Stipends and Economy

How exactly does GOM work? Does GOM buy $L from people and then GOM sells them back to other people or do people buy directly from people through GOM? If that is the case what guarantee do you have that you'll actually get the $US for your $L (other than it seems to be in demand)

Csven - when it comes to the negative belief that if a change is to made to stipends it will be a reduction, it's only because the economy has shown no signs of improving to the point where an increase would be helpful and every change made within the last year or longer has been to remove/reduce sources. If there was ever an indication that things might turn in favor of increasing sources then I'm sure people would stop thinking negatively about it. Do you have any reason to believe that there would be a reason to increase sources besides your eternal optimism? (no sarcasm intended - I envy your optimism)

When I first started SL there where three accounts with three fixed stipends. Below details where they started when i first paid, and where they are heading to.

Trial 50/wk Stipend
Basic $9.95 once, 550/wk Stipend
Full $9.95 Land rights + 1550/wk Stipend + Land Dwell Bonus

Last January this changed to
Trial 50/wk Stipend
Basic $9.95 once, 50/wk Stipend + (still included a ratings stipend)
Full $9.95 Land rights + 1050/wk Stipend + (still included a ratings stipend)

And now the New Changes phasing in over next few weeks
Trial/Basic 50/wk Stipend
Full $9.95 Land rights + 550/wk Stipend

If I'm not mistaken GOM is basically a service that puts residents in contact to exchange currency, and nothing more. Those who have Lindens for sale post notice of this. Those looking to buy at a certain rate, post notice of that. GOM only makes money in the fee they get for facilitating transactions I believe. Heck, they could just as easily be a matchmaking service.



I'd suggest you are once again mistaken. I'm neither pessimistic nor optimistic. I'm neutral. I simply don't make assumptions based on vague comments and then treat them as facts in the way I'm seeing people do in this discussion. If I (or perhaps anyone) moves away from a neutral positon, there's a higher likelihood imo that reasoning will be clouded by emotion. When that happens worthwhile solutions are often less clear; answers that don't fit the assumption less easily comprehended. I don't know if the stiped will go up or down. And Robin's response gave no indication of whether it would; she only said it could be adjusted. It's a non-answer and should only raise the issue of how LL deals with stipends in general. Nothing more.

Darm is this written anywhere? There was no Trial account that paid $50L a week...the trial was free and only lasted a week, I'm not sure if it came with any $L or not. I don't think I got any $L except for the $L I got from the parrot in the training area. I did get $2000 when I switched over to a premium account. I'm pretty sure I've only received $500L a week as my base stipend. I at one time recieved up to $1700L/week because of ratings, but the rating decay has diminished that down to $38L and it will diminish further yet once the new changes have taken place. (no I didn't go to rating parties, a group of friends from another game that closed down all came here and we all rated eachother and I made it a practice to rate anyone who was polite to me in game and they usually rated back....in my case ratings I earned and gave were all deserved so it's a real shame that the abusers of this system have caused it to go bye bye) What I do know for sure is that I have not been recieving $1050/wk for a base stipend since January.

Csven - it may not be based on facts, but my statements have been based on Trends that I have not seen any indication of changing. Thank you for clarifying the GOM for me.

The reason I asked is because I do not believe exchanging real currency is a fair comparison to exchanging $L for $US because when you take real currency to the bank you are guaranteed to get the $US for it as long as that bank has a policy that allows for the exchange. When exchanging $L there has to be a demand for it and someone to buy it in order to get the $US, so far not really a problem, but if players ever stopped wanting to buy $L, everyone else's $L would be worthless play money. Basically $L only have RL value as long as players want to purchase $L for in world use. I've personally never purchased $L because I make do with what my premium membership includes.

It's safe and works well. The only people you have to trust are GOM.

The seller, whether of US$ or L$, has to pay the full amount of these into GOM before they can sell, or even offer to sell. GOM holds these funds on deposit, ready for a transaction.

A buyer has to do the same. Then, when the system pairs up a buyer and seller, if they have said yes, GOM swaps thw currencies over between their two GOM holding accounts. From which each can then withdraw the result.

