Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

End Stipends Now

Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
06-12-2006 07:29
From: Lina Pussycat
In all honesty all you anti-stipend people are doing really is ruining SL as it is. It is something more then a mere game, social platform, and business platform. It is a world and as such needs to be a mix of the 3.


I think the goal that a lot of people would like is for SL to be a community effort to build a virtual world. Everyone would be able to contribute in some way, and they'd get rewards relative to their contribution.

But unfortunately, capitalism inevitably creates capitalist efficiency. Under capitalist efficiency, in order to build the best possible virtual world, the (possibly few) best builders should do all the building, the (possibly few) best clothing designers should design all the clothes, etc., and everyone else has some US$ so their contribution is to put in the US$ to support it. A heavy-duty capitalist would say that this is exactly right - it's still a community effort, it's just a well-organised community effort where each person does whatever they are best at.

Unfortunately for quite a few people it seems, the definition of "the best possible virtual world" isn't just defined in terms of having the most and best content available - it's defined in terms of their own personal experience. And the experience of being relegated to the role of a relatively passive consumer isn't one that everyone enjoys - some people don't mind, but many dislike it.

Some games manage to avoid this, like A Tale In The Desert, but that does it via things that would be a nightmare in SL. Imagine if the world was only allowed to use torii after 10000 built objects of good quality were handed in at Prim University (but anyone can contribute to the 10000, and everyone gets the torii once it's done). It would be a horrible situation of level-down social engineering. But on the other hand, it would make it in the interest of every builder in SL for everyone else to be a builder capable of building things of good quality, since that way the 10000 would be done faster. During that period, a passive consumer class would be an inefficiency to exist. That's ATITD's effective system and the method by which it makes sure everyone can contribute somehow.

The question is if and how SL can solve this, and if it can't, whether there are sufficient people willing to play pure consumers to support the world.
Hunter Parks
Mr. Morgan
Join date: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 53
06-12-2006 07:33
From: Sandy Barnett
It is rather scary to see, and read about every day. Almost with no change...non stop day in, and day out....24 hours a day. Attack after attack, name calling, lumping "others" into groups....The old "You are either with us, or against us" mentality. Good vs. Evil. All the same old rot and nonsense that has infected man from the start of time, it would seem.


Hi Sandy,
Your post was very heartfelt and sincere. I admire you. Thank you for speaking out when something is bothering you that affects your reason for being here. You have inspired some good thought and conversation. It sounds like you have a wonderful reason for being here. I have enjoyed a beautiful sunrise on many occassions with the one I love myself. It's one of the things that are important to me.
It probably would upset you, and rightfully so, if LL decided one day to take away the sunrise.

Peace

-Hunter
_____________________
"It's not who dies with the most toys, it's who dies with the most friends!"
Rasah Tigereye
"Buckaneer American"
Join date: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 783
06-12-2006 09:13
To Lina, and all those people who still don't get it claiming that the sellers are the ones causing the $L to go down, here's as basic explanation of how the market works as I can possibly think of.

Things that drive Lindex are:
Time
Amount of $L for sale
Amount of $L willing to be bought

A basic sale, with no interest in how much value is obtained, is just sell $L right now, regarldess of the cost. People can either fill Market Buy orders, or severely undercut others. There are a few of these orders filleb, but for the most part they are not the big sellers. Just people who want a bit of $L now, or who don't care how much $US they get, as long as it's now.

Most of the BIG transacions on $L work this way:

You have a certain amount of time (until your next tier payment).
You HAVE to make a certain amount of money (enough to cover the tier).
You HAVE to fit your sale into the daily about of $L bought (every day an average of $10,000,000L is bought. Sometimes a bit more, but not by much. You CAN'T sell more than $10,000,000L a day on an average day, even if you were selling yourself.

So, what determines your sell price?
IF you have enough $L to be able to afford to undercut someone to make sure you sell fast enough within your alotted amount of time, you do it. Result: $L value goes down.

IF you have all the time you want and need a specific amount of $US for your $L, you have the option to sell at the Limit Sell order you want and wait for the order to get filled. Chances are, if the $L keeps devaluing, your order will never get filled, since more pople will come to sell as well. So your waiting time could be infinity.

IF you have to sell within a certain amount of time, AND make a certain amount of L, you're screwed. This person is essnentially the one that sells the real value of $L. You CAN'T undercut someone because you need the money. You CAN'T wait to have it sold, because you have a time limit. Result: Either the person takes a loss, or they quit the whole deal

Essentially what many of you don't realize is that $L has TWO price components, those being $US value and TIME value. The $L will stop dropping in value ONLY when one of TWO things happen:
1) Amount of buyers will equal to the amount of sellers, so that every seller will be able to have their sale order filled. Until that happens, with more people willing to sell than there are willing to buy, people will keep undercutting each other in hopes of being able to fit their sale into that $10mil a day amount (basic example, if I have 5 oranges, and you have 5 oranges, and someone who wants to buy only wants 5 oranges total, bying one orange at a time, you and I will keep undercutting each other's price in hopes that the buyer buys at least one or two of our oranges, but never being able to sell all our oranges, since not enough oranges are wanted. That's exactly what's going on on the Lindex).
2) The $L will stop dropping when the value you get for $L will equal the time value of that $L. In other words, when loosing a lot of money by undercutting someone else will not be worth it if you can simply wait a little longer (days?) to sell it. For instance, if I NEED to make a $50US sale to make a tier, and I have an option to sell RIGHT NOW to make $45US, or wait two days to make $50US. This will not happen UNTIL the time value of $L will be reached by EVERYONE. Meaning that EVERYONE would rather wait a little than loose out in the process. This is what happened this recent week when I was trading. I would rather OVERcut someone by 1 to 2 L, and wait about two days for my sale to fill (which happened) than sell right away and loose a lot of money in the process.

