely meaningless when you note that members can stay for years and years without paying another cent. Clearly the cost per $L (the amount LL gets for each $L) is lower than this.

For paying members, they choose between monthly ($US9.95, or $US119.40 annually), quarterly ($US22.50, or $90.00 annually), or annually ($US72.00). Each obtains a weekly stipend of $L500, which is $L26k annually. If such a member were to take the full amount paid directly into the stipend (which is very simplistic considering I'm effectively ignoring the overhead SL experiences in maintaining the sims as well as the member's bonuses associated with owning "land", calculating the two amounts to be equivalent for $L1000 would be:

Monthly: 119.4/26=4.59 $US/$kL
Quarterly 90/26=3.46 $US/$kL
Annually 73/26=2.77 $US/$kL

Comparing these rates to the current market value shows the closing price for Septermber 12 and 13 to be right at the quarterly rate.

Why does this matter? It probably doesn't. But it does show that of all the paying members, only the ones paying monthly rates are contributing to a higher Linden value. Nevermind GOM, GOM is merely a reflection of the generous offering of $L for our cold hard cash.

I know what I presented here is a *very* simplistic view of a complex economic situation, but if this can shed some light on what everyone else is dicsussing, so much the better.

So, what happened to your site? And if GOM decides to do what you suggest, who says there won't be someone else willing to cash in on the HUGE amount of Lindens being moved back and forth daily, by offering their sale at a lower price? Problem with markets is that you can't really put any limits on them price-wise, even if it's just game curency.

The people who depend on US$<->L$ exchange to pay their tier fees should raise their in-world rental prices then. Surely I'm not the only one that sees this. The SL economy does not exist in a vacuum. If landlords raise their prices, that will force more users to but a larger supply of L$ in the marketplace, thereby increasing the exchange rate, and allowing landlords to lower their rental prices. Continuing this pattern until equilibrium is reached.


The GOM users whose whims are detemining market movements are the same SL users who are paying L$ for vendor rentals etc. They have collectively decided their investment in SL is not worth $4 per block. As I said in a previous post, when some new compelling product/service enters the world and the L$ supply begins to dwindle, people will be more willing to pay a higher price for game currency. Until then, the exchange rate will continue to slide to whatever price the community at large feels is a fair trade. Right now, it looks like it's heading to the $3/block range without a noticeable slowdown.


We like you too. We also have no problem with LL supporting an increased trade volume. Our big beef was with the way in which they handled their dealings with us, and their complete disregard for Jamie's and my experienced and educated opinions as (a) a software engineer and (b) a financial analyst, respectively. They made it clear to us that they weren't interested in providing the SL community with a robust, externally available API, instead preferring to focus on re-inventing the GOM-wheel (with, as I understand it, the major innovation of having selling priced defined in L$/$ rather than the universally-adopted $/L$1,000).

As for doing a better job of it -- maybe they will. But I doubt your opinion of "better job" coincides with mine. I view an open exchange as fundamental to the correct valuation of the currency, whereas you and some others seem to favour a rigidly defined, externally imposed rate. If they at all allow users to define their own price selling price, you will likely see extremely large price volatility in the short term, and a continued slide in the longer term. Not the recipe for stability you would have hoped for, to be sure.

Some people feel this way. Unfortunately, the data does not support your opinion.

In fact, it may amuse you to learn that "partial filling" and "buy now" are features Philip had been asking us to implement for several months before we released the feature.

Questions like this sometimes become obvious if we follow them through to their logical conclusion.

What happened to my site is what would happen to anyone else. The demand for L$ greatly outweighed my personal supply of L$... even though I was selling L$ for more than GOM (and I'm not going to say *why* they bought from me, because that's my secret of doing business. LOL). So I soon sold out of every L$ I had made and had no more to sell. That is what would happen in most cases. In order for someone to sell L$ consistently less than GOM, they would have to have a constant SOURCE of L$ to sell. They couldn't BUY L$... because sellers could earn more on GOM. So the other party would have bunches of buyers, but as the old joke goes, "If I don' t have pork chops, I can sell them for 50 cents a pound too".

Every tried to raise rental prices? People scream at SL for land prices already. Try to be a land renter with sim fees to pay and just attempt to raise rental prices. Good luck. Nice concept... impossible execution.



Hate to directly disagree, but NAH. They haven't *decided* anything. Buyers are just buying L$ at the cheapest rate they can possibly get. Sellers are getting desperate because they have bills due, so they're foolishly dumping L$ on the market. Again, GOM isn't helping here... it's adding to the problem by allowing the market to do this. No one is deciding anything; they're being FORCED into it.




Which is EXACTLY why someone needs to step in now and CHANGE the system, before it devaluates any more and people lose fortunes. Really, I know you folks at GOM mean well, but you're playing a GAME with people's incomes. GOM isn't getting hurt... you still get your commission. It's those of us who have worked and worked hard for those L$ that are getting hurt. It's just like someone going to work for a month, getting to the end of the month and being told their paycheck has been cut by 20%. And in my book, the way GOM is set up (as one other user pointed out) is 100% to blame for that.




