Published in Venezuela - Financial analysis - 12 Aug 2024 10:54 - 3
I know, I know. No one likes regulations. Placing restrictions on market overlooks demand for small time frames. Adjusting values is hard to pull off. But.
A floor price would mitigate so many problems. An absolute minimum price that cannot be lowered. Yes, it might be true.
Sure, the game has a myriad of problems built around the market. No economy is perfect. But the scope of such a change aims for so many of them, much more than one could think.
So, let me try to lay some concepts down.
Ease of access independently of production volume: Choice of seller becomes based on preference. Your choices and community interactions gain value. Which producers would you like to support?
Lower opportunity cost: Players with bigger warehouses can reliably establish higher prices that will be taken as the minor producers with lower volumes disappear from the bottom price range, while low storage does not force undercutting further towards production price.
Salary, production bonuses, and market tax remain relevant: Ease of regulating currency prices, more taxes directed towards printing, reinforcing local trade. A chance for local commerce to flourish. No longer a slave of the markets with biggest production volumes.
Specialization viability: Whether you produce mats or byproducts, a minimum price guarantees viability for all choices, without pushing aside supply and demand. Even if a given resource becomes saturated, purchase will be fomented as all prices reach an level of accessibility. All currencies grow in value. Lower level players will be able to spend weapons for hits and growth, while high demand windows through events will still allow to capitalize.
Indirect approach to restrictions: No need to hard settle on exponential level growth, damage limits, or hard limits for earnings or alike. VISA players and top rankings retain their benefits WITHOUT crippling the remaining percentage of active playerbase.
Of course, no change comes without consequences. It requires a lot of fine tuning and tendency study, even for a market with as little product variability as ours. Without server implementation, requires a majority agreement that will still be violated by those seeking exclusively monetary benefit, and risks distrust and blacklisting. It is a *trust system* that simply cannot work. So why even bring it up?
An end goal common to all players. Promoting sustainability and community interaction without crippling any players, regardless of how they have chosen to play. Admin has shown their intent on looking at the game on the long run, of establishing -while minor- adjustments to avoid the degradation of our community. I don't intend to suggest this measure to be implemented right away. I simply wish to bring light upon the fact that change is relevant, viable, and possibilities that might be agreed upon the community with a massively net positive gain/loss ratio might exist *within the economy*. Almost no relevant change could possibly bring as much benefit to *everyone*, but small adjustments can sometimes save entire communities.
Big thanks to Admin for compromising with the playerbase, taking a big step in the right direction, and for reminding us that the chance for more to come does exist. And thank YOU, for investing your time on this article. Please contribute, let me know what you think.
Please help me, and everyone, find ways to create a community even better than we already have. Thank you.
A floor price would mitigate so many problems. An absolute minimum price that cannot be lowered. Yes, it might be true.
Sure, the game has a myriad of problems built around the market. No economy is perfect. But the scope of such a change aims for so many of them, much more than one could think.
So, let me try to lay some concepts down.
Ease of access independently of production volume: Choice of seller becomes based on preference. Your choices and community interactions gain value. Which producers would you like to support?
Lower opportunity cost: Players with bigger warehouses can reliably establish higher prices that will be taken as the minor producers with lower volumes disappear from the bottom price range, while low storage does not force undercutting further towards production price.
Salary, production bonuses, and market tax remain relevant: Ease of regulating currency prices, more taxes directed towards printing, reinforcing local trade. A chance for local commerce to flourish. No longer a slave of the markets with biggest production volumes.
Specialization viability: Whether you produce mats or byproducts, a minimum price guarantees viability for all choices, without pushing aside supply and demand. Even if a given resource becomes saturated, purchase will be fomented as all prices reach an level of accessibility. All currencies grow in value. Lower level players will be able to spend weapons for hits and growth, while high demand windows through events will still allow to capitalize.
Indirect approach to restrictions: No need to hard settle on exponential level growth, damage limits, or hard limits for earnings or alike. VISA players and top rankings retain their benefits WITHOUT crippling the remaining percentage of active playerbase.
Of course, no change comes without consequences. It requires a lot of fine tuning and tendency study, even for a market with as little product variability as ours. Without server implementation, requires a majority agreement that will still be violated by those seeking exclusively monetary benefit, and risks distrust and blacklisting. It is a *trust system* that simply cannot work. So why even bring it up?
An end goal common to all players. Promoting sustainability and community interaction without crippling any players, regardless of how they have chosen to play. Admin has shown their intent on looking at the game on the long run, of establishing -while minor- adjustments to avoid the degradation of our community. I don't intend to suggest this measure to be implemented right away. I simply wish to bring light upon the fact that change is relevant, viable, and possibilities that might be agreed upon the community with a massively net positive gain/loss ratio might exist *within the economy*. Almost no relevant change could possibly bring as much benefit to *everyone*, but small adjustments can sometimes save entire communities.
Big thanks to Admin for compromising with the playerbase, taking a big step in the right direction, and for reminding us that the chance for more to come does exist. And thank YOU, for investing your time on this article. Please contribute, let me know what you think.
Please help me, and everyone, find ways to create a community even better than we already have. Thank you.
Support
OverseerOverseerOverseerNebra007Comments (3)
Voted
V and s
I salute you for thinking about it and taking the time to put it into words, but I don't have a problem with the market as is. I'm not a mass producer, but put some surplus up for sale at MY minimum price. Generally it will sit there a while until there is a surge in demand (epic battle or weekend in the case of food) If it doesn't sell, I either use it myself or produce less. If you're patient, what does it matter if the bottom fall out of a market for a week or 2.