I hope that was more or less understandable up there. Basically, so summarize, $L is worth what people are willing to pay in $US for it, AND what people selling are waiting to pay in TIME LOST for it. Both of these contribute to the $L devaluation, with the SECOND contributing the most.


Here's an example of this in practice. Pretend (O) is one orange.

I have (O)
You have (O)

Buyer wants just one (O)
I sell for $5 per (O)
You sell for $4 per (O)
Your (O) gets sold, mine doesn't. I can either undercut you at $3 per (O) to hope it sells, driving the (O) value down, or wait till more buyers come, you run out of (O), and sell then. Problem is, more and more people with (O) keep comming, while the new buyers are NOT, so right now I don't have the option to wait. I HAVE to ndercut your (O) price, otherwie I don't sell. Once you decide that selling your (O) for less than some price, let's say $1 per (O) isn't worth your time, you either keep selling for $2 per (O), with the wait (TIME) being worth getting the possible $2 for it, or you leave the market. Time plays into this with fewer people selling, and more people willing to hold out for a good price to sell their (O) at.
_____________________
--- I feed trolls for fun and profit.

http://www.xnicole.com
Lina Pussycat
Texture WizKid
Join date: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 731
06-12-2006 10:38
Rasah read your post there again i think you proved my point that its the sellers themselves causing it with your orange thing. The choose to undercut one another they arnt forced to do it. As i said time and time again they should know they can cover the tier without dying from not being able to sell L for a month. They force the time and they wait till the end of the month to dump all that L into the market as opposed to dumping it in over time. Ill state again its the sellers own fault because it is.

Im well aware how lindex works and if they decided to they could bring up the value without LL lifting a finger but its up to them to work together to do so and it just wont happen. And you proved my point that LindEx itself is flawed. Buyers/Sellers will never be equal like your hoping for its just not a pratical view it doesnt exist anywhere or all stocks would be exactly the same in the real world.

And my point comes from not being able to afford it without the L > USD transfer for it being the fault of the sellers. They got in over their head so everyone else has to pay for it? Im sorry but that just doesnt work out right. I know i can afford my tier and if i made the L to cover that cool if not cool. But im not dumping L in at a lower value due to a time restriction because i simply wouldnt be able to afford my tier payment without doing so. That IS the sellers fault there. Thats just common sense. Its like buying stuff on credit and a credit advisor can back this up. You dont purchase something you cant pay off at least on a monthly basis.

You dont spend more money then you have by default because you cant expect some special bonus to come in on a monthly basis. I can afford 60 usd a month and i know i can. I can afford to buy 10 usd a month or so in L on top of that and do so. The problem Rasah is you place the blame elsewhere when it really does lie with the sellers. Be it getting in over their heads or what but it is their fault regardless.
Cannae Brentano
NeoTermite
Join date: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 368
06-12-2006 10:52
Maybe this will help understand the falling linden.

As a game overall, I believe SL will benefit by a stable currency.

As a player, I have no problem whatsoever undercutting someone on the lindex if I need the $L, and I feel no sense of responsbility to sacrifice my $lindens to subsisdize the pockets of the gum chewing masses. To borrow another argument, I put the time in to maximize the value of my $L, and the effect of my efforts on the overall economy is probably about as signficant, as say, someone recieving $500 per week in freshly printed $L.

What I would like to see is having my own self motivated choices in alignment with what benefits SL as a whole, to whatever extent possible. And while I don't believe there can ever be a 100% match, there are steps that can be taken to bring them far closer together.
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
06-12-2006 11:17
From: Cannae Brentano

As a player, I have no problem whatsoever undercutting someone on the lindex if I need the $L, and I feel no sense of responsbility to sacrifice my $lindens to subsisdize the pockets of the gum chewing masses. To borrow another argument, I put the time in to maximize the value of my $L, and the effect of my efforts on the overall economy is probably about as signficant, as say, someone recieving $500 per week in freshly printed $L.

What I would like to see is having my own self motivated choices in alignment with what benefits SL as a whole, to whatever extent possible. And while I don't believe there can ever be a 100% match, there are steps that can be taken to bring them far closer together.


That's a very good description of the problem - it's what I think is generally called "the tragedy of the commons". It basically goes like this:

a) a stable L$ would be a good thing for everyone who cashes out, because everyone would get more money for their L$.

b) when it's time for me to sell my own L$, I could sell at the existing rate or even overcut in order to keep the L$ stable, but if I do that I might not be able to sell my L$ at all.

c) but if I can't sell my L$, then I don't get any of the benefit of a stable L$. It would be no good for me if the L$ became stable but none of my own L$ were selling. So I have to put my own sales higher priority than stability, which means I undercut.

Getting around it is unfortunately very difficult, and I don't think there's a "formula" that can be applied..
Ranma Tardis
沖縄弛緩の明確で青い水
Join date: 8 Nov 2005
Posts: 1,415
06-12-2006 11:34
From: Cannae Brentano
Maybe this will help understand the falling linden.

As a game overall, I believe SL will benefit by a stable currency.

