Buying Linden Dollars

Uh...would you take 20?

As I see it, SL is trying to give a roughy equal allotment to everyone, plus-or-minus what the community thinks (through ratings, voting, and sales) a resident deserves.

Let's say I'm a subscriber and you're a subscriber, except you've got US$100 burning a hole in your checking account and I don't. You spend your $100 and get L$40,000 + stipend + L$3500 starting funds. I don't, and I just get L$3500 + stipend. While providing LL with a lot more money, it severely skewers the balance of what we can do; you can buy half a sim and fill it with junk and have more than enough to let taxes accrue for a few months, while I can maybe hold onto a 24x24 lot with a modest house, forgoing fancy costumes or that new hoverboard I've had my eye on.

Why should someone who happens to have more money be given preferential treatment (and a much larger possibility of abuse or system resouce waste) than someone who doesn't, in a system that promotes equality?

Don't take me seriously, the "lol" is in there a JOKE

my god some people take things too seriously. lol

You missed my point. It is already the case. The example you cited isn't even the worst case:

If I have $105, I can convert it into 7 one-month accounts immediately. That's 7 x ($L 3,500 + $L 4,000) or $L 52,500. Every month I can repeat this ad-nausea (or until Linden tries to stop it using some kind of limit-the-number-of-avatars-per-credit-card scheme or other.)

As long as there are Stipends and Sign-up bonuses of $L, this will establish the exchange rate.

SL isn't about $L equality at all. The playing field is not level in the economic sense, but in the creative sense. To be 'equal' in an economic sense, SL would have to eliminate it's currency all together.

Of course the economy is about RL-money and playing advantage. Aren't beta testers getting a special deal? Didn't those who exploited Vote farms get to keep their spoils? In the same sense of 'equality' alluded to by some on this thread, isn't the beta pricing 'unequal' to the customers who log in for the first time on the 24th? [I don't think it is unfair at all: Linden is in this as a business. It is good for business to cut your beta-testers a special 'unequal' deal.]

The real question(s) are: How will the community adapt to understanding the new reality? What will Linden do to facilitate/discourage the conversion?

Honestly, it isn't preventable. There is no way to tell the difference between someone who is leaving giving all their money to a friend and a money milker, especially in systems as sophisticated as SL.

I've dealt with this very issue in over a dozen online-worlds over the last 25 years. My recommendation would be to embrace it (implement $US -> $L). I would also reward non-scriptable user behaviors with larger $L sums and watch the cash flows with an eye toward keeping the economic balance tuned for creativity over hoarding, and watch the struggling communities change, grow and flourish.

Oracle Omega

Isnt there a note somewhere about multiple accounts? I thought the limit would be 2 per household.. is this still true? Isnt this why you cant use the same credit card on multiple accounts? To discourage this?

I still REALLY hate the idea of this. I do NOT feel that this should be supported by LL by making it easier to "cheat".

If there are *more* subscribers by means of fewer people with more accounts, I do *not* see it as creating more CS issues as there would be fewer USERS behind the total # of accounts. Rather, I see supporting this notion more of a pain in the neck accounting wise not to mention the discord of existing players who have WORKED to earn their place.

My thinking keeps coming back to the size of the user base. As we are now, a user buying an extra ID, just for the value of the L$s would be a noticeable thing (sounds like most of us think it would be bad). On the other hand, if there were 100,000 SL users the total economy in L$s would be rather huge, and a user buying even 10 extra accounts would not be particularly noticeable. At the 100,000 user level, I assume the grid would be enormous by todays standards.

Based on previous statements, the Lindens don't plan to restrict the exchange of L$ for real $, they thus don't consider this a "cheat" against the "game". Hopefully though other in-game cheats that would allow someone to accumulate unlimited wealth will be caught quickly and perpetrators expelled.

In my case, I am lucky in that I don't take the "game" aspects of the program seriously. I have no interest in collecting calling cards just for the sake of having hundreds of them. While I have voting booths at my build, I'm sure that people are voting for me out of friendship and reciprocity rather than the quality of my "art". I think I am finding that with SL, as in real life, if the only way you can have a good time is by spending lot of money, then you are probably doing something wrong. In short, I refuse to participate in the popularity game by soliciting votes from people I hardly know.

