Better Sinks for "bigger" or "richer" players
|
|
Pix Paz
Away with the Pixies
Join date: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 129
|
04-09-2006 14:49
If LL are concerned with the amount of $L in the economy (and I am not sure they are...) I honestly believe better sinks for the bigger players would be the answer. They end up with the pools of spare $L they want to cash out. Theoretically, LL could find out what these people would be willing to spend significant chunks of $L on to get and provide that removing the $L without pushing the exchange down. It would need to be things that only LL could provide and also be able to provide at a reasonable operating cost to not adversely effect their bottom line significantly. In effect, something like this would add another aspect to the SL "class" or aspiration structure. 1. Basics 2. Premiums / Smaller Merchants 3. <People who can afford these new priviledges> 3. Sim Owners / <also New Priviledge Buyers> 4. Multiple Sim Owners / Land Barons / <also New Priviledge Buyers> 5. RL Organisations using SL for other means Although they would need to be guided by need / wants of target market, ideally, I don't think these priviledges would necessarily be related to land. Please don't think I'm elitist in anyway. I just see that this would be one of the more effective ways to remove $L from the economy at a bottleneck point and could potentially add more diverse aspirations other than money or land holding to the SL model. |
|
Chrischun Fassbinder
k-rad!
Join date: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 154
|
04-09-2006 15:35
LL should just sell middle names for 100,000L$, middles names of their choice. 1,000,000L$ if you want a custom middle name. I'm half joking but the avatar names are about the most looked at identifier I'd imagine. Gives (the common) people a reason to save L$ and not cash out.
|
|
Templar Baphomet
Man in Black
Join date: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 135
|
04-09-2006 16:34
I got it! A L$1 tax on every wild-ass idea in Land and the Economy!  |
|
Shaun Altman
Fund Manager
Join date: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,011
|
04-09-2006 16:39
From: Pix Paz If LL are concerned with the amount of $L in the economy (and I am not sure they are...) I honestly believe better sinks for the bigger players would be the answer. They end up with the pools of spare $L they want to cash out. Theoretically, LL could find out what these people would be willing to spend significant chunks of $L on to get and provide that removing the $L without pushing the exchange down. It would need to be things that only LL could provide and also be able to provide at a reasonable operating cost to not adversely effect their bottom line significantly. In effect, something like this would add another aspect to the SL "class" or aspiration structure. 1. Basics 2. Premiums / Smaller Merchants 3. <People who can afford these new priviledges> 3. Sim Owners / <also New Priviledge Buyers> 4. Multiple Sim Owners / Land Barons / <also New Priviledge Buyers> 5. RL Organisations using SL for other means Although they would need to be guided by need / wants of target market, ideally, I don't think these priviledges would necessarily be related to land. Please don't think I'm elitist in anyway. I just see that this would be one of the more effective ways to remove $L from the economy at a bottleneck point and could potentially add more diverse aspirations other than money or land holding to the SL model. Why would LL denominate anything that they'd charge a lot of L$ for, in L$ ???? They'd simply sell it for USD and add a revenue stream. |
|
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
|
04-09-2006 16:41
From: Templar Baphomet I got it! A L$1 tax on every wild-ass idea in Land and the Economy! That's L$1 for you, mister. I say L$10 for every mention of the word "stipend". And yeah, I've already paid up for that one. |
|
Shaun Altman
Fund Manager
Join date: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,011
|
04-09-2006 16:49
From: Ordinal Malaprop That's L$1 for you, mister.
I say L$10 for every mention of the word "stipend". And yeah, I've already paid up for that one. Why use that euphemism and pay a tax? I've always thought the appropriate term was welfare.  |
|
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
|
04-09-2006 16:57
From: Shaun Altman Why use that euphemism and pay a tax? I've always thought the appropriate term was welfare. You're just trying to provoke me now, Mr Altman! |
|
Shaun Altman
Fund Manager
Join date: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,011
|
04-09-2006 17:08
From: Ordinal Malaprop You're just trying to provoke me now, Mr Altman! Never! |
|
Pix Paz
Away with the Pixies
Join date: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 129
|
04-10-2006 03:49
From: Shaun Altman Why would LL denominate anything that they'd charge a lot of L$ for, in L$ ???? They'd simply sell it for USD and add a revenue stream. Um, well, that is why I started the post with... "If LL are concerned with the amount of $L in the economy (and I am not sure they are...)" *Smile* |
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
04-10-2006 06:59
From: Pix Paz Theoretically, LL could find out what these people would be willing to spend significant chunks of $L on to get and provide that removing the $L without pushing the exchange down. Yep. There's a lot of features that they've been withholding that they could charge for. Things like changing your name (L$5000), picking a custom last name (L$15000), non-standard ban limits (L$1/week/2048 cubic meters), ... |