As a player, I have no problem whatsoever undercutting someone on the lindex if I need the $L, and I feel no sense of responsbility to sacrifice my $lindens to subsisdize the pockets of the gum chewing masses. To borrow another argument, I put the time in to maximize the value of my $L, and the effect of my efforts on the overall economy is probably about as signficant, as say, someone recieving $500 per week in freshly printed $L.

What I would like to see is having my own self motivated choices in alignment with what benefits SL as a whole, to whatever extent possible. And while I don't believe there can ever be a 100% match, there are steps that can be taken to bring them far closer together.


I agree do not feel under any responsibility to give up my stipend to make you more money. To be blunt it is not in my self intrest .

Dont know what your problem is when the Linden has been stable.

I paid for my stipend as a payment to Linden Labs. I refuse to lose money to make you and your kind money.
Rasah Tigereye
"Buckaneer American"
Join date: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 783
06-12-2006 11:41
From: Lina Pussycat
Rasah read your post there again i think you proved my point that its the sellers themselves causing it with your orange thing. The choose to undercut one another they arnt forced to do it. As i said time and time again they should know they can cover the tier without dying from not being able to sell L for a month. They force the time and they wait till the end of the month to dump all that L into the market as opposed to dumping it in over time. Ill state again its the sellers own fault because it is.


The sellers only exist WITHIN the market. If the market was more favorable, i.e. fewer $L around, and more $L wanted, they wouldn't NEED to undercut. And your suggestion that they hold on to their $L till end of the month and drive down costs doesn't fly, either. If that were true, we'd see a pattern of huge drops at the end of every month, and then raises in value throughout the rest of the month as fewer $L sellers went to market and $L would be more sought after. That's not the case. What we've seen is a pretty constant decline in $L value throughout the last year or two.



From: Lina Pussycat

Im well aware how lindex works and if they decided to they could bring up the value without LL lifting a finger but its up to them to work together to do so and it just wont happen. And you proved my point that LindEx itself is flawed. Buyers/Sellers will never be equal like your hoping for its just not a pratical view it doesnt exist anywhere or all stocks would be exactly the same in the real world.


First, yes, buyers and sellers do equal, for the moment when the stock stops dropping and starts rizing, or when the stock stops rizing and stops selling. If we had more buyers than sellers, the value of $L would reverse and start to go up. For the last two weeks or so we've had about the same amount of buyers and sellers. That's why $L stayed the same more or less.
If $L continues to decline, however, how do you propose they "bring up the value by working together?" Let's say they ALL agree to sell for no less than $300. So, the first day we'll have $20mil worth of $L at $300, and $10mil will sell. $10l is left on the market. The next day we have another $20mil offered for sale, and again just $10mil is sold. Now $20mil is waiting to be sold. Next day it'll be $30mil, then $40mil, and so on. A week from now you'll have to wait about a week just to make a sale. It just doesn't work.

From: Lina Pussycat

And my point comes from not being able to afford it without the L > USD transfer for it being the fault of the sellers. They got in over their head so everyone else has to pay for it? Im sorry but that just doesnt work out right. I know i can afford my tier and if i made the L to cover that cool if not cool. But im not dumping L in at a lower value due to a time restriction because i simply wouldnt be able to afford my tier payment without doing so. That IS the sellers fault there. Thats just common sense. Its like buying stuff on credit and a credit advisor can back this up. You dont purchase something you cant pay off at least on a monthly basis.



As for your suggestion that they should know they can cover their tier before getting it, some of them COULD cover their tier before they went into it. The rental and content fees coered their tier. But with the decline, it's covering less and less of it, and some of them are worried that they will end up loosing a lot of money every month is the $L continues to decline. As for the "Well, it's their problem for investing in this" or whatever, if people ALWAYS "knew they could cover their expenses before going into business," we wouldn't have ANY business. NONE. No cars, no computers, no software, no airplanes, nothing. Because EVERY big invention, every profitable business, and everything that made our lives better was done on a gamble of HOPING that the money and time people put into something pays off. And no one is asking you to "pay for it." We're just asking for less money to be printed and pumped into the system. You're paying $10 for $500l, but you could just as well pay $7 for $400, or $5 for $250. Either one will fix this problem (assuming it's not fixed yet). Paying for it would imply that you were putting extra money into SL. You're not, nor is anyone asking you to. We're only asking for your same money to be redirected to better venues.


From: Lina Pussycat

You dont spend more money then you have by default because you cant expect some special bonus to come in on a monthly basis. I can afford 60 usd a month and i know i can. I can afford to buy 10 usd a month or so in L on top of that and do so. The problem Rasah is you place the blame elsewhere when it really does lie with the sellers. Be it getting in over their heads or what but it is their fault regardless.


I place the blame on the lack of buyers, which is caused by a surplus of money, which is caused by stippends. Sellers are the unfortunate victums of this. You're saying stuff akin to blaming someone who got raped because of what she was wearing, when the rape had nothing to do with the person's choice of what she was doing or wearing, and had everything to do with the society she lives in. Sorry it's an extreme example, but it's true.
And yes, people DO spend A LOT more money than they have. That's how business works. You spend thousands of dollars you don't have, in hopes that eventually the thing you spend it on will pay off that thousands of dollars, and maybe make you a small profit too to pay you for all your work. When something goes wrong with that system, you try to fix it. The thing that is wrong with OUR system is inflation. THAT is caused NOT by sellers trying to pay their RL bills, but by a lack of buyers on Lindex. How do you propose we fix that problem?
_____________________
--- I feed trolls for fun and profit.

http://www.xnicole.com
Cannae Brentano
NeoTermite
Join date: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 368
06-12-2006 11:44
From: Ranma Tardis
I agree do not feel under any responsibility to give up my stipend to make you more money. To be blunt it is not in my self intrest .