---------------------------

*********************************************
* Vote for Mac Beach in ALL Categories!!!
* You won't be sorry you did !!
*********************************************

WOW!!!!!!! I can't believe i've been skipping over this thread

Sorry for jumping in late. Anyway, I think there is no avoiding it. We can't deny that Lindenbucks have RL value. And, whether it’s Linden endorsed or not, as long as we can trade things in SL, there will be the possibility to trade RL money for SL resources. I think most of us would agree though, that this idea is unsettling. As Schwartz put it: "it severely skewers the balance of what we can do". I for one do not want to be limited in what i can create in SL by my RL funds, or lack thereof. This would not seem fair or fun at all. Unfortunately, this seems to be an unavoidable result of the value we place on SL resources.

So the question becomes: In light of the equivalence of RL money and SL resources, how can we still ensure a fair allocation of resources among users?

This demands a definition of "fair allocation". This definition carries with it the question of what SL should be. I guess this is subjective, and is something for only the Lindens to decide, but I'll offer my opinion.

If you caught me maybe a month ago I think would have agreed with what Mac said, about stripping out ratings and vote booths, and just leaving a simplified system for us to earn extra resources through trade. But, when I realized what I really like to do in SL I changed my mind. I enjoy SL because it is a place for me to indulge my creativity. It offers a unique and positive social atmosphere for me to do so. I don't enjoy doing business. I don't want to be a business man. I already have to deal with surviving financially in RL, and I hope that SL will be a place for me to escape from that. I would rather SL be about doing and creating great things and just having fun and expressing myself in a positive way, rather than have it be about earning a living and trying to survive and get ahead.

So with this in mind, I believe a “fair allocation” of resources should encourage a positive and creative environment. This is the benefit that ratings and vote booths will hopefully provide. With them, we are rewarded for things that have social value, but not necessarily tradable value. I can be rewarded with more resources simply for creating a better environment for my neighbors. This should result in a better environment overall, and most importantly, there would be no way to trade within or out of SL for these resources. You would have to earn it through your actions and your contributions to the community. It would be the crutch that the creative and positive members of SL can lean on to continue to make a better world.

I personally don’t sell much. Now and then I might hook up an elevator for a small fee. But most of what I do I give away for free when I’m done. I don’t make much money off of scripts, even though I probably could, but I don’t really care to. Some of the scripts I make are not in demand anyway. The things that are in demand seem to be things that people want but can’t make themselves, like weapons or clothes. No one really NEEDS my vehicle, right? But its fun and creative and I like making it, so that’s what I’m doing. Should people like me be at a disadvantage because I don’t necessarily want to be a salesman? I hope not. This idea extends to the group projects as well. We’re trying to create something great, but it seems like the odds are stacked against us. If this is supposed to be some sort of utopia, then why is it so hard to do what we want?

This whole view is what justifies the intentions of ratings and vote booths, and is why I’ve been complaining about them more lately, because I realize that I will never make money in SL unless I’m recognized for my social value.

(well, that’s assuming I have any social value )

Ope Rand, It just goes to show how much people like myself have to learn about how the dynamics of this kind of world really work, because you express a view of the world that fits mine closer than the business model view does and make it clear that these complexities actually make that "utopian" view a little more sustainable.

OK, I can go along with that, but here is what I see happening in a lot of the complaining. The people who manage to create a business that brings in even modest amounts of cash are obviously going to be able to sustain much greater levels of build and whatever else that cash allows you to do. If people like you and me want to live a "utopian" existence in that cash is not going to be important to us i.e. we are not going to go the hassle of the business route, than what we give up in the process is any right to bitch and moan about our inability to create these magnificent edifices and own many acres of land and so on. I think that what underlies so much of the bitching is the unwillingness to recognize that essential aspect of second life that will unlikely ever be any different from first life.

In RL, there was a time when I parked my self on street corners and entertained with my hat out and some people put in quarters and somepeople put in 10 dollars. Maybe the life that you describe can be lived without thinking business but put a hat shaped donation object out on your property and you might be surprised how those you help will put in their quarters and tens, based upon what they can afford.

exactly Jesse.


there is a point expressed by this quote:




But this assumes that the system of resource allocation must be based on person to person trade and nothing else. I would like there to be better ways to allocate resources.

What i mean is that, yes, i want to have property, but i believe that we the community would benefit more if my own ownership was based on how i use my property to give back to the community. so in a sense, the property is still the community's, but i would be responsible for contributing back with what i control. and if i don't use what i control to contribute back to the community, my holdings(what i control) would dwindle.

I do believe its possible to encourage the creation of a positive and sharing community this way. The difficult part is to accurately measure how valuable our contributions are.

Such an object exists! hehehe

Also, I have started a project fund to help bolster underfunded projects. Details are under the "Projects" thread.