GOM never buys or sells currency from its customers, or holds any for its own account. It just holds onto clients money for them until their trade with another client is made. GOM charges a %fee. It makes no profit or loss as the price goes up and down. It just passively watches it happen.

So everything is pre-paid, mR, and no buyer/seller can let you down. It works just fine. The realworld online exchanges and trading sites on which it is modelled work the same way. Except their "GOM" account may allow credit, which GOM certainly does not.

You can probably check your account Transactions
from the website and look around the date you
were born, and get a list of all incoming money.
That might help.




If the bank believed the yen had no value (like a rock)
then they would not take yen. The bank will only have
a "policy" of taking yen as long as they see/feel it has
value. Yen only have value if other people believe they
have value. If no other person in the world wanted yen,
then I'm quite sure the bank would not want them either.

My point is... that it is the demand coming from other
people who want yen, that gives a reason the bank
will take it.



Right. In just the same way there has to be a demand
for yen stated above.



Right. In just the same way that if no one else wanted yen
then all yen would be worthless.



Right. In just the same way that yen only have RL value
as long as people want them (accepting it as a form of
payment, or able to use yen themselves in some way)



Well, that depends on how you look at it....
You give LL $US and they give you some $L
(along with access to SL).


My assertion that $L is just like yen is still valid.
The fact is, that as long as the country of SecondLife
exists in the form it has since the beginning, then
people will desire $L, and that immediately gives
$L an intrinsic value that people are willing to
exchange $US for.

The exchange rate will vary, but so does the exchange
rate of yen.

Hope that helps

Gabrielle

Trends, by definition, do change. I've seen posts in these threads that point out that the removal of unwarrented rating's bonuses (a "source" flooding the currency market and contributing to the drop in currency value) are one possible indication of a change in this trend. And anyway, as been said more than once: it's not the number of Lindens, it' their relative value. If L$500 buys more than L$1000, I'm happy. Some of us keep pointing this out, but I don't recall seeing anyone who's focused on the size of the number responding to that point.

Exactly. Which is exactly what is happening in RL and why the U.S. is thankful that the Chinese still buy our notes. If they stop or decide to sell them off, there's been some concern about what this might do to the U.S. economy (much of it not good). And this concept applies to money, as well as other things with no "intrinsic" value: concert tickets, collector baseball cards, art, non-functioning antiques, aso. All those things only have the value we assign to them. I can't eat a beautiful still life if I'm starving and at that point it's value - whatever some auction house sets it at - is Zero to me.

Truth is, we crossed over into "virtual" territory a very long time ago. The biggest problem afaic is that people just don't realize it.

I laugh at myself posting this and it's totally smart ass so ignore me completely, but...

I give Parker Bros. $US and they give me a whole bunch of colorful money along with my monopoly game....does this mean it has RL value??



Thanks, I didn't even know about that feature, unfortunately it doesn't go any earlier than August 13th 05....I need Feb 04

Csven...they think that removing the bonus's will make our $L purchase more in world...ie stop inflation...however, it is up to the content creators to actually lower their prices. Do you think that if they figure out they can make even more RL$$ by leaving their prices the same as the value of the $L goes up that they will lower them?? SL inflation is a problem I do not think can be fixed. In RL there are laws agains price gouging to keep the economy as stable as possible, no such laws in SL. Then again nobody in SL has necessities. The trend that I do not want to see continue is the trend of removing sources from people who do not have businesses. Most of us believe that a portion of our monthly payment funds our stipend so please don't start preaching money for nothing.

As the sources of $L into SL start diminishing content creators will have basically 2 choices (that I can think of)

1. Lower prices in order to stay in business

2. Cash out...why bother if I'm not going to make even more of a profit.

Like I've said before the pevious source cuts (removal of even support, rating decay) and increasing the sinks (increasing the ammount to pay for ratings) have not cause a stop to inflation why believe that futher source cuts would. now to the topic..I agree with the removal of rating bonuses because for the most part the ratings don't mean anything....I do not agree that it will "stabilize the economy" as the lindens hope. I will be happily surprised if it does though

I think that the people who buy products will force sellers into resettling prices to where people want them. The tone of much of what I read here is that content creators and landbaron's control the prices when that's not entirely true. Buyers also control the prices. So basically stop buying (if you can) and watch the prices drop. Maybe that will bring in more 3rd world content creators. It'll be just like RL then!



