Stipends and Economy

music, there is obviously a lot we can expect from SL that you don't have in RL... here people get to play architect, fashion designer, runway model, mr. universe, airplane fighter pilot, etc etc. You get to interact with cool, interesting people from around the world.

What you cannot get away from are the basic rules that Gabrielle presented. She boiled it down to brass tacks -- those four options really are, at this stage in Second Life's lifecycle, your options.

Like anything in life, if it stops being enjoyable then why do it unless you really really have to? And there is NOTHING in or about Second Life that is "really really have to".

So far LL's business model has been working pretty well, despite some doomsdayers and skeptics. LL doesn't do everything right, but they've done enough right, and that counts for a lot. One big test will be to see how the new currency exchange LL releases plays out. Another will be how quickly they can advance the technology over the next year or two so that the platform is really ready for the mass market.

What I wonder is what is someone to do if they put their all into creating something, they work on textures, they come up with something they think is really good, they market it, they even spend a little to have it listed and also spend a little to rent space in a shop and nobody thinks what you made is worth buying...then what? It's all well and good to expect people to create content and contribute, but what about those that simply do not have the creativity or talent to do so? If this is a premium member and the stipends for them are removed at some point do they deserve to go from people who are trying to contribute content who had a way of getting $L (stipend) to not having any $L simply because they don't want to buy the $L they were previously receiving as a part of their monthly fees and because they don't have the talent/creativity to compete?

Okay, so Linden Labs was giving you money for a monthly fee of $9.95/ month? Did you know that if you went on GOM today you could have bought $L2845 for $9.95 from other residents today. That is right, not only are you getting more money than you would get for the entire month, but you are getting it today!

What is that someone in the back there said? They paid $72 up front for the year. Let us go to GOM again, and buy $L 20584 that I can have for my Avatar today for $72. True, you could of had $L 26000 by the end of the year, but instead of throwing that $L20000 away in the casinos, let us use some of that money to rent a store and make something that makes $L115 / week. That is right, let us make something cheap that only sells 4 times a month and suddenly we have the same money for the same amount of $US paid to Linden Labs.

People are not hopeless without stipends. People just don't realize that the stipends are just a way of choosing to pay LL for your money rather than paying residents. If SL got rid of stipends, they would just be forcing you to pay residents for the money. They wouldn't be forcing you to not have money.

There are three benefits I see to stipends. They can stabilize the price of the $L if changed at the right times, they promote growth from people that want to game SL, and they give money to the company that keeps SL up and running. No resident NEEDS these stipends though. You can exist just as easily without them. Stipends that you don't pay for, are basically free lunches. In the end the growth they cause won't be needed, and I would hope at that time they would all be ended just like the rating bonus is being ended.

music, no one is guaranteed anything. SL may be fantasy land, but not in that way. You can't control customers or a market. You are still dealing with human beings on both sides -- those who are trying to create and sell, and those who are judging with their feet and their dollars.

SL may allow you to play at architect or designer, but it isn't going to automatically transform someone into a brilliant one. That takes time and energy (and a little talent helps but hard work can compensate for lack of talent). Even Michelangelo had to learn to draw.

Then you also have to figure out the whole consumer marketing side of things... figure out what people might want, create it, and then someone let them know that you are offering it.

Some people pull it off really well, some people muddle through, and some people fail entirely. But that is life.

To succeed, you have to be willing to fail.

When you try to force fairness, force success, everything boils down to the lowest common denominator. People were quite enamored with Marxism but the theory just doesn't work when faced with humanity.

[P.S. you asked "then what?" At that point, everyone has to answer one question: quit or try again? Quitting can mean "create for fun but not business", or "remain in SL having fun as a consumer". Quitting could even mean leaving SL entirely. Trying again means risking another failure, but hopefully applying lessons learned from the first time around.

There is no right answer. Not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, and we all have to choose a path that makes us happy. Those who would judge another's decision to stop or continue forward... well, they'd be judgemental fools]

Either try again or give up. Most times I hear/read about successful entrepreneurs though, they have a string of failures behind them. And plenty of people now have the motto: "Fail early and often" (I'm not sure who's originally credited with that line though). As far as I'm concerned, SL is a great place to learn RW concepts and people should take advantage of it. If you don't want to do that, then read my next comment.



You've raised this issue before. I answered your post then - giving an example of a job that seemed to match what you apparently wanted to do in SL: socialize. Did you not read my suggestion? Did you dismiss it out-of-hand? If so, why? And I've made other suggestions for ways to put money in your pockets, but I don't see you or anyone else championing those kinds of options (btw, I don't share your concerns, so I'm not interesting in championing those ideas). In fact, I haven't even seen you comment on them. Have you? And if not, then why not? Why not have a constructive exchange of ideas instead of what we've been getting over and over for days: posts that sound to me like people asking for a hand-out?



