These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

If CCP kills one trading style, will they at least create a new one?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Julian Huxley
Solomon Bank and Trading Co.
#1 - 2014-04-24 19:53:16 UTC
There has been a lot of discussion about some change to the margin trading mechanic to prevent scamming. I say let the scammers scam, it provides new and old players alike with a one time lesson in TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). But the sacrificial lambs bleat ever so loudly, and they seem to have caught he ear of some devs.

I propose that if they nix one trading style that is overall an ISK sink (broker and trading fees), that they open up a similarly ISK sinking alternative: AUR/ISK/plex/apparel arbitrage. Some of us are loyal customers of the NeX store, we should be able to return these clothes to the store minus a restocking fee. We should also be able to redeem aurum back into our choice of plex or aurum tokens. Aurum tokens remain necessary as long as AUR can't be transferred between accounts.

Doing this would have several impacts:

-Plex price stability, the effective market depth would be expanded from one market to about a dozen

-More ISK sunk out from brokerage and trading fees across these other markets

-Many new trading opportunities for players of a wide range of wealth

-More ganking opportunities from all these newly valuable goods getting shipped around, and hence more incentive for player cooperation to protect shipments

-Incentivize people to actually purchase aurum to buy clothes in the NeX store. Why would anyone do that right now when it's so much cheaper to just buy the apparel in ISK?

Of course, CCP may be reluctant because they gave away all that aurum. Maybe there's a way to mitigate that?

Thoughts?
Nalelmir Ahashion
Industrial Management and Engineering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#2 - 2014-04-24 21:49:22 UTC
what they are going to do with margin trading ?
Julian Huxley
Solomon Bank and Trading Co.
#3 - 2014-04-24 21:55:11 UTC
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:
what they are going to do with margin trading ?


There's this thread that looks quite threatening.

I'd like a clear answer on what they'll do too.
Herzyr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2014-04-25 16:33:23 UTC
I'd say this is a case of bad apples spoiling the rest.
Margin Trading has it's uses but it's the case of people being more creative than the devs Big smile

I'm all in for the ''fixing'' of the MT scam but it's gonna hurt people new to trading if they remove it since they can't ''leverage'' their ISK as well as people who are already established and have a huge pool of ISK to invest from.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#5 - 2014-04-25 22:22:43 UTC
That thread isn't talking about getting rid of margin trading. Just changing it so you have to be able to cover the maximum minimum buy across all your orders.

Which you should be able to do.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Julian Huxley
Solomon Bank and Trading Co.
#6 - 2014-04-25 23:00:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Julian Huxley
Quote:
That thread isn't talking about getting rid of margin trading.


I wasn't saying it was. I was saying that they are looking into changing the mechanic to prevent margin scamming, which is core to what I find to be a most noble trading style.

And if they take the solution of 'you must have enough to fill the minimum quantity'... That definitely does not stop margin scamming. If anything, it makes the spoof buy orders harder to distinguish from the real ones.

They should add a minimum quantity to sell orders. And my suggested changes in original post would open up so many arbitrage opportunities, ones that would benefit all traders as well as CCP if they actually want plex used up to buy apparel.

Quote:
I'm all in for the ''fixing'' of the MT scam


Why you hatin' bro?
Scion Lex
Horizon Logistics
#7 - 2014-04-25 23:26:59 UTC
Margin trading is a crutch and not required for successful trading....not in the slightest. Why do I say that? Because I have the skill and rarely use it. This is because I track my numbers and I know I have to keep my margin value in reserve just in case. Its a short term solution to the, hopefully, short term issue of liquidity. If you actually NEED it then you are too deep in the market for what your volume can actually handle. AKA high risk trading. Your call naturally, but it hardly warrants all this discussion.

Fine them for the value they are missing. This means scammers would be put in the negative and sloppy traders will get what they deserve for not keeping an eye on their margin value vs. liquidity. If the scammers are willing to burn a character slot to scam than let them. If traders are forced out due to their own lack of math skills then so be it.
Michael Bloomberg
Association of Apocrypha Magnetohydrodynamics
#8 - 2014-04-26 03:13:42 UTC
Having the wallet sink into negative might be a fun solution. Add interest for negative wallet status and suddenly eve got more real.
Obunagawe
#9 - 2014-04-26 10:38:51 UTC
Michael Bloomberg wrote:
Having the wallet sink into negative might be a fun solution. Add interest for negative wallet status and suddenly eve got more real.