You have a right to your opinion of course, but I hate to now be the pessimist, because anyone who thinks RL companies engaged in price gouging are running an unnecessary risk needs to look again. Many laws carry penalties that are so out of whack with the damage done they're laughable. I don't know the details wrt price gouging, but I suspect there will be little significant fallout over, for example, what may be gouging at the gas pump. Corporations break laws left and right. If the rewards far outweigh the risks, watch them gamble.



Cash out of SL. I'd point out that we're about to see the birth of some very interesting virtual markets in the coming months. I've posted in the forum about this issue because I suspect SL will lose creators to these new markets regardless of what happens to the Linden.



Well that's simple, the only real issue is event support. Rating's decay was broken until only very recently (a week or two ago?) and ratings costs are only a sink if people use them... take a look at my ratings to see if I'm getting Pos rated for doing things like helping strangers with video problems (see Technical Issues). I'd venture people have basically stopped using the ratings system and the broken decay meant that the one's used to using it didn't really care since their benefits kept coming anyway. Not much of a "sink" then, is it?

So realistically you're expecting something you shouldn't be expecting imo.



I don't recall either the Lindens or anyone else claiming removal of the ratings bonus would "stabilize the economy". If you have a link or a full quote with a name please post that. Personally, I don't believe it will. I believe it will help. Big difference between helping and doing it all by itself.

heehee....
Seems like a pretty silly question, you're right
But actually it's very valid!

The fact is the answer is "probably yes!"
However, $1 Monopoly money is a FAR FAR cry from
$1 US. But this doesn't make it "worthless". Remember,
L$1 is a far cry from US$1 also.... it takes about 285
Linden Dollars to be equal to 1 US dollar (at the moment).
While the exchange rate of Monopoly money is about
$1,000,000,000,000 to US$1
It DOES seem rediculous, but the fact is, that once you
own that many Monopoly dollars you can try to sell them
at a yard sale. As long as ONE person is willing to pay $1
then it DOES have value. Most likely, if you were to sell
all that Monopoly money along with the game board you'd
get a much better exchange rate.... and if it was still
shrinkwrapped you might even be able to get close to
your original $10 for it. When I was a kid I loved to
play with money, and toy stores sell packets of "play money".
There's no reason you could not trade your Monopoly
money to someone who's willing to pay $US.

Don't be blinded by the extreeeeme difference in
exchange rates. Whether it takes L$10 to make
US$1 or it takes L$1,000,000 to make US$1....
as long as people are willing to exchange one for
the other it DOES have value!



Perhaps LL has your full history available for DL
somewhere. I KNOW (99%) they keep that info
forever.




This is actually a very fundamental principle of economics,
but you seem to be honestly interested in learning, so I'll
take the time to make some points.

It should be fairly obvious the (biz) content creators
are interested in making money, right?

It should be fairly obvious that the less $L gives out to
people then the less most people will start to have, right?

If many people have only L$50, and Joe Seller wants to
sell his item and make ANY profit, then Joe will HAVE
to reduce his price from some high amount to some
low amount that people can afford. Do you agree?

It's not that the content creators need to be forced
to lower prices... they will automatically start to do
that, as the gradually see their sales continue to decline.

Competition also helps to ensure this when Jane Seller
decides her skins are no longer selling at L$4000, and
she reduces her price to L$500, then (if her skins are
comparable to Joe's) more people buy her skins, and
she makes money. Less people buy Joe's skin and he
makes little to no money.

At this point Joe will make a decission... do I continue
trying to sell at this price and make nearly no sales, or
do I reduce my prices near Jane's L$500 and then more
people buy again, or, will I not be making enough $$
to make it worth the time, and close the biz?