Dont know what your problem is when the Linden has been stable.

I paid for my stipend as a payment to Linden Labs. I refuse to lose money to make you and your kind money.



And hence the cycle continues.

And if you've read my other posts, you'd see that I am probably most pro stipend member of the anti stipend crowd. ;), and I've explained why I believe that ending stipends is not good for SL as a whole. Instead, I believe that the source of stipends needs to be changed.

Oh, and thanks. I feel special now too - I have a "my kind." Now join me on the dark side. We have cookies.

Edit - typo and clarification
Hunter Parks
Mr. Morgan
Join date: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 53
06-12-2006 19:56
From: Rasah Tigereye

Here's an example of this in practice. Pretend (O) is one orange.

I have (O)
You have (O)

Buyer wants just one (O)
I sell for $5 per (O)
You sell for $4 per (O)
Your (O) gets sold, mine doesn't. I can either undercut you at $3 per (O) to hope it sells, driving the (O) value down, or wait till more buyers come, you run out of (O), and sell then. Problem is, more and more people with (O) keep comming, while the new buyers are NOT, so right now I don't have the option to wait. I HAVE to ndercut your (O) price, otherwie I don't sell. Once you decide that selling your (O) for less than some price, let's say $1 per (O) isn't worth your time, you either keep selling for $2 per (O), with the wait (TIME) being worth getting the possible $2 for it, or you leave the market. Time plays into this with fewer people selling, and more people willing to hold out for a good price to sell their (O) at.

Rasah, I like this analogy with the oranges. It's pretty much how things are going right now with the lack of buyers because of the increasing supply. I'll give you $.75 for half an orange and just make enough juice to top off the 3 gallons of vodka this mess has driven me too!
Cheers:D

-Hunter
_____________________
"It's not who dies with the most toys, it's who dies with the most friends!"
Joannah Cramer
Registered User
Join date: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,539
06-12-2006 20:15
From: Rasah Tigereye
I place the blame on the lack of buyers, which is caused by a surplus of money, which is caused by stippends. Sellers are the unfortunate victums of this.

This is however caused by buyers preferring to get their L$ as part of premium package straight from LL, rather than from 3rd party sellers. You cannot really blame people for picking what they perceive a better offer, it's simple market mechanics.

The offer of 3rd party currency sellers might become increasingly more interesting to people as the prices at which they sell their L$ drops. But as it is now, the cries to remove stipends are akin to asking too strong competitor to just shut down their business, because it's not even that 3rd party sellers cannot compete... but rather they flat out refuse to, due to expectations 'their lindens' are worth more than what buyers are willing to pay for them.
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
06-13-2006 05:42
From: Rasah Tigereye
The sellers only exist WITHIN the market. If the market was more favorable, i.e. fewer $L around, and more $L wanted, they wouldn't NEED to undercut.


That isn't absolutely clear - or rather, it's not clear if people wouldn't just undercut anyway even though they don't need to. I know there are a lot of people on this thread but probably there are at least some people cashing out L$ who aren't really interested in following money markets or supply and demand or economic statistics but who just want a bit of US$ to help pay their tier, and they will tend to automatically undercut rather than taking the time to find out whether they need to or not since after all it's only a few $. This is a situation where the freedom of SL compared to to the RL position - where most currency traders are professional traders who had to pay RL money in exchange for the currency they're trading - contributes to instability.

From: someone

As for the "Well, it's their problem for investing in this" or whatever, if people ALWAYS "knew they could cover their expenses before going into business," we wouldn't have ANY business. NONE. No cars, no computers, no software, no airplanes, nothing. Because EVERY big invention, every profitable business, and everything that made our lives better was done on a gamble of HOPING that the money and time people put into something pays off.


But I think what she's saying is that, because of that, there's no real reason why others should be effectively penalised just so that your gamble pays off, since after all you knew that you were taking a gamble.

From: someone
I place the blame on the lack of buyers, which is caused by a surplus of money, which is caused by stippends. Sellers are the unfortunate victums of this.


You're tacitly assuming that buyers who buy things with their stipend would have bought exactly the same things for US$ if the stipend hadn't been available, and that isn't true. We'll see it with the new round of new folks but most of them seem to just get given stuff by other people - either that, or they just plain enjoy SL less.

From: someone
And yes, people DO spend A LOT more money than they have. That's how business works. You spend thousands of dollars you don't have, in hopes that eventually the thing you spend it on will pay off that thousands of dollars, and maybe make you a small profit too to pay you for all your work. When something goes wrong with that system, you try to fix it. The thing that is wrong with OUR system is inflation. THAT is caused NOT by sellers trying to pay their RL bills, but by a lack of buyers on Lindex.


But if it wasn't for sellers trying to pay RL bills, it wouldn't be a problem. For many people SL is a creative hobby, and most people are used to considering a creative hobby as something that will probably cost money and any amount it earns them is a bonus.

I don't have anything against people who want to pay their RL bills from SL, but if they want to take SL that way they need to think about a serious collective answer to the question: how will the entire SL experience provide value for money for the user, compared to other experiences they could choose to spend their US$ on (eg, other games, DVDs, etc)?
Hunter Parks
Mr. Morgan
Join date: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 53
06-13-2006 06:58
From: Joannah Cramer
This is however caused by buyers preferring to get their L$ as part of premium package straight from LL, rather than from 3rd party sellers. You cannot really blame people for picking what they perceive a better offer, it's simple market mechanics.


