These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Hypothetical Scam via Citadel Market?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Leida FireEye
Iron Eagle Industries
#1 - 2016-08-26 23:38:12 UTC
I am considering whether to relocate my station trading operation to a citadel. This has brought me to a potential sticking point:

As I understand it, the owner of that citadel - with no warning - could raise the market tax to something outrageous, say 50%.

I am not in the habit of looking at the tax rate, nor do I want to check it constantly. I might place many billions of ISK worth of buy orders before I notice the change. This would result in significant loss of capital. I must therefore place huge trust in the owner of the citadel not to sneak a tax change on me.

Am I overlooking something that would prevent this?
Cista2
EVE Museum
#2 - 2016-08-27 05:37:34 UTC
Leida FireEye wrote:
I am not in the habit of looking at the tax rate
For citadel trade, you are advised to change your habits a little in that respect.

My channel: "Signatures" -
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#3 - 2016-08-27 06:22:52 UTC
Cista2 wrote:
Leida FireEye wrote:
I am not in the habit of looking at the tax rate
For citadel trade, you are advised to change your habits a little in that respect.

This.

If you aren't in the habit of looking at the details when setting up market orders you're just as likely to lose ISK to your own messed up orders as to a citadel owner trying to screw you.
Leida FireEye
Iron Eagle Industries
#4 - 2016-08-27 16:02:59 UTC
Cista2 wrote:
Leida FireEye wrote:
I am not in the habit of looking at the tax rate
For citadel trade, you are advised to change your habits a little in that respect.


Easier said than done. In practice I would for the first month or so, then it would slowly fade into the background.

Meanwhile more and more traders would relocate there, and the incentive for the owner to screw all of them over would grow. The promise of constant passive income from a low tax rate would keep the temptation at bay. Then comes a wardec. The citadel will fall. Or maybe a disgruntled director wants to go out with a bang and kill the corp's source of income in the process. For whatever reason the income stream is over. There is no longer any incentive not to fleece the unsuspecting traders.
Leida FireEye
Iron Eagle Industries
#5 - 2016-08-27 16:04:12 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
If you aren't in the habit of looking at the details.



False assumption. I specifically said "tax rate".
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#6 - 2016-08-27 18:15:06 UTC
Leida FireEye wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
If you aren't in the habit of looking at the details.

False assumption. I specifically said "tax rate".

That would be one of those details I was talking about.
Sheeth Athonille
Rabid Dogz Mining
#7 - 2016-08-27 18:49:52 UTC
The fact that citadel owners can change the brokers fee but not the tax is also good to know.
Leida FireEye
Iron Eagle Industries
#8 - 2016-08-27 19:50:45 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Leida FireEye wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
If you aren't in the habit of looking at the details.

False assumption. I specifically said "tax rate".

That would be one of those details I was talking about.


Allow me to clarify. I do look at everything that was a risk prior to citadels - like the things I have inputted. The number of times I have lost ISK due to carelessness over the 5 year life of this toon is exactly 2. That loss is about 400m. I continuously maintain about 175-250 orders for years at a time - I'm aware of the risks that existed prior to Citadels. Being lectured on those risks causes my eyes to roll.

The broker fee (valid point Sheeth - tip of the hat) was not one of those risks and it will continue to not be one, right up to the moment it is used for PVP. I conclude:

  • There is no protection other than constant and unfailing vigilance
  • Consequences for failure of that vigilance may be high

    • My question is answered and I can plan accordingly.
    Bad Bobby
    Bring Me Sunshine
    In Tea We Trust
    #9 - 2016-08-28 04:27:36 UTC
    Leida FireEye wrote:
    Being lectured on those risks causes my eyes to roll.

    Since when did a one line comment constitute a lecture?

    If you are determined not to look at a number an inch down from the ones you already check in order to protect yourself from this perceived risk, then yeah, it may be a problem for you.

    From my experience, I've noticed every time the broker fee changes at the citadels I've been trading in, without really going out of my way to check, I just glance over the whole market order window when I place an order and spot anything that is out of place before hitting sell/buy. In particular, a 0% broker fee is fairly easy to tell from a non-zero broker fee because a big number appears where no number used to be.

    If you want a reliable citadel where you can be sure the broker fee will not change on you, putting up your own is the only guarantee.

    I don't think it's likely that any alert will be added, but you could suggest to CCP that they add a safety pop-up if the broker fee is outside of a pre-set range. I've had quite a few feature suggestions be adopted in the past, so it's always worth a try... particularly when they are still actively working on iterating the feature in question.

    Anyway, sorry for the lecture, I suppose it's what I do when I try to help someone and they get ****** with me in response.
    Ibrahim Tash-Murkon
    Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
    Arataka Research Consortium
    #10 - 2016-08-28 17:40:57 UTC
    You came in here with a question and got some helpful answers. The attitude is not called for. Ugh

    "I give you the destiny of Faith, and you will bring its message to every planet of every star in the heavens: Go forth, conquer in my Name, and reclaim that which I have given." - Book of Reclaiming 22:13
    Leida FireEye
    Iron Eagle Industries
    #11 - 2016-08-29 21:32:21 UTC
    Ibrahim Tash-Murkon wrote:
    You came in here with a question and got some helpful answers. The attitude is not called for. Ugh


    That is true... actually.

    The replies were posted in good faith and I should have replied as such. I apologize, in particular to Bad Bobby since he suffer the brunt of my ire.
    Vartan Sarkisian
    Tannhauser C-Beam
    #12 - 2016-09-01 21:22:04 UTC
    Leida FireEye wrote:
    Ibrahim Tash-Murkon wrote:
    You came in here with a question and got some helpful answers. The attitude is not called for. Ugh


    That is true... actually.

    The replies were posted in good faith and I should have replied as such. I apologize, in particular to Bad Bobby since he suffer the brunt of my ire.


    +1 for admiting a mistake... you would be surprised how many people would not do that.