You're right. They will WANT to keep their prices just as
high, so they can profit from the same amount of $L
at a higher rate.

However, as we saw above... if Joe is trying to sell his skin
at the high rate of L$4000 and most people only have L$50,
and no one can afford the skin..... Joe will have to lower
his price if he wants to make any sales... More directly...
do you know anyone who would pay L$4000 for a skin
when they only have L$50? (It's a trick question - no one
could buy it for $4000 if they only had $50 )



I hope I just showed a way that it would fix itself
even as LL reduced the amount of $L handed out.
If you don't agree please post reasons why not.




Is there a difference in 1 pipeline feeding you L$20
or 20 pipelines feeding you L$1 each? You end up
with L$20 either way. I don't think you are really
worried about the NUMBER of sources... I think you
are (validly) worried about how many $L you get
for your $US, right?





You mention "source reduction" several more times, but
I'm going to assume you really mean $L reduction, as
per my statement above (hope you don't mind).

And so, the answer to this is "correct",
in which case you've answered your own question about
this topic at the top of the post.




Perhaps prices (of some things) continue to rise because
people are willing to pay more? This is not inflation.
If I make computers and sell a LOT of them for $10 each
that's great. If I raise (inflate?) my price to $100 and
still sell a lot which brings more money than before, then
that's even better! If I raise (inflate?) my price to $1000
and sell quite a few less, but I end up with even more
money, then I will...

You might see the price continue to go up and call that
inflation? But it's not. Inflation is where the price of
most everything goes up because the $$ has less value.

Finally, if I raise my price to $10,000 and don't sell hardly
any, and so make a lot less money, then I will reduce
my price.... in the end, the price is determined by finding
that spot where the seller makes the most money.

I wanted to make SURE I made that point, incase you
had not thought about that.... perhaps skin prices are
rising because sellers CAN raise the price and people
still buy more?

However, I do agree we have inflation here in SL right
now. But, as I showed at the first of the post... if
LL cut out ALL your stipends and people had less
money to buy things with.. then the price WOULD
drop. So, it should be obvious that if the current
cuts have not been effective, then more cuts are needed.





But hopefully I've shown you that if you have
less money, and the sellers want to sell, they
will need to reduce prices, and we'll have deflation,
right?

Gabrielle

ps GOOD GRIEF this is a long post!
I hope you do benifit from it and my
time wasn't wasted

for the peples that argue about the price of sl, hell stop hiding, you all have internet to pretend to come here and are all supposed to have a job or are in age to get one, how much cost sl? 2 big mac according to french price, if you are really that tight, just skip two meal a month, i guess EVERYBODY can do that, stop saying sl os "costly" 120$ a year is a drop in the bucket honestly, its 10 bucks a month, if you cant get it and have still the wealth to have internet, you are just a bunch of liars

the real problem is that the economy MUST be fixed in order for the L$ to still be worth of something and the only way to balance the economy is by injecting less (since all users proudly refuse to put money in ANY sinks presented to them)

injecting less mean cutting the free money"

The danger of a reduction in my SL stipend, as a premium member, interests me too. And it HAS happened in the past, perhaps not with the exact values quoted.

Primarily because for me, this is an inflation in Real Money Terms: to get the same amount of Linden as before a possible stipend cut would cost me more USD (or Euro, in my case). Same product, higher price - inflation of the cost of SL.

Having watched economists on a national level struggling to define inflation, and seeing terms like "cost of living index" etc coming out of that, I feel it is important to see just WHAT inflation IS in SL.

It is not the exchange rate USD/Linden$, this is revaluation/devaluation, and based on the USD Value of the purchaseables in the game as whole (demand side), as represented in Linden $, and perceived by the posessers of USD who want Linden $, plus the number of Linden $ that have become surplus to the sellers in game (supply side).

Inflation, as has been pointed out in posts above, is how much more or less in general the Linden $ buys in game.

To ONLY base this on land prices, is a simplifying tactic, but for expansion, land is released by the same people who release fresh Linden $ into the game, Linden Labs. So the price of land could be "manipulated", and is not stable as an indicator of the value of Linden$.

