Do you really think taking away a $50 a week stepend from basic accounts will matter?

The idea is, that if these people are not paying for their $L, then the $L has no value anyway. The weekly infusion of $L's, to non paying customers, devalues the $L on a weekly basis.

Of course premium users who receive their $500 L , add no USD value to the economy either , as their $L's are not purchased, they are created by LL. But at least they support LL, without LL, there is no economy to worry about.

LL's hope is that the $50 L basic stipend, will convince enough users to stick around long enough to upgrade to premium. It is a free way to incent users.

It's a slippery slope indeed. Eliminating the $50 L weekly stipend for non paying members should certainly help the decreasing value of the $L by eliminating a major source of $L. It may hurt in the long term if it causes a lower conversion ratio for paying customers or $L purchasors.

My prediction is LL will keep basic stipends for now, as they are competing for market share from a, as of yet, unknown competitor due to be released in 2006. But ultimately, the $50 L per week stipend will have to be eliminated to maintain the $L's value.

Actually, thats not quite true Schwan. Stipend and dwell payments are taken from the new residents when they sign up.

Philip mentioned one time at a townhall meeting, that the average bank account of each resident (at that time) was around 7400 lindens. If they were simply given the 7400, the economy would be on an even keel to what it was before they joined. Instead the new resident gets 1500 Lindens (I think) and the balance of payment is given to other residents for other purposes.

That said, it is important to strike a balance between these payments and new members.

See, this doesn't make sense to me. Without the stipend, the person will have no money to spend. No money means they can't afford what they want. There are no jobs in SL, or loot that can be sold for L$. The only way to MAKE money is to build. And MOST players do not know how and don't want to learn. Being broke and unable to get what you want is a stumbling block and most people will stop playing because of this. I'm sure many, if not most, of the basic players are here because there is no monthly fee.

Also, consider this: With the majority of the populace being penniless, who's going to buy stuff? Definately not enough for all those retailers to keep their storefronts up. Prices will have to be raised to afford rent, or rent will have to plummet to keep from pricing yourself out of tennants. Yeah, the value of the L$ will go up because of this, but not after many people take a punch to the gut.

Remember, unlike real life, you don't have to survive a depression, you can just turn it off.

I'm nto an unreasonable person, if someone gives me good reasons for something, I'll agree with them and even adopt that POV. But noone's explained to me yet how eliminating the majority of the consumers from the economy is a healthy thing.

How are stipends and dwell taken from new users? LL gives them those payments.


Are you saying that if all new users got a $7400L sign on bonus the economy would be balanced? I would be willing to bet my right eye that the USD of the $L would plummet by 50% or more in a week (conservative guess, it is my eye we are betting) . There is no reason a new user should start with the average $L balance.



That I agree with.

I am really not rallying for the removal of basic stipend. I see it's purpose to hopefully retain users. And users that are just being users, have a definate value to SL. Without people to show off your $15,000 Starax wand, what good is it? A user that never spends a dime in SL, but somehow creates worth for other players is as good for the economy as a user who buys $L.

That is not at all true. There are many other things one can do to make money in SL, including buying on Lindex.


People will have to buy money on Lindex or find a way to earn $L. I think the opportunity to get free $L may certainly be a motivator to retain a non paying customer, and LL needs to carefully weigh any impact this may have on their potential customer base. I am not privvy to all the economic data LL has, nor would I know what to do if I was. I am not even certain a dramatic drop in the value of the $L is such a bad thing, as long as it stablizes somewhere, and I am not holding alot when it does.



I am not sure the majority of consumers would go away. I beleive you are viewing the 'churn' of the economy, which I agree, is a great thing. And SL's economy is churning well. What other posters seem concerned with is the dropping USD value of the $L. Adding 25 million Lindens per week, at no cost to users, certainly has a profound affect on the $L.

I think the $L has remained remarkably stable, but there is a definate downward trend. If the powers that be determine the downward trend is good, than fine, don't do anything.. If they determine corrective action should be taken, than basic stipends will go the way of the dinosaur.

No, I am not saying that..... and yes, that would cause an imbalance, because stipends and dwell would have to come from other sources.

Take RL property taxes for example. Your paid taxes are used to fund road repairs, snow removal and schools. Taxes on cigarettes and liquor are used for hospitals and social programs.

Simply because your roads are in good shape, the schools are in session and it has not snowed in years, is not a reason to stop paying taxes. Likewise, you don't get handed a bill when the water-main gets fixed on your street.

The government needs money in and money out. Dwell and stipends are not money for nothing, they are paid for with real life cash by new residents. We need a steady stream of new residents, otherwise this whole debate is moot.

And every month has 5 weeks. oh wait, some have 4... hold on... MORE months have 4 weeks than 5? Good god! We've got Monthflation!

Pretty soon the value of a week is going to be meaningless.. there'll be a calendar crash!

Truth. *snort*.