... and I would like to help fund some of those projects (as I am with Little Tokyo.) I don't have the time to dedicate to building my own SL money-making-business in order to furnish the L$, but I've got some US$10 that I can throw torward various projects. Without a way to convert, I can't afford to be a patron of the arts.

Money is not evil folks, nor is is distopian. It enables the creation of the worlds museums and funds the development of wonderful technology and architecture.

Oracle Omega

Oracle, I agree with you. The use of AV 'mules', sacraficed to provide L$ to fund projects, can and will be used for good (as well as selfish reasons).

It is a 'fact' that others may not like, but unless the Lindens place more restrictions on buying AVs, or offer some more 'formal/official' schema to buy L$, the purchase of donor AVs will occur.

I do think though, that before the Lindens do something like this, that there are evolutionary changes that are needed in the SL economy/tax system to maintain some balance.

- Mickey

It will happen June 23rd, if it hasn't happened already (I'll bet that it already has.) It has always happened in every service with an economy of this type, and always by opening day.

Oracle Omega

heres an idea. just throwing it out there. what if they made us start with a very low amount like 100, instead of the 3500.

this way it wouldn't be worth it to buy all these extra accounts. you wouldn't end up with more than 100 per account, and to earn more you would have to do the work of earning it through ratings and/or trading. and that would take time and wouldn't be worth it. just a thought.

and i don't know if you meant me, Oracle, but I know money isn't evil, it just represents the resources with which we can build. its how we decide to use these resources which may be 'evil'. if you built a nice museum, i'd give you a high rating

Actually, that wouldn't fix the problem at all. You'd have the $L4,000/per month in stipend to milk from the money mules.



I didn't mean anyone in particular. And I agree with the comment, but not your intent:

'money...represents the resources with which we can build' (in SL) - I think you meant $L for 'money'.

By money, I mean US$ (or any real-world currency exchangable for US$.) I have some US$ I would like to convert into 'resources with which I can build' in SL.

We can all agree that $L muling (and Ebay $L sales) will change SL. It will happen soon. The community will have to adapt: There is no simple 'technical' fix that won't screw up the economy in some other way. We can't bury our heads in the sand, nor should we.

So, the choices are limited:

1) Linden decides to capture value from the pent-up desire for people to get more $L by:

- 1a) Changing the economy so more folks get more $L
(putting more pressure on already loaded servers,)
Linden cost.)
- 1b) Providing the ability to buy $L for US$
(Note: $L = build potential = computers = $US)

2) Linden tries to hold tightly to their current economic model, controlling the distribution of resources through new accounts:

- 2a) Lock avatars to one-per-credit-card
(Linden loses revenue in families. Does not stop folks
with multiple credit cards. Rich still richer.)
- 2b) Limit 'per household accounts to 2
(Linden lost revenue with families. Allows everyone
with the money to have a mule. Rich still richer.)
(Mule's are cost inefficient and screw up statistics.)
- 2c) Limit starting cash and stipend to discourage muling
(New users become cash-starved and can't support the
internal merit-based economy. This is very very bad.)

But, no matter what Linden chooses to do, the community will have to adapt. The 'merit' based economy will have to be refined and accentuated more in every case.

Oracle Omega

Again I ask, isnt this already the case? There was also mention of a limit per household. As far as Ebay, Ive been watching out of curiousity and so far I have seen no sales of lindendollars.

I appreciate what your experience has been and this very well may occur. That being said SL is breaking lots of new ground and doesnt (yet) have the typical gaming demographics. It IS *possible* at least the the occurance of this will be low. I do not want to see this facilitated by LL. If it happens it happens. There is no really compelling reason I have read for them to support it.

Oracle I can see you feel strongly about it by your every other post. Others feel equally as strongly against it. No one is going to change the others mind. Maybe its time to agree to disagree.

Why bother discussing it then? We don't have to agree. This community doesn't even agree on the Outlands, but it doesn't keep us from exploring the issues, even if we personally don't like the outcome.

My goal is not to change your mind. I've been sharing my experience, and I wanted to give the community a heads-up about a real problem. To me, that's a service I'm doing for the community and SL.

If that service is unwelcome, I'll move on. No hard feelings. This board takes up time I could just as well be using on some other product.

I'd really like to see SL succeed. This issue (and others) has been a huge problem on the various services I've worked on over the years. I thought the info would be some help to SL's commercial and social success. But, I don't see SLs success tied to any single customer's opinion on how the economy should work, including my own.