Actually, this option has been available from the beginning. People have always gotten their stipends. It's only recently that the value of the L$ has gone south.

-Hunter
_____________________
"It's not who dies with the most toys, it's who dies with the most friends!"
Hunter Parks
Mr. Morgan
Join date: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 53
06-13-2006 07:03
From: Yumi Murakami
That isn't absolutely clear - or rather, it's not clear if people wouldn't just undercut anyway even though they don't need to.


Undercutting can only make short blips in a stable market. It can't overpower the other economic forces that determine value.

-Hunter
_____________________
"It's not who dies with the most toys, it's who dies with the most friends!"
Hunter Parks
Mr. Morgan
Join date: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 53
06-13-2006 07:19
From: Yumi Murakami
You're tacitly assuming that buyers who buy things with their stipend would have bought exactly the same things for US$ if the stipend hadn't been available, and that isn't true.


I totally agree with Rasah...
From: Rasah Tigereye
I place the blame on the lack of buyers, which is caused by a surplus of money, which is caused by stippends. Sellers are the unfortunate victums of this.

with 1 caviat...
As I've said before, it's not the stipends that are causing this devaluation. It's the influx of the L$ which they are printing out of thin air to provide them.


-Hunter
_____________________
"It's not who dies with the most toys, it's who dies with the most friends!"
Rasah Tigereye
"Buckaneer American"
Join date: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 783
06-13-2006 08:04
From: Yumi Murakami
That isn't absolutely clear - or rather, it's not clear if people wouldn't just undercut anyway even though they don't need to. I know there are a lot of people on this thread but probably there are at least some people cashing out L$ who aren't really interested in following money markets or supply and demand or economic statistics but who just want a bit of US$ to help pay their tier, and they will tend to automatically undercut rather than taking the time to find out whether they need to or not since after all it's only a few $. This is a situation where the freedom of SL compared to to the RL position - where most currency traders are professional traders who had to pay RL money in exchange for the currency they're trading - contributes to instability.


There was an example of what you're talking about in a STABLE market last week, where the $L value started at $330, was undercut all the way up to $336, and came right back down to $330 that evening. Basically, let's say that there are enough buyers out there to want to buy $100,000L, and only $100,000L worth of sellers. There are 6 sellers, and each one of them undercuts the other. In the end, our example setup could look like this

1) $335 $15,000L
2) $334 $5,000L
3) $333 $30,000L
4) $332 $15,000L
5) $331 $25,000L
6) $330 $10,000L

(this isn't too different from what happened that one day, except the numbers weren't so nicely rounded)
As the day goes through, with no more people wanting to sell, those orders keep getting filled one by one. #1 dissapears, then #2, then #3, and so on. In the end, the same $100,000 above that was put on the market by sellers is all sold out by the $100,000 worth of payments by buyers. Those who knew what they were doing remained in the $330 level, and had their orders filled at the end of the day. Essentially, if the amount of buyers is the same as sellers, people undercutting will just balance out by people buying, still keeping the price the same. And if the amount of buyers is higher than sellers, undercutting people wouldn't be able to keep up with the buyers. Undercuts will get sold and then some (i.e. orders below will get filled too), faster than undercutters can place their orders, meaning the $L value will go up.




From: Yumi Murakami

But I think what she's saying is that, because of that, there's no real reason why others should be effectively penalised just so that your gamble pays off, since after all you knew that you were taking a gamble.


If you're calling the businesses people started a "gamble," I'll repeat it again: we do not want people's gambles to pay off. We simply want a stable economy so that people will actually be WILLING to gamble on SL's economy. Meaning people will be willing to attempt to set up some sort of business that affects SL as a whole, be it providing content, building some fun place to hang out, designing a game, or providing people with land to live on. If the economy was tanking, people wouldn't even bother to be here. And no developers wanting to be in SL is a baaaaaaad thing.

From: Yumi Murakami

You're tacitly assuming that buyers who buy things with their stipend would have bought exactly the same things for US$ if the stipend hadn't been available, and that isn't true. We'll see it with the new round of new folks but most of them seem to just get given stuff by other people - either that, or they just plain enjoy SL less.


I am fully keeping in mind that yes, a lot of the stuff here in the game was bought with people's stippends. However, just like the loss of $15 monthly premiums just to play the game could have, and did, pay off LL in the long run, where we now have many more people, and LL is expanding much more rapidly, I believe that the loss of people buying stuff with their stippend only will be offset with more people wanting to buy $L off the Lindex. Also, considering a large amount of really good quality stuff in SL already costs more than even a premium stippend, and judging by the daily amount of $L moving through Lindex, I suspect that there is already a large amount of content in SL that's supported by Lindex, which probably won't get affected by a decrease in stippends. Basically, yes, I do consider that there will be a short-term drop, but in the long term I believe it will pay off.


From: Yumi Murakami

But if it wasn't for sellers trying to pay RL bills, it wouldn't be a problem. For many people SL is a creative hobby, and most people are used to considering a creative hobby as something that will probably cost money and any amount it earns them is a bonus.