Speculation... that once again apparently focuses on the negative part of that neutral response to your Hotline question. Why the fixation on the negative? I could just as easily posit: What if this is a premium member and the stipends for them are raised at some point....

Having read what amount to the same comments again and again (even though people are answering them), and given your fixation on the negative downsides of what are often neutral issues, I can't help but think that either you're not comprehending the responses you're getting from people, or you don't want to hear their answers and prefer to remain negative. I hope it's the former.

Okay I have a question for those who want higher stipends-

How much Should it be?

I had a friend whose father was a multi millionaire, and whose advice was "If you've not been bankrupt twice before you're thirty, you're not really trying".

This boy remembered gaining and losing the Rolls Royce three times during his childhood. And fondly remembers routinely changing gear in the land rover for his dad at the age of eight, because his father had lost one arm, and the vehicle had a manual gearbox. Illegal, of course, but exciting and fun, and probably not dangerous at all.

Nope, I won't post on topic here again. I don't know why the rest of you are bothering flogging this dead horse. Below a certain miminum level of economic understanding, discussion is completely pointless. Sorry to sound superior, but economics is not easy. What is easy is to get completely the wrong end of the stick. The thing is not to cling to it with your ears tight shut. These endless proposals to flood the world with newly created Lindens, for instance, without any comprehension of the implications, and despite repeated explanations, are really not worth bothering with.

Gee, I'm nasty today. Don't know why................

Csven, honestly, can you post a link to your response that I didn't even comment on because I got busy for a few days and lost track of this thread and only read the most recent page or two...

As for my negativity....I just see a trend and can't see why it would change. Perhaps teaching in a low economic area where I see a lot of downward trends has turned me into a pessimist.

and I'm not looking for your repeated take on things I'm looking to see what OTHER PEOPLE have to say about it. I'm looking for several different points of view. Basically if I don't post a refute, I probably agree Is there anything wrong with fishing a little to see who supports my ideas so that if this change ends up imminent I know who will support me in the fight to stop it?

Wow, I cannot believe I just sat down and read all of this.

I think most people here are missing the point. LL did not create the Linden to RL currency exchange rate, that's created and maintained by market values. The rate is determined by how much people are willing to pay for the Lindens put out on the market. With that being said . . .

All LL can do to influence this is change the rate at which new Lindens are being created, and to whom, and change the sinks (places it's being taken out of the market).

It seems there are two groups, the creators and the consumers. Ideally in a perfect world they will each have equal share in the new Lindens being created (as creators are consumers too for other things). This cannot work however as LL needs to have lots of little things to encourage people to PAY THEM so they can stay in business. If the ratings are unfair. Get rid of them, though personally I see other options (maybe have it cap off at an arbitrary value and each rating "expire" after a certain amount of time, but that's not up to me to decide). I LIKE the fact that good behavior is rewarded, but again, that's not for us to decide.

If LL changed the stipends to 10$L a week for people, the market would just change accordingly, though those "pioneers" would have a good advantage for a while as they would have some hoarded lindens. I guess my point to all this is that a.) it's not our decision, b.) there are many factors that go into these decisions that we do not know the values of, and c.) In an open market, it WILL stabilize no matter WHAT LL does.

The crux of the issue is that there are two basic philisopical view points on SL with variations, that are not entirely compatible.

On one hand you have the Business Group.

Then tend to View SL as an opertunity to build content and possibly make some RL$ off it if they are inventive enough. L$ is a comodity and L$=RL$. Some of them may use the L$ to suplement RL incomes or even as a major source of income.


On the other hand you have the Relaxers Group.

Quite often these are the 9-5ers of RL, some stuck in dead end jobs some not. For the most part, SL is an escape where they can forget about having to earn thier keep, relax, and enjoy socializing in a platform thats less restrictive then RL. For some it is even a form of therapy to eliminate stress, depression or even introversion. SL is even being used experimentaly for just these sorts of things. To the L$ isn't a comodity at all, but is a method within the platform by which enjoyment or therapy can be achived.


So who is right and who is wrong?

Far as I can tell neither is right nor wrong, and there is some mixing between the two.

The issue is that changes since January have been supporting the comodities folks over the relaxing folk. Whether they work or not remains to be seen and is a different issue, but it boils down to that the Relaxing group has lost out in the end, and has'nt seen what they once had, replaced with something else. They've been losing one of the methods of relaxing, therapy, etc...