If you take a typical standardised "basket of goods", and its average cost in SL, you get a more precise indicator of the value of the Linden $ in world, but this is more of a "cost of living" indicator.

With a lot of creators getting VERY good, and not cranking up prices proportionately to match the new levels of quality, the same quality of goods is getting cheaper - deflation...

Cranking around on the money supply to regulate the external exchange rate seems to me to be kicking the tyres when the car/auto won't start.

Although the apparency is, too many Linden$ on the market means too much money in the game, = inflation; reduce that, and the price of Linden $ goes up, I feel this may also come from the greater quantity of quality, in demand goods coming from a few playerss, and their need to get rid of their Linden $.

In other words, most players have barely enough Linden $, and cut costs (like I do - save save save, then lose interest in what I wanted in the first place, and buy something really expensive), and a few really hot producers have money to burn in game, and are getting rid of it. A thorough analysis of the transactions to GOM et al would probably show if this is the typical "monopolist" (don't take it serously, I just mean in terms of concentration of turnover) story, where most of the money in commerce lands up in very few hands, or whether in fact there is too much money floating around in SL itself, which would be inflation for me.

My perception is that prices are stable, so aside from the unfairness of the old ratings system, no currency adjustments are necessary.

The USD /Linden $ exchange rate is not, in my opinion, caused by money supply IN GAME, but Money Concentration in a Few Choice Hands, IN GAME, in other words, a point wise excess of Linden $, not a game wide surplus of Linden $.

PS: as a suggestion for an EFFECTIVE Linden$ sink in game, make it possible to pay Tier in Linden $. That would take a LOT of the Linden$ traffic out of the external markets, and remove one misleading source of "inflation", since the "need" to sell Linden $ to pay tier pushes down the value of the Linden $.

Gabrielle - thanks..I'll have to re-read that when I've had more than 5 hours sleep...much of it makes sense and thanks for not jumping all over my monopoly comment.

Csven - this entire thread where LL announces the stipend cut is all about how removing $L from circulation will, to use your word, help stabilize the economy...but my goodness you like to nitpick words!

/3/be/59782/1.html

If only the thread had been about one clear thing like that, mR. It has also been about the very real ratings bonus cut (and whether it is fair as between residents). And about a possible main stipend cut which is pure conjecture. These three have been muddled and mixed together - to the general confusion.

Ellie, I think what has happened, and I am guilty of it as I immediately posted a hotline topic about it, is that people saw that the ratings bonuses were going and panicked and wondered what would be taken away next. I think that if the ratings had been used for the reason they origionally existed for that the bonuses were perfectly fair. After-all, people who work in a job longer generally get paid more than people who just started. There usually is a pay cap for most professions though, so that eventually everyone is equal in pay, so maybe the idea of a ratings cap would have been a good one.

If this makes no sense I apologize profusely. Havn't been sleeping too well lately and my little inutero is starting to affect my brain. (read Jenny McCarthy's "Belly Laughs" - the chapter called Psycho chick)

{emphasis mine}

No where in there does Philip say this will "stabilize the economy". It's a "significant change" obviously intended to help stabilize it, but as he stated, "The challenge of monetary policy is to periodically review the indicators, and then make changes to the sources and sinks to best adapt to what trends the indicators seem to be suggesting." So this is really only one move in what will be an ongoing effort to maintain stability. This cut is by no means the end of whatever efforts are required (perhaps including raising weekly stipends) to maintain the SL economy.

Also, I don't "like" to nitpick words. I'm careful with words because especially on a forum where there is so little margin for error before people completely misunderstand one another, I find it a necessary and very tedious evil. However, perhaps if more people "nitpicked" words in general, we'd have fewer successful scam artists in RL, fewer people under-insured, fewer people surprised by the laws that govern them, one former Secretary of State not lamenting the WMD blot on his record, and people like Paul Wolfowitz not explaining how President Bush was "technically correct" in his State of the Union when those who didn't nitpick were led to believe something else entirely. Our world is now full of wordsmiths forcing us to "nitpick", and to understand almost anything anymore, we seem to need this skill. I most certainly do not LIKE it.