There are different kind of hobbies. For some hobbies are a huge loss of money (I have at least one such hobby in RL). For some hobbies end up paying off (look at eBay traders who collected a bunch of old junk in mint condition, who are now able to sell it for large amounts to other collectors). Some hobies end up covering their own costs, such as making bead jewlery which is a hoby in itself, but where the cost of buying beads is covered by selling the jewlery from that online. SL is no different. Some people come in and pay a lot of their RL money into something that gives them fun, just cause they can afford to, some put in money into their hobbies assuming that the large amount of money they put in will get paid back to help cover their tier, and for some their hobbies end up paying back more than what they have put into it. Problem is, if the economy is unstable, people who depend on being able to have the hobby pay for it, or make a profit, will look the other way and will not be interested in having their hobbies in SL. That means that the only people we'll be left with are ones who are willing to loose a lot of their RL money just to have some fun here. onsidering the costs of land, we're talking about A LOT of their RL money, not just $10us a month. There are a lot fewer people in RL who have large amounts of cash they can just throw away.


From: Yumi Murakami

I don't have anything against people who want to pay their RL bills from SL, but if they want to take SL that way they need to think about a serious collective answer to the question: how will the entire SL experience provide value for money for the user, compared to other experiences they could choose to spend their US$ on (eg, other games, DVDs, etc)?


Agreed. Personally, I don't even care about the people who are making a profit from SL. My main concern is being able to retain the people we have who are using their SL profits to only cover their tier. If the economy drops, those making a profit will simply stop making a profit, but they'll still be here since what they make will still cover their tier. Those who make $0 profit will not be able to cover their tier, so they either spent their own money to let others keep playing on their land, or they leave. And a lot of the ones in the latter category I would really miss.
_____________________
--- I feed trolls for fun and profit.

http://www.xnicole.com
Fade Languish
I just build stuff...
Join date: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 1,760
06-13-2006 08:11
From: Rasah Tigereye
Personally, I don't even care about the people who are making a profit from SL. My main concern is being able to retain the people we have who are using their SL profits to only cover their tier. If the economy drops, those making a profit will simply stop making a profit, but they'll still be here since what they make will still cover their tier. Those who make $0 profit will not be able to cover their tier, so they either spent their own money to let others keep playing on their land, or they leave. And a lot of the ones in the latter category I would really miss.


I feel pretty much the same way.
_____________________
Lina Pussycat
Texture WizKid
Join date: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 731
06-17-2006 09:55
Rasah a bit of the problem is there will NEVER be as many buyers as there are sellers. Its a simple point in fact that alot of residents are here for enjoyment rather then working. And as i stated before those just wanting to pay tier is fine and all but to what extent are they paying tier? Someone like anshe who is using SL to pay off thousands of USD a month in cost isnt exactly just being here to pay tier. There is a difference between just covering tier and that trust me.

This is what i mean is a perfect example. That kind of business. She is using SL to cover thousands of dollars in real life costs for SL and has to do so in a set time frame. She is very likely going to undercut the compettion when it comes time to pay her tier and she has to much to unload. The problem with you situation as well it needs a perfect balance of buyers and sellers which wont ever happen and never will in an online enviroment simply because alot of people hold to the theory that buying money is for losers.

I see people like Anshe and alot of other people that run real estate in SL as an economic problem because of reasons i've pointed out. I'm not tying this strictly to anshe alone there are many of them out there. The thing is even with the influx of new L the rate at which the L is dropping is absurd. Thats due to the situation i stated. What i was saying and yumi quite bluntly put out is that people using SL to pay their tier are creating a restriction on themselves. Quite simply they are forcing their hands to sell at a lower value alot of the time. What i was saying was if they could afford that payment in real life without the help of SL to begin with then they wouldnt need to rush to sell their L when they do. They could keep it in at a better value and get it filled.

Will this stop the L from falling in value? Probably not, but it would dramatically slow things down as far as the rate at which it is dropping. An example here would be. Say i can cover 200 dollars tier in real life to begin with. Now say i went out and got 1,000 dollars worth of tier cuz i made an SL profit and did that. Now there is an 800 usd difference there that I NEED to pay monthly or my account is put on hold if its not paid. Now i get that 800 usd worth (well a little more cuz of the cut LL takes obviously) and it comes to the end of the month. Now there a bunch of L for sale at a higher value and i need this to sell to cover my payment or i may likely lose my account/land.

Now do you think in this situation (which arises to often) that i would put the L in at what other people are and wait for their L to sell and hope mine does in time or am i going to undercut them making my value lower but letting me sell faster? You see where the problem arises with the situation of "getting in over your head" with tier yet? Its due to that time restriction that i have to undercut the people. But i myself created that time restriction and it's a risk. I shouldnt come here and whine that the economy is then failing because I'm one of the contributing factors of it falling.

This is where the blame on the sellers comes from. There is a difference between using SL to help make tier payments and relying soley on SL to make those payments and there inlies the problem with the sellers. The could take out 1/2 the L in world tommorow and get rid of the stipends and i pretty much can tell you the trend of undercutting will continue. Its just the situation these people created. Now that they made the situation they found out they cant get out of it so they come and whine and push the blame on everything else but themselves.