Oracle Omega

There's nothing wrong with discussing anything. Its no secret this does go on . That is goes on is no reason to support and encourage it.

Here's my experience on my last beta (tso). People wanted more there (friends of mine) so they made money buying simoleans on ebay. Others I know did the inter city trades. They became rich and bought everything they wanted.

You know what happened? They hit limits got bored and quit. Is that good for the long term prosperity of the developer? Heck NO. Even if they purchased the money directly from the developer (what you propose) it makes people not be challenged and get bored. There is no long term satisfaction in immediate gratification. It also has the lovely side affect of upsetting the other people in game who then view it as unfair and biased to people who can afford to spend the extra cash.

What you have then is folks with a short attn span that forgot they ruined their own experience telling others that the game is boring and sucks. And another group dissing the game because there isnt an even playing field.

This is an excellent warning and analysis!

TSO was not prepared for the inevitable effects of their broken economic design. They did not prepare for money muling. Is SL ready? Just as importantly: Are WE ready?

Thanks to your thoughtful post, Misnomer, I'd like to ammend my previous statement:

1) $US => $L will happen soon (internal or on eBay)

OR

2) SL will crash and burn. Not because this feature is missing, but because cash trades are an _indicator_ of the popularity of the product which, in turn is an indicator of financial success. No demand for cash trades = not enough business for Linden.

Hoping that SL will not become popular enough for people to use eBay to by $L is hoping that it fails within a year.

Oracle Omega

Of course, I have no inside information from Linden Research, inc. These are my own opinions from decades of experience in the field.

I agree that money is not evil, nor is it good. I find it easier when dealing with issues regarding the effects of money to think of simple carnival tickets. Once you get to the carnival you exchange your real money for these small oblong pieces of thick paper that get you into the rides and allow you to do the other activities without constantly having to pull out your wallet and make change. Having a limited number of those tickets forces you to "budget" your time at the carnival rather than just finding one activity you like and doing it over and over and over again. It is rationing for a limited resource. Real money serves that function too, but the real economic system is so huge that we can't comprehend it all.

Suppose the carnival is in a really small town and isn't attracting large crowds. They still give out the tickets and accept them back again, but in this case they are not serving a real purpose. In fact you might have experienced a time or two where you were allowed to ride a ride as much as you wanted because business was so slow.

At the other extreme, suppose the carnival is in a big town, and there is a line a mile long to get in. The carnival can do the responsible thing and only sell tickets at a rate that it knows the "system" can handle. Or it can bring additional rides and activities "on-line" to handle the load. Or it can be irresponsible and just sell tickets to everyone that it knows can't be processed by its infrastructure. It's midnight, the carnival is closing, you have 20 tickets left and there are still long lines to do everything. What good are those tickets now?

So, with that example in mind, I say that the most important thing about the Linden economy will be the ratio of total infrastructure to demand. If the infrastructure is sufficient, then EVERYONE will have an opportunity to have a good time. Some will be able to do more than others, but even the person with the least amount of L$ will get to participate in some way. The pathological case is the case of scarce resources. If there are more L$ floating around than there are things to buy, guess who will go without?

My concern has nothing to do with good vs evil, or popular people vs wallflowers, it has to do with participation. A complex SL economy, like our real economy will need CONSTANT tinkering to keep in in balance. This worries me because at each point where tinkering takes place, people who have done their own balancing act between what they own and what they earn will be thrown off balance again and will have to adjust. We are even seeing that take place now during the beta with a relatively small user base. Given sufficient infrastructure, no amount of tinkering with the SL economy will freeze anyone out of participation. On the other hand, sufficiently limited infrastructure will not allow full participation no matter how much tinkering takes place. Those are the nature of my concerns.

Mac, its just this whole business thing that i don't like. i don't want to HAVE to run a business in order to have the resources to do things. no this is not necessarily about good and evil, passive vs. aggressive. I am only expressing that i wouldn't like an SL where being a businessman was almost mandatory. i want to live without having to open a shop, make things that are hot selling items, advertising them, and so on. Personally i would rather spend my time being creative, having fun with others, and doing what i want to do. I'd like to think of SL as a vacation rather than a job.

i might be misunderstanding your view but what i get from it is that you’re concerned that everyone has a fair chance to participate. i couldn't agree more. Like you I’m also concerned that the weight in the economy will be shifted in the wrong directions. To me this means that the weight of resources should be shifted towards the creative instead of the business. Relying solely on trading for income, would make this near impossible. The creative would have to rely on charity, and I don’t expect much of that. Participating would be a job, instead of an intellectual endeavor.

i find it interesting that Lindenbucks(and other game currencies) are just as good as real money. They are. Oracle is absolutely right about it. These virtual worlds are real for all intents. What this means is that a job in SL is equivalent to a real life job. I could work my butt off in SL, make a lot of Lindenbucks, trade them for dollars, and live off of that income. Conversely, I could work my butt off in real life, make a lot of money, trade them for Lindenbucks and live(virtually) off of that income. Both have happened in the past in other games and we can expect them to happen here, provided that SL does well enough.