They are slowly being driven towards the business encomomy, which they don't even want to be bothered about, because that sort of economy is what they are trying to get away from in the first place. Even if they produce content in game and sell it, the L$ they earn has a totaly different value to them that has so basis in RL economy.

Because the changes have been fairly one sided with reguards to the L$, the relaxers group feels slighted, both the ones that pay monthly and the ones that paid once.

I'm part of this second group, even though I have other avenues of L$ income in the platfrom, the loss of 500 Stipend a week (that i paid for) in January, and the soon the be lost Bonus Stipend impacts me.

I feel slighted, and no amount of asking me not to feel this way is going to change that.

Many others feel slighted, and no amount of asking them to not feel that way is going to change that.

When many people feel a certain way, in this case slighted, it's probably because they have been.

We were asked to adabt once in January, and this didn't work. We're being asked to adabt again, and this time we're saying -wait a second-.

There needs to be a compromize here, such as a many times proposed lesser cost Stipend only account, or some other solution that yeilds the same results, that allows us to not be burdened by the economic environment as much as we have been since January.

We're wonding why it's so dificult for the other group, for a change, to be asked to consider adabting to something for us...

***sigh***

Buying $L yields the exact same result. Perhaps a reading comprehension class would be money better spent though.

You replied to my post. You just didn't respond to the suggestion. Here's the page that has the response to which I'm referring: link



Perhaps the broken Ratings Bonus system has spoiled older members with undeserved wealth?



By the logic that if you don't refute something then I should assume you agree, I'd not now expect to be posting a link to the suggestion I made, no?

How much do you feel you should be getting in stipend?

To Me it reads as if you want $1000 a week plus Bonus,

becuase (paraphrasing) "that was the deal agreed to"

{emphasis mine}

This sounds like a "shopping is therapy" explanation. To be honest, I find this to be extremely disheartening. That people are unable to socialize without the need to acquire stuff is a sad commentary on what are apparently the things in RL that matter to people.



And prior to January they were making out like bandits by exploiting the Rating Bonus system - and continuing to reap the benefits of that system only until recently. In fact, isn't this system partially responsible for the declining value of the Linden? Too many "sources" creating Lindens?

Just like any situation that's exploited; just like how we waste oil resources in the U.S. - no one wants to deal with the eventual correction that has to occur.



Except that when they need to shop to relax they are in actuality volunteering to participate in a business economy. No one is forcing anyone to buy things. Many suggestions have been to stay away from the business economy - yet the complainers will hear nothing of it. They desperately want to shop. Odd.



Slighted perhaps because they don't like having the system which benefitted them for so long being corrected. If I had gotten in on the Rating Bonus boondoggle, I might complain too.



Personally, I think the Stipend reduction is a separate issue and one worth raising. Consequently, afaic, by wrapping the two together you mix the good with the bad. The Ratings Bonus was broken. We all know that. My advice is to forget it. The Stipend reduction otoh...



Or because they lived in a privileged system that didn't require them to understand those things which are now coming back to bite them in the...



I'm not selling anything. So why am I not arguing for your position? Maybe because I came in too late to get the benefits of the Ratings Game. Maybe because I've found that I don't need to shop to socialize. Maybe because being on the outside of that Bonus Boondoggle, I see how the overflowing source of Lindens that kept some people spending happily has caused the Linden to fall in value (meaning the couple of times I bought Lindens via GOM, I bought them at a high price and they have since lost their value partially bc people were happily sucking up Lindens from their broken Ratings Bonus). Personally, I view what happened with the broken decay system as costing me money - and that money went into the pockets of the shopping addicts first.

It makes sound finanical decision for LL to reinstate the $1000 stipend from its current $500


It really makes good sense to -
Pay them $4000 (16ish USD$) a month.
PLUS let them hold 512 M2 of land.

All for the price of 10$(or 6) US a month.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually they could reinistate the Stipend all they need to do is devalue the linden quite a bit - I think it would fairly nice around 1$ for 1000L. Then youd only get $4 US worth of Lindens and be able to hold 512M of land for the price of 10(or 6) USD.

Well, afaik the issue with the Stipend is that it's part of the deal when people buy in. That the Linden's made it part of the offer is really their issue (imo they really should have done something they could honestly modify instead of promising that set amount to start with). But as you said, they could (and probably would) devalue the Linden to compensate for this apparently over-zealous offer. Plus, they could convert the promise/contract of stipends into lifetime landowner options - which could be nothing more than a single 512. Over time this makes more sense imo. But why the complainers tie that issue to the Bonus is beyond me.

Thats actually another good idea, even though I wouldn't be intrested in land myself, some probably would be.

Where did I once say 'Reinstate Ratings' in that post, and why do you all keep tossing that back out there, when it's suggested something else be done anyway?