Have you even considered the consequence of that...
Derp Durrr
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-04-26 13:10:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Derp Durrr
Scion Lex wrote:

Fine them for the value they are missing. This means scammers would be put in the negative and sloppy traders will get what they deserve for not keeping an eye on their margin value vs. liquidity. If the scammers are willing to burn a character slot to scam than let them. If traders are forced out due to their own lack of math skills then so be it.

now that would be the easiest way to flood EVE with isk... just build a character, give it MT, scam yourself, sinking your fresh MTtoon sub zero but gaining the isk on your "scammed" character. then dump the temporary char, rinse and repeat. I think your idea sucks in a brilliant way! +1

Founder of the soon-to-be Legendary Tournament series -=DESTRUCTION DERPY=- Are you up for the challenge? Join our ingame channel Destruction Derpy today!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#11 - 2014-04-27 09:54:30 UTC
Julian Huxley wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion about some change to the margin trading mechanic to prevent scamming. I say let the scammers scam, it provides new and old players alike with a one time lesson in TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). But the sacrificial lambs bleat ever so loudly, and they seem to have caught he ear of some devs.

I propose that if they nix one trading style that is overall an ISK sink (broker and trading fees), that they open up a similarly ISK sinking alternative: AUR/ISK/plex/apparel arbitrage. Some of us are loyal customers of the NeX store, we should be able to return these clothes to the store minus a restocking fee. We should also be able to redeem aurum back into our choice of plex or aurum tokens. Aurum tokens remain necessary as long as AUR can't be transferred between accounts.

Doing this would have several impacts:

-Plex price stability, the effective market depth would be expanded from one market to about a dozen

-More ISK sunk out from brokerage and trading fees across these other markets

-Many new trading opportunities for players of a wide range of wealth

-More ganking opportunities from all these newly valuable goods getting shipped around, and hence more incentive for player cooperation to protect shipments

-Incentivize people to actually purchase aurum to buy clothes in the NeX store. Why would anyone do that right now when it's so much cheaper to just buy the apparel in ISK?

Of course, CCP may be reluctant because they gave away all that aurum. Maybe there's a way to mitigate that?

Thoughts?


That's several hundred thousand dollars worth of mitigation. You'll need to come up with a very persuasive argument indeed, something a lot better than "I'd like a slightly different way to make ISK".

If I were you I'd focus on making the argument that it would be a great way to attract the players who quit in 2011 and since back. You could also mention that it would temporarily lower the price of PLEX, which would discourage hoarding for speculative purposes.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Julian Huxley
Solomon Bank and Trading Co.
#12 - 2014-04-29 05:53:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Julian Huxley
Malcanis wrote:


That's several hundred thousand dollars worth of mitigation. You'll need to come up with a very persuasive argument indeed, something a lot better than "I'd like a slightly different way to make ISK".

If I were you I'd focus on making the argument that it would be a great way to attract the players who quit in 2011 and since back. You could also mention that it would temporarily lower the price of PLEX, which would discourage hoarding for speculative purposes.


CCP could do better than just bringing back inactive players who signed up after 2011 by enticing them with an almost free plex. They could also minimize the cost by first implementing AUR <=> token convertibility. Doing that would get many players to sell their AUR at bellow face value to get 50-200m of ISK right now.

Then CCP could pursue the policy depicted below, giving them the power to easily sell more or less plex without complex combinations of mechanic changes and special deals, depending on what they wanted at the time.

ISK <=(minus taxes & fees)=> PLEX ===> 3500 AUR <===AUR tokens==(minus taxes & fees)==> ISK

ISK <==(minus taxes & fees)==AUR tokens=> 3600 AUR ==> PLEX <=(minus taxes & fees)=> ISK

1.
*Player A buys a plex on the market from player B, he pays 720m. ISK is sunk in broker fees and sales tax.
*Player A converts one plex into 3500 AUR. A plex is destroyed and 3500 AUR created.
*Player A converts 3500 AUR into three 1000 AUR tokens and one 500 AUR tokens. 3500 AUR is destroyed and an equivalent amount of tokens created.
*Player A sells 3500 AUR worth of tokens in the market to player B for 730m. ISK is sunk in broker fees and sales tax.

2.
*Player A buys 3600 AUR worth of tokens on the market from player B for 720m. ISK is sunk in broker fees and sales tax.
*Player A converts 3600 worth of AUR tokens into 3600 AUR. The tokens are destroyed and 3600 AUR is created.
*Player A converts 3600 AUR into one plex. 3600 AUR is destroyed and one plex is created.
*Player A sells one plex on the market to player B for 730m. ISK is sunk in broker fees and sales tax.

Adding it up for one cycle:

-1 plex
+3500 AUR
-3500 AUR
+3500 AUR tokens

-3600 AUR tokens
+3600 AUR
-3600 AUR
+1 plex
-100 AUR = -1/35 of a plex


Because AUR - and thus AUR tokens - can only be created by redeeming from plex, each permutation sinks 1/35 of a plex as well as the ISK from fees and taxes. Example 1 is happening on the buy side of plex and the sell side of tokens. Example 2 is happening on the sell side of plex and the buy side of tokens. If the conversion fee is negative, like in the example, the policy would have a deflationary effect on plex. If it were positive, CCP could make plex inflationary. Thus, by adjusting the fee CCP could have a dial for controlling the plex price and quantity that is significantly simpler than the esoteric art of adjusting faucets and sinks in the normal ways.