What I hope is that SL breaks the mold. By rewarding us for our ‘social value’ it, in effect, would be our job to make a great world. In order to earn that money for me to live off of I would try to be valuable to the community. Without rewarding us in this way, and only relying on trade, we would be rewarded solely for taking advantage of each other, as in real life. This would not necessarily result in a nice vacation spot for us.

The bottom line to me is business is boring, and either way I don’t want to be a part of it. If I wanted to be working a job right now, I wouldn’t be logged on.

Ope:

Actually I think we are in 100% agreement. I have no desire to play the money game. I won't, period.

Next I have to ask myself, how much can I do, both short term (rezing objects) and long term (taxes) that can be sustained completely on my stipend, or on unsolicited gifts.

I have nothing against OTHER people playing the money game though, or shooting at each other, or playing tag. The question is: can SL make room for people of both types... Obsessive, competitive people as well as laid back casual "players" such as myself. My fear is that a complex economy will lead (unintentionally) to a situation where only the 4-hour+ a day players will have any creative freedom at all. In such an environment I will be relegated to the status of spectator.

I maintain that the two uses of the economy: resource allocation, and social engineering will ultimately be at odds with one another. The things done as part of the economy to encourage people to do "good" things will create a group of users that while not doing "bad" things, still do not accumulate enough resources to do much more than subsist.

My solution: target the economy at resource issues exclusively for now. Assume that users will do "good" things naturally. Tinker with the economy by adding incentives later, rather than by assuming that they are needed from the start.

ok i agree

Having SL be worthy of this debate is an honor! I am so excited that we are growing to the point where the internal value created in the world is worthy of e-baysian debate!

Great thread for us to read, very cool to hear different perspectives.

It is certainly true that all economies are convertible - you can always exchange one currency for another. BTW did you know that 60% of the total EQ/UO transactions are actually done through a couple of private websites - not EBay. For those who care (we gathered this info laboriously a while back, why not amuse you all with it), UO generates about $300K/Month in EBay transacts. So thats >$1/Month/Sub, on average. The game only costs 10X that to play!

So time will bring L$ trading, whether we want it or not.

The original reason for our L$ design has been eloquently captured here several times: to create a level playing field where in the delicate early days of our world, wealth has internal meaning - if you are rich in SL, it is probably because you made some people happy in SL. That seemed really cool.

On the subject of paying for more land, how does everyone feel about the idea of Linden offering whole simulators (private areas where the normal rules of the economy don't apply - you can build as much as you like without taxes). These would be expensive of course, many times the price of a single account - you'd basically be paying for a whole machine on the grid. As Mac has pointed out, you want these to be only a small fraction of the overall land mass, so you don't have a 'tragedy of the artists', where everyone overcreates and is alone. This has been discussed a bit but is appropriate to discuss again here, given the sentiment for/against LL charging for resources. I think this is an appropriate way to handle the issue - you can be a patron or buy your own island - but you have to REALLY want to step up and do it.

on paying for more land, i can't say i'd be against it. in a sense we're already doing that. i paid to be a member, and you add land based on the number of members. the only difference seems to be that someone who pays this 'large' amount will have private access to the land thats allocated for them, and the rest of us normal folk have to kind of fend for ourselves, grabbing and picking at whatever we can get in the public areas.

i'm sure no one would pay so much if they weren't gauranteed a large plot of land so it makes sense that they get private access. the only thing that bothers me is what you mentioned Philip, about there being too many of these private islands, and everyone ends up being alienated from each other. it would kinda kill the whole community aspect that i think most of us really like about SL. for a cheaper price could you just make a single player version, like was mentioned earlier?

So i think something should be in place to keep it from becoming a single player experience. I'm curious about what you meant by "the normal rules of the economy don't apply". if this means that they don't have to spend money to make stuff in their private sim then it really would be discouraging interaction with the rest of the world. if they still need the rest of us in order to make money through selling, getting ratings, and making attractions for us etc. then they wouldn't become hermits, and i think privately owned sims could actually be a very good thing.