10,000 active premium accounts AND 100,000 basic accounts each pushing their stipends into circulation each of the 5 weeks of each month? Right. Sure.

Absolutely agreed. And until Linden Labs finds some better way to 'prime the pump' (so to speak), stipends are a useful and cheap 'free sample' like way to entice players into buying more L$'s.

Stipends as player incentives has been brought up many times.
ReserveBank just chooses to call anyone that favors them 'socialist'. (no 's')

Shame he can't go have his own economy somewhere else....
maybe he did, which is why he's back. Must have been lonely there.

--
When will I learn to stop feeding the troll?

I'll have to see some accurate hard data on profit taking by premium accounts and its effect on the economy before I'd blindly accept that basic account stepends is the devil. I think what that data will show that as to devaluating the economy is that Profit Taking far outweighs the Basic Account Stepend.

Profit taking by premium accounts?

Do you mean lindens sold by premium members?

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but provided you could determine such a thing, It sure would be interesting to see what you can do with this data lol.

This is just so funny sometimes.

See, this is where I disagree. I would be surprised if the majority of basic accounts has even made 1 purchase of L$. Admittedly, this is the lynchpin of my doubts. If infact, the majority of basic account holders have indeed made purchases of L$, then I will agree that removing the basic stipend would not have an earth shattering impact. But as it stands, I still see this as *cataclysmic*

As for other forms of L$ earning, again, I feel the majority of basic accounts are here in SL for the chat. As it stands now, the average basic account holder can look forward to buying an OK outfit or two, or one good one, or maybe some little accessories. Removing the stipend will eliminate that little pleasure and upset many.




(edited for emphasis)
I really think the opposite. The majority of players may not leave, but I do believe the in-game consumers will plummet dramatically.



And a neccesary thing. There are no bonds, stocks, or all the other ways for people to make money as they can in RL. The economy in SL is run entirely by the consumers. If the consumers stop buying, I don't see anything but a basic failure of SL as a whole to follow.

No money for the majority means no purchasing.
No purchasing means broke retailers.
Broke retailers would be unable to pay rentals on retail space, or property.
No retail and property rentals means landowners will need to pay out of pocket for their sims.




I understand this point, and I can sympathize to a degree. But all those L$ will be woth nothing if LL folds up shop. And, granted this is a worst-case scenario but, if landowners start cashing out and leaving, the L$ will plummet even harder as noone will actually BUY the L$ they're selling. If things get too bad, LL will probabaly just close the exchange.

Comming back from the chicken-little routine, since people do not have a steady source of income in SL, I just see removing the stipend as more than likely to case MORE problems than it would solve.



THough I think removing the stipend is a potentially catastrophic decision, replacing it with a way to actually EARN L$ or scale how it is paid out, would be acceptable.

1. Maybe scale how much a person gets depending on time on-line.

2. Though Camping chairs are an eyesore, maybe a pay-out for frequenting establishments?

3. Greeter/Mentor/Help bonuses. (If these aren't alread in place)

etc. This is SecondLIFE, why not have a way to *earn* L$ in a way as ubiquitous as a daily job (though not as boring). Not everyone has the head for building/scripting, or the buisness sence to run a club, or the 'moral ambiquity' to be an escort.

If the worst does happen, honestly I see only one thing keeping the L$ circulating and keeping SL afloat.. Sex. People will spend unbelieveable amounts of $$ for sex and sex services. If you think sex is everywhere now, just wait until it's the only truly profitable enterprise.

See, this is where I disagree. I would be surprised if the majority of basic accounts has even made 1 purchase of L$. Admittedly, this is the lynchpin of my doubts. If infact, the majority of basic account holders have indeed made purchases of L$, then I will agree that removing the basic stipend would not have an earth shattering impact. But as it stands, I still see this as *cataclysmic*

As for other forms of L$ earning, again, I feel the majority of basic accounts are here in SL for the chat. As it stands now, the average basic account holder can look forward to buying an OK outfit or two, or one good one, or maybe some little accessories. Removing the stipend will eliminate that little pleasure and upset many.




(edited for emphasis)
I really think the opposite. The majority of players may not leave, but I do believe the in-game consumers will plummet dramatically.



And a neccesary thing. There are no bonds, stocks, or all the other ways for people to make money as they can in RL. The economy in SL is run entirely by the consumers. If the consumers stop buying, I don't see anything but a basic failure of SL as a whole to follow.

No money for the majority means no purchasing.
No purchasing means broke retailers.
Broke retailers would be unable to pay rentals on retail space, or property.
No retail and property rentals means landowners will need to pay out of pocket for their sims.




I understand this point, and I can sympathize to a degree. But all those L$ will be woth nothing if LL folds up shop. And, granted this is a worst-case scenario but, if landowners start cashing out and leaving, the L$ will plummet even harder as noone will actually BUY the L$ they're selling. If things get too bad, LL will probabaly just close the exchange.