You're idea about the Land is something of the Vein of idea's many of us were posting. Not a bad idea at that either.

I'm pointing out that we lost that deal, and nothing has been offered in return. That's where I this has gotten off balance. You can read more into it if you want, but thats not what i've been saying lately.

I've said twice before a lower rate account with just the same Stipend full accounts get, but without land rights might be one option.

Csven Concord's suggested another option that might also work.

[Edit]

If some other option can be found that a majoority of people can appreciate if not outright be fond of, then maybe Linden Labs can be conviced to implement such a thing.

Csven may have another point, a subject replacing the lost fixed stipends with something else may be better servered on another thread, as people seem to keep going back to this being a Bonus issue here.

It has been forwarded that the $1000 Stipend be reinstated both to

-offset the loss cuased by removing ratings bonus
-fufill some Linden "Promise"

Personally I think the Stipend should be lowered to somewhere less than $1500 L a month since that what $6 will buy you.

Its insane to hold them to a $1000 guranteed stipend.

What if they Linden were someday to aproach $100 L for $1000 USD?

You could then make $400 USD a month for your premium account by simply paying in $10 USD.

Heck get 10 premium accounts and you wouldnt need a RL job.

Second Life - It pays more than Welfare! - could be the selling feature.

Is this what you're talking about? How would one go about doing that? I certainly havn't seen a lot of offers for that form of work. It depends on the conditions...ie. time commitment, required number of referrals, etc. Could work though.



Well as I have since January only received about $138L/wk in rating bonuses I know I'm not one of them. I honestly have no problem with the rating bonuses being eliminated. But seeing another cut has me thinking very pessimistically about the future especially since many in the business class is calling for exactly that to keep the value of their $L up.




Now you're just being a nit-pick.....I don't play word games so don't look for them in my messages. I, as you see above, do for the most part agree with that...if I posted the question again it's because I'd like to see some other suggestions besides being a walking advertisement. And when I say socialize, I don't go clubbing, or to parties, or anywhere that has a lot of people, I socialize with my small circle of friends and I already do show off the cool things I find and provide landmarks to anyone interested. Not sure I could talk the creators in to paying me for that though.

Now that I look at this you're helping me to show my earlier statement that there are two different point of view on Lindens and the economy.

Many other see Lindens as a function of the service, of no intristic value other then that. (this is not ment to be offencive at all)

Linden Labs choses to make adjustments to support the L$ to RL$ rates.

All i'm saying is if this adjusment causes Xpercentage of people some functional loss of the service, they should look at something else to fill the gap they are leaveing, so to speak.

I don't think that's a lot to ask. It's not necisarlily asking for a fix stipend account, though that might be one opetion, nor asking for a one time land grant or linden grant, alothough those might be options also.

I'm fishing for idea's we could as a community go to Linden Labs and say, "What about trying this? Or this?"

You are not getting less than you deserve from LL. Should they be paying you real life money by doubling your stipend. You do realize that you would make real life money based on the number of alts you could own for a short period of time, right? In the long run, this doesn't work though. The $L would more than half in price, and you are left making the same amount of money even though the number of $L you got has doubled. In other words you have made money just for being in the right place at the right time at the expense of a down spiraling economy.

It sounds like these changes impact you, because you would rather not have to buy $L from other residents! Every dollar you get from Linden Labs is a dollar you didn't have to get from a resident. You are asking some of the resident creators of SL, including the content creators, to have less people compensate them if you want LL to hand out more currency than is neccesary to balance things out. Suck it up, and start paying your $10 a month into the market of $L owned by residents. You will have the same money, and some of it will go to the people that make things you like.

I love these games: And where did I say that you said 'Reinstate Ratings'? I suspect you read something into my comment that wasn't intended.

imo the "offset" issue is worthless and people using that as an excuse just confuses the issue.

However, if someone gets a Premium account and it says that included with the account is a specific, weekly stipend, then when LL drops the stipend there is imo an issue worth discussing at that point.



It is? I'd take the other position and say that perhaps it's insane to offer that kind of stipend in the first place. After all, it winds up potentially forcing LL's hand - they have good reason to mint more Lindens if someone holds them to their Pricing schedule. There's what appears to be an inherent conflict of interest in this scheme. Even now they continue to make similar promises... ref: Pricing Page ... with no caveat for the valuation of the Linden. Whether L$500 or L$1000, the issue remains. That part of the offer should be reworked as far as I'm concerned. What IF the Linden were to someday approach L$100 for US$100. Same issue regardless of the number.



Which is why LL leaving it the way it is baffles me. Don't blame the buyer for this one.