Dont try to blame the buyer because they are the one's buying the L they arnt the ones selling it and they have no real control over what the people are selling it for.
Lina Pussycat
Texture WizKid
Join date: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 731
06-17-2006 10:25
From: Rasah Tigereye
There was an example of what you're talking about in a STABLE market last week, where the $L value started at $330, was undercut all the way up to $336, and came right back down to $330 that evening. Basically, let's say that there are enough buyers out there to want to buy $100,000L, and only $100,000L worth of sellers. There are 6 sellers, and each one of them undercuts the other. In the end, our example setup could look like this

1) $335 $15,000L
2) $334 $5,000L
3) $333 $30,000L
4) $332 $15,000L
5) $331 $25,000L
6) $330 $10,000L

(this isn't too different from what happened that one day, except the numbers weren't so nicely rounded)
As the day goes through, with no more people wanting to sell, those orders keep getting filled one by one. #1 dissapears, then #2, then #3, and so on. In the end, the same $100,000 above that was put on the market by sellers is all sold out by the $100,000 worth of payments by buyers. Those who knew what they were doing remained in the $330 level, and had their orders filled at the end of the day. Essentially, if the amount of buyers is the same as sellers, people undercutting will just balance out by people buying, still keeping the price the same. And if the amount of buyers is higher than sellers, undercutting people wouldn't be able to keep up with the buyers. Undercuts will get sold and then some (i.e. orders below will get filled too), faster than undercutters can place their orders, meaning the $L value will go up.






If you're calling the businesses people started a "gamble," I'll repeat it again: we do not want people's gambles to pay off. We simply want a stable economy so that people will actually be WILLING to gamble on SL's economy. Meaning people will be willing to attempt to set up some sort of business that affects SL as a whole, be it providing content, building some fun place to hang out, designing a game, or providing people with land to live on. If the economy was tanking, people wouldn't even bother to be here. And no developers wanting to be in SL is a baaaaaaad thing.



I am fully keeping in mind that yes, a lot of the stuff here in the game was bought with people's stippends. However, just like the loss of $15 monthly premiums just to play the game could have, and did, pay off LL in the long run, where we now have many more people, and LL is expanding much more rapidly, I believe that the loss of people buying stuff with their stippend only will be offset with more people wanting to buy $L off the Lindex. Also, considering a large amount of really good quality stuff in SL already costs more than even a premium stippend, and judging by the daily amount of $L moving through Lindex, I suspect that there is already a large amount of content in SL that's supported by Lindex, which probably won't get affected by a decrease in stippends. Basically, yes, I do consider that there will be a short-term drop, but in the long term I believe it will pay off.




There are different kind of hobbies. For some hobbies are a huge loss of money (I have at least one such hobby in RL). For some hobbies end up paying off (look at eBay traders who collected a bunch of old junk in mint condition, who are now able to sell it for large amounts to other collectors). Some hobies end up covering their own costs, such as making bead jewlery which is a hoby in itself, but where the cost of buying beads is covered by selling the jewlery from that online. SL is no different. Some people come in and pay a lot of their RL money into something that gives them fun, just cause they can afford to, some put in money into their hobbies assuming that the large amount of money they put in will get paid back to help cover their tier, and for some their hobbies end up paying back more than what they have put into it. Problem is, if the economy is unstable, people who depend on being able to have the hobby pay for it, or make a profit, will look the other way and will not be interested in having their hobbies in SL. That means that the only people we'll be left with are ones who are willing to loose a lot of their RL money just to have some fun here. onsidering the costs of land, we're talking about A LOT of their RL money, not just $10us a month. There are a lot fewer people in RL who have large amounts of cash they can just throw away.




Agreed. Personally, I don't even care about the people who are making a profit from SL. My main concern is being able to retain the people we have who are using their SL profits to only cover their tier. If the economy drops, those making a profit will simply stop making a profit, but they'll still be here since what they make will still cover their tier. Those who make $0 profit will not be able to cover their tier, so they either spent their own money to let others keep playing on their land, or they leave. And a lot of the ones in the latter category I would really miss.



Rasah i'd like to point out quite frequently that your arguments actually end up contradicting themselves. Especially the 2nd to last paragraph there. People will be expected to buy all L off lindex if the stipends are gotten rid of. And yet you state there are alot fewer people in rl who have large amounts of cash they can just throw away? Forcing them to Buy their L = forcing them to use that large amount of cash that they cant just throw away to buy anything or do anything in SL. That's something i dont want to see because its a rediculous notion that people are just going to start buying L becauyse they are forced to.

You bring up lindex supporting more people then the stipends. Uhhh where the heck do you think the money on Lindex came from? It came from someone's stipend originally or traffic bonus or rating bonus etc. Its all from some free source of money. What you dont seem to take into consideration here is that alot of people look at buying money as a bad thing. Alot of people came from the mmorpg world and arnt used to SL and its going to take some time to break them of that theory.

But if you take away the introduction of the economic aspect to begin with you end up creating a situation where alot of new residents are probably thinking WTF or why bother. The argument to get rid of the stipend was never about stabalizing the economy and i think some people fail to realize that. Stipends gotten rid of creates an area where the sellers are basically free to sell the L for however t he hell high they want and guess what? We're gunna be forced to buy it. Now some people state LL can counter balance this by introducing L at a rate to help stabalize it. Right......... What you end up with then is the same situation we are in now except now nobody really has any L coming in to spend unless they buy it.

I think you fail to see the bigger long term effects of this. You assume people are just going to start buying L because they cant have L anymore. Its more likely that this wont ever happen. Especially if the stipends are taken away. It ruins a newbies experience in SL. Cuts down ever more on the no scarce amount of jobs available (basically takes the job market that exists in SL and says f you). Its going to have a much broader impact then you think it will. I know because im an average player. How can a place be fun to hang out at if all the owner is concerned about is covering their tier to provide that place? Republik for one doesnt take to that. We provide a place where people can come hang out, dance to great music, Win some L (we only run 3 events a week that pay L because we want to move away from that conjecture of the Best in garbage). What matters to us is if they are having a good time being there not what they are willing to fork out so we can make some freaking payment at the end of the month.