Yeah, I hear ya. I don't know exactly what happened between LL and GOM, but something sure doesn't seem right. Everyone who does business with GOM (me included), whether they like the GOM method or not, have nothing but good things to say about you folks. Now if LL had said, "We're removing things from GOM because they're messing up the system and refusing to change" I could understand that. But apparently, LL is going to do pretty much the same thing you're doing... just moving it in house. Now while exchanging L$/US$ in-world makes a lot of sense, would have been nice to have some sort of meeting of minds.

HOWEVER, that said... you folks are running a business. Your business is now being threatened, bigtime, by the worst possible threat, Linden Lab. Now, they're the big dog. There's only one way to beat the big dog: be the smarter dog.

So here's the bottom line: you folks are either going to have to start doing things DRASTICALLY different than you're doing now... or (pardon my saying so)... GOM is going down. Them's the facts and if you'll pardon me for being blunt... GOM can mope... or get smart. (I've spent most of my life working as a business consultant, and I have more than once been forced to tell a business to wake up to reality or get eaten for lunch).



BUT BUT BUT (I can't believe I'm having to explain this...LOL)... that is EXACTLY what is going on RIGHT NOW. That's the whole point of this thread. That is what you folks at GOM are doing now... allowing users to define their own selling price! That's exactly what we're recommending does not continue, because plainly a user-defined economy DOES NOT WORK. If it did, the United States would close the FED and just allow a totally free dollar market. The last time we made that mistake we experienced a decade-long depression!

The viable alternative is to set the L$/US$ exchange rate at a reasonable constant and let the buyer/seller market define itself in commodities, not L$ exchange rates. Because the bottom line: the L$ has NO real value! It's value is defined in two ways: the intangible goods it can buy in-game (which has no transic value) and the value of the US$ for which it can be exchanged. If the exchange rate between the L$ and the US$ drops.. then the L$ becomes pretty much worthless except for in-game purchases... and Second Life stops becoming an economy-based system.

While this is a very interesting concept (and the first time I've seen it presented this way) and the math (without double checking) appears viable... I don't think the value of the L$ has anything to do with how much folks pay for memberships vs how many L$ they get as stippends.

The value of the L$ is determined primarily by land rentals. Ie.. how many L$ does it take (based on US currency) to rent 1 sq m of land? Since land is the basis of all SL economy (ie, you have to sell to make money, you have to have land to sell), then basically L$ value, bottom line, is figured by the conversion rate of L$ to US$ to pay off land. So... if it takes 1000 L$ to = $4US.... then one would basically have to earn (and sell at $4/1000) roughly 49,000 L$ to make a monthly sim payment.

Now, if L$ suddenly can only be sold for $3/1000... then that amount would go up to 65,000 L$. That means the land owner is going to have to charge a lot more for vendor booth space (which frankly doesn't work, because people refuse to pay more) and then the merchant has to charge more or sell more to pay booth rent.

That is the problem of an unstable L$ market. If the L$ is stabilized to directly correlate to a constant US$ rate... then folks can better calculate their overhead, resultant rent charges, etc... and the price of commodities becomes the factor of what the market will/will not bear. And it helps stabilize those prices too, because a buyer will say, "hmm... that skin costs the equivalent of $8 US" and decide whether that is worth it or not.

Everyone wins in a stabilized L$ economy.

Interesting data. Not only does it not show a sudden drop faster than inflation, but it seems to suggest that the economy would be on a downward spiral if nothing was changed. It will be interesting to see where the high peaks hit as Linden Labs starts to tweek the sources and sinks.

Maybe it's just me, but this talk about economics and the exchange rate for the L seems backwards as far as the gameplay is concerned. There are relatively few who actually depend on it for any kind of FL income or frankly, are interested in accurate economic modelling for it's own sake for that matter. My personal experience as a creator and above-the-minimum-parcel-size landowner, is that there aren't enough L in circulation. I constantly create and contribute directly to the SL environment for my enjoyment, but sell very little, this might be a reflection of my ability but it's probably the case for most of us.

Additionally I invested in a years subscription to SL in advance - but after that my income is pretty much L500 a week - what can I buy with that ? maybe 1 semi nice dress or a gadget ? It's not much is it ? As I said, I'm not a tourist, and my enjoyment of SL is by no means centred on shopping though I'm not here to make money either, but even I find it a little frustrating that I have to spend more real money to aquire additional L. No disrespect to the 3rd party business people trying to derive an income from SL, but the only economic model that matters is the FL survival of SL and LL in the marketplace as a result of a satisfactory experience on the part of the game players. Oh and that's irrespective of the paradox LL seems to have created by cleverly outsourcing content creation at no cost to themselves, and giving the illusion of a free market (you're kidding yourself if you think it's any more than an illusion). Now content creators I have some sympathy with, their work is the substance of the SL experience, but speculators, land barons and the like - what do they contribute to my experience or the survival of SL ? Yet it is them who are most vociferous about the value of the L or state of the SL economy, for obvious reasons.

My guess is that LL decision to reduce the L in circulation and create the totally free account is simply to get more people signing up to the game, who then have to keep paying (LL) for currency to enjoy the experience. As a flip side to this, I'd suggest an INCREASE in the stipend or L available to those who have chosen to invest in LL up front to play the game, to keep them interested and maintaining their subscription in the future.

In case you hadn't noticed, i have NO idea what I'm talking about though !