I'm disappointed to hear you, a teacher, chide someone for simply paying attention to details and I sincerely hope you understand why it's necessary... especially after so many posts that effectively repeat themselves bc some don't pay attention to details.

csven - whether or not the intention is to succeed at stabilizing the economy or help stabilize it is irrelevant...the purpose stated in that post by LL for reducing and removing stipend bonuses is economical rather than because the rating system is not fair. This is why your "attention to detail" is in my view a nit-pick. My point was exactly that....it's a change for the economy rather than one to even out unfair practices.

As for my being a teacher...I deal with a completely different language than english. I do not teach english, my students do not write papers or do math problems, they make music. And because of their age level we do not delve into the detailed world of music we stick to the basic and leave the details to the Middle School and High School levels. You will never see me pick on someone's spelling or grammar because it is not my area of expertise. I do not send anything handwritten home with students because I have atrocious handwriting. I suppose though, if there is any chance of you reading one of my posts I should get out a dictionary, thesaurus, and run a grammar check first. Then have it proofread for any wordings that could have a different meaning than I intend. It's not a chide, it's an observation. Please do not imply that I am a bad teacher because I get irritated with you constantly picking apart the meaning of what I write...As I've said before I do not play word games. As an educator though I do commend you on your strong command of the English language, just be careful not to get down on people who do not have the same experience!

So in response to your attention to detail, I do not think that taking away the rating stipend bonuses will HELP stabilize the economy much at all. And like I've said before....if it does I will be happily surprised.

*quickly re-reads entire post looking for statements that could have an unclear or double meaning*

Actually this really has nothing to do with them being "fair"
or not.

If everyone in SL where to have used the rating system
ONLY to rate people who deserved the rate point, then
that would have been prefered, yes...

But, a year ago it was very cheap to rate people and
high ratings gave a big bonus, so people found ways
to get a lot of $L by spending a little... this turned in
to "rate parties", etc... Even though this is not something
LL wanted done with the rating system is WAS still
fair to all the residents.... each resident spent the same
as everyone else to rate, and each go the same
ratio of return based on their rate points.

What makes it NOT fair, is the fact that costs and
returns have changed. If me and all my friends
got to rate each other at L$10 and made L$20
profit, but you and your friends had to spend L$25
and only got back L$5....

you see the problem

Gabrielle

I agree...
It does seem Philip used words of - economic stabilization -
for reasons as to why Rating Bonuses were being removed,
rather than saying "with the change in price, these are unfair
so we're removing it".... which, personally i think would
have been a better response. i don't know anyone who
could argue that it's not fair, and who would want to stand
against fairness in this matter? (even though I don't believe
everything should be "evenly distributed".. heh)

They could have pointed out the unintended use of
rating parties and said "all ratings will be wiped clear in 7
days", but it seems they've not chosen what is the
"fair" thing to do.




Heehee... maybe you still have not had time to read
my earlier post

If many people are handed out a lot less in Rating Bonuses
every week from here on out, then these people will
have less money (keeping their current habits).

With less handed to them automatically, their demand
will go up, when demand goes up, the value of $L goes
up. This will help bring L$1000 back to around US$4.00
which LL has said repeatedly they want to call "stablized".

Is there something that makes you think it doesn't
work like this?

Gabrielle

I wrote my post in the other thread with my thoughts on both threads so Ill repeat here - is not my intent to spam anyone. Both Threads are of course related.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end - reguardless of the actual exchange rate -

The Value of the Linden Dollar is based on what content providers are willing to provide Quality content for VS. The willingness of Consumers to buy that content.

If they want the content more then they need their RL money they will buy L$ and thus Content providers who are sucessful enough to sell L$ make RL money.

The effect of a rapidly dropping Linden $ is that it makes it difficult for Content providers to get a resaonble (to them) return on their hard work.

By having Linden Labs guarantee the currency at any particular value - could prove prohibitively expensive to them, and theres still no guarantee that consumers will feel that the Lindens are worth what they are being sold for.