We run Republik at a loss and we plan to do so into the future. We pay over 210 usd a month to keep that place running and we havent put a dime of any L we made back into USD to try and help cover expenses. If alot of L starts coming in hey great just means we can do better for our employee's and things. We wont however be covering any expenses of our own with it. I personally think if your going to make a place and you claim its to be a fun place you really shouldnt be worrying about money because money just over complicates it and makes it a less enjoyable experience. Even though we moved away from the idea of "paying people to come to our club" theory so many other clubs use (and yes i said what i said knowing full well i know quite a few club owners.) we still have people come.

If they have a good time we did what we set out to do. If they didnt we arnt doing something right. Like our motto says If your not having fun we arnt doing our job. We also took the time to make everything ourselves which put us at almost a year now of paying quite a bit of money and you know what? We feel all that much better when people tell us they love the place because that is why we set out to do this. Sadly most people dont share me and my partners outlook and really I wish so many places would consider just actually being there to provide a good time as opposed to some popularity contest. But thats just me.

Pardon you dont want people's gambles to pay off but you want them to be able to cover tier? Uhhh ????? Come on thats a conflict of interests if i've ever heard one. They cant cover their tier without their gamble paying off.
Lina Pussycat
Texture WizKid
Join date: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 731
06-17-2006 10:35
Also to the folks saying i didnt activate the advanced functions. I'm fully aware of them however that function Itself is a relatively new thing and didnt really exist before it was changed. Which was what i was bringing up more so then this. For a long time it was just buy now and that created a problem i and of itself. However that buy now methodology is probably the more favorable of the two. At least one would think if they need to sell the L fast.
Jopsy Pendragon
Perpetual Outsider
Join date: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,906
06-17-2006 14:22
There is so much that I agree and disagree with in this thread.

I can't really do either without repeating myself.

I guess, I'll just be going now then.

--
"You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?

"Psycho Killer,
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
"
Hunter Parks
Mr. Morgan
Join date: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 53
06-17-2006 21:03
It sounds like everyone is pretty much in the same place as we were last week on this, and after all that discussion, it doesn't look like either side is budging much. It's probably time to call this one a draw. It isn't impossible that there can be 2 right sides to an issue. Everyone can keep saying the same things over and over and next week we'll be right here in the same spot.
Both sides on this have valid arguments and, more importantly, are emotionally and even financially tied to those positions. I haven't seen anyone say 'Aha, now I get it'. Whether it be a lack of understanding or an unwillingness to be swayed, nobody is moving and all we're doing now is repeating ourselves and killing time.
Can we push for some kind of resolution that doesn't involve cutting stipends. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

Peace,

-Hunter
_____________________
"It's not who dies with the most toys, it's who dies with the most friends!"
Jopsy Pendragon
Perpetual Outsider
Join date: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,906
06-17-2006 21:25
For what it's worth, I *have* changed my position on the matter.

Sign-up bonus and newbie stipends with easier to get accounts is just a recipe for alt-farming. I'm quite comfortable with abandoning my previous support for new basic account stipends. :)
Jonas Pierterson
Dark Harlequin
Join date: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 3,660
06-17-2006 23:10
I still think new players on basic should get 250 lindens and a 5 week stipend of 50l/week upon verification of a credit card number.
_____________________
Good freebies here and here

I must protest. I am not a merry man! - Warf, ST: TNG, episode: Qpid

You killed my father. Prepare to die. - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

You killed My father. Your a-- is mine! - Hellboy
Star Sleestak
Registered User
Join date: 3 Feb 2006
Posts: 228
06-18-2006 00:56
From: Yumi Murakami
That isn't absolutely clear - or rather, it's not clear if people wouldn't just undercut anyway even though they don't need to. I know there are a lot of people on this thread but probably there are at least some people cashing out L$ who aren't really interested in following money markets or supply and demand or economic statistics but who just want a bit of US$ to help pay their tier, and they will tend to automatically undercut rather than taking the time to find out whether they need to or not since after all it's only a few $. This is a situation where the freedom of SL compared to to the RL position - where most currency traders are professional traders who had to pay RL money in exchange for the currency they're trading - contributes to instability.



Never thought of that.

From: someone


But I think what she's saying is that, because of that, there's no real reason why others should be effectively penalised just so that your gamble pays off, since after all you knew that you were taking a gamble.


My golly, I've been saying this all along!

From: someone

You're tacitly assuming that buyers who buy things with their stipend would have bought exactly the same things for US$ if the stipend hadn't been available, and that isn't true. We'll see it with the new round of new folks but most of them seem to just get given stuff by other people - either that, or they just plain enjoy SL less.


And I said that too.

From: someone


But if it wasn't for sellers trying to pay RL bills, it wouldn't be a problem. For many people SL is a creative hobby, and most people are used to considering a creative hobby as something that will probably cost money and any amount it earns them is a bonus.

I don't have anything against people who want to pay their RL bills from SL, but if they want to take SL that way they need to think about a serious collective answer to the question: how will the entire SL experience provide value for money for the user, compared to other experiences they could choose to spend their US$ on (eg, other games, DVDs, etc)?


Are you or have you ever been in sales/marketing?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7