Comming back from the chicken-little routine, since people do not have a steady source of income in SL, I just see removing the stipend as more than likely to case MORE problems than it would solve.



THough I think removing the stipend is a potentially catastrophic decision, replacing it with a way to actually EARN L$ or scale how it is paid out, would be acceptable.

1. Maybe scale how much a person gets depending on time on-line.

2. Though Camping chairs are an eyesore, maybe a pay-out for frequenting establishments?

3. Greeter/Mentor/Help bonuses. (If these aren't alread in place)

etc. This is SecondLIFE, why not have a way to *earn* L$ in a way as ubiquitous as a daily job (though not as boring). Not everyone has the head for building/scripting, or the buisness sence to run a club, or the 'moral ambiquity' to be an escort.

If the worst does happen, honestly I see only one thing keeping the L$ circulating and keeping SL afloat.. Sex. People will spend unbelieveable amounts of $$ for sex and sex services. If you think sex is everywhere now, just wait until it's the only truly profitable enterprise.

What is *cataclysmic* is your "it's ok" contention that the majority of basic accounts have even made 1 purchase of $L.

I could be wrong of course, but I was of the opinion that the benefit of even offering a basic subscription is to entice basic members to at some point upgrade to premium, or to atleast have them from time to time, purchase a few linden from the LindeX.



If they arent considering buying linden, then its safe to say they arent thinking about upgrading to premium. And if they arent doing either, then why even cater to them, or even worry if they eventually leave?

I know this sounds rather harsh, but this is a business LL is running here, not some type of charity entertainment for the downtrodden.

No it'ts hardly safe to say that if they aren't considering buying lindens, then they aren't thinking about upgrading to premium.

To many, premium seems like an "honest" way to get money. Buying lindens seems like a "cheating" way or at least a loser's way.

I know more people who have upgraded to premium than people who have bought lindens.

coco

Cocoanut-

What an excellent point!

CHEATER, TWINK, LOSER ... are just a few words I hear used to describing people that buy game money and items with 'outside' money (on most MMO's other than SecondLife.)

Particularly in PvP, where it should be a contest of skill, not who can waste the most money on their characters.

For a very long time I felt that way about SecondLife... that buying L$'s meant giving in to being lazy and impatient.

A particularly desperate land deal pushed me hard enough to finally make my first L$ purchase though. Since then... I'm more okay with letting my RL bankroll my SL. Far far easier and time efficient this way than the other way around.


--
Multiversal

So youre saying residents currently on basic memberships would rather spend $10.00 to receive $L2,000 than buy $10.00 worth of linden on the LindeX and receive $L2,800, simply to avoid being labeled a cheater or a loser?

I would think they are currently on basic because they are financially prudent.

That's not very prudent is it?

They deserve a lot more credit than you're giving them .

Personally, I don't give a damn whether stipends are eliminated or not. If SL wants to subsidize new accounts, fine.

However, it appears the cost of the stipends are being passed on in the form of tier, which is SL's only real source of income. I think that is the real complaint. Not fine.

It is a bit frustrating to see all the "you can make money in SL" hype, when in actuality, making money off SL is harder than making money in the rest of the virtual world. This is mainly because of the usurous cost of tier. Flat-rate taxes strangle a business at its inception.

If someone can come up with a better solution, fine. But at the moment the best way to make money is acquire a whole load of credit card numbers, start hoarding stipend, playing free slots and camping out. It should be obvious that isn't likely to go anywhere.

Because they're serving as "extras" in the movie of your second life, and doing it for 20c a week.

That's WAY below actor's guild rates!

To some people I know, the only "honest" way to get money is by selling stuff. Buying it on Lindex or premium is 'losing'. Even being an escort is considered a higher calling.

That's silly, yes, but so is any other "this is the only honest way to get money". So going premium is purely an economic decision.

Going to premium would mean spending more money to get the same Lindens, and spending more money to get lower quality land, or spending WAY more money to get in on the good land in SL. No thanks.

I think you may have misunderstood me. It's my contention that only a minority of basic account holders have *ever* purchased L$. And I freely admit that the majority of my observations are based on this. I'm not saying that's OK, just that I think the majority of SL's population has no interest in paying into SL more than their sign-up fee (If they even paid that.)

If it turns out the majority of basic account holders HAVE paid into SL for more L$, then I will agree that eliminating the stipend *may* have beneficial results. Including, but not limited to, higher Premium enrollment, and more purchases of L$.

Well, first off, "they" was "me."

Secondly, yes, I am saying that - many would would rather go to premium than to buy Lindens - but not to avoid "being labeled." To avoid thinking of themselves that way.

It's a sort of game in itself to see how much fun you can have without paying for premium or buying Lindens.

Then, too, people know who they are buying the Lindens from - other players. A lot of them would much rather give their money directly to LL.

coco