I think an Active SLOWLY declining Linden $ would be Preferable to a Stagnant No Change Linden $.

So how do you plan for only Slow inflation? Reduce increases in the Money Supply while encouraging growth of the consumer base.

So LL -

Reduces Total Stipend payouts - Offers Basic Accounts for free

Seems to me Linden Labs Knows what they are doing.

yeah....this is much more simplified than the earlier post. That does make sense for the GOM/IGE value of the $L. The in-world value is what those of us who do not buy $L from players on GOM/IGE and soon to be in-world, are more concerned with. Creators will only lower their prices if people start buying less. The question is, will people start buying less content or start buying more $L? If people start buying more $L then content prices will not go down leaving people like me who cannot afford to buy $L dealing with steady prices of content with less $L and trying to come up with alternative in-world means of getting $L. And for me it's not so much that I can't afford buying a few thousand $L now and then, it's just that I want to keep what SL is to me very clear in my head. Not saying there is anything wrong with the different uses people have found for SL.

As for the ratings...you're absolutely right. And honestly if they had wanted to continue the bonuses for ratings but control how much $L people got for them, they should do like employers do in RL and put a cap on the ammount of ratings you can get while leaving the price of a rating alone. I do believe, however, that had they never paid bonuses for ratings, there would be a lot of content creators out there with less than half what they have now because people who got that $$ from ratings "unfairly" recieved at rating parties would have had a lot less to spend. The value of the $L would be very high because there would be tons less $$ in SL, or....we'd all have bigger stipends, though equally bigger...

OMG!!! I think I may be seeing how this change could work a positve stipend change in the future!!!!! Csven...aren't you proud

My response was addressed to this comment of yours: "I do not agree that it will "stabilize the economy" as the lindens hope." I simply pointed out that your statement did not appear to accurately represent what Philip announced. If your real point was that the change was spurred by economic concerns and not related to fairness, then I'm sorry to say that point was lost on me.



I consider an observation to be stated somewhat more like this: "Well, you do pay close attention to words."

I consider chiding something more like what you said: "but my goodness you like to nitpick words!" ("nitpick" is such an unpleasant word imo - I've never heard it used in a polite manner).

That you apparently don't see the difference, is the cause for my disappointment. Perhaps you might want to rethink what you believe "word games" to be. If you're inferring that I'm playing "word games" then if that means I avoid words with rude associations (e.g. "nitpick" and "word games", I'm happy to continue.

Be that as it may, I hope these back and forths were of some value to you. Unfortunately, the law of diminishing returns overtook me a while back. Time for me to move on.

csven - I'm not implying that you play word games, I'm implying that by your picking apart of my words that you think I do. If nit-pick is offensive to you, I apologize. It's always been used as a silly term in my experience unless you give it it's literal meaning which is to pick lice nits out of one's hair, then definitely negative. I just don't think that "pay close attention to words" accurately describes the petty difference between "stabilize the economy" and "help stabilize the community" when it's clear to me that "Like the Fed, our goal in making such changes is to keep the economy stable and growing." means to stabilize. It may only help stabilize, but I do think that the intention is to achieve a stable economy. Drawing that distinction really does not change the meaning of that statement.

Now that we're way off topic...time to go home.

Well personally I still think the L$ to RL$ could be adjusted to fixed stipends.

My observsions since the Stipend change in January, is that this in not going to work like intended. The problem with trying to limit the amount of L$ in service, is that you also alter the flow L$.

It's a balancing act, and I still think L.Labs is altering the balance to way the other direction. It's going to stifle the flow of L$, which will have more of an impact then people think.

Darm I asked about a base stipend change back in January and got this response...



As I thought I remembered the base stipend has always been the same, it's only the bonuses that have changed.

I also found this in another topic...



That to me sounds like they understand the importance of the base stipend to members and do not want to change it if they can at all help it, judging from the fact that they havn't touched the base stipend since the current membership options were created...chances are very good that they won't unless some major catastrophe happens to destroy the value of the $L. I'm trying to be more optomistic about things...I think it's working a little.

*edit per info. below*