> On Sep 10, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Woah. I was thinking maybe 25% quarterly inflation. Anything much more > than that is a tad extreme, no?
Look at the current situation. We have, nominally, 1k shinies. As of the start of the week, over 90% of them were in the hands of players. During the week, even with a situation casting some doubt on the validity of sh.-denominated transactions, we moved 130 sh. around. The effective transaction volume is dominated by small transactions, while most of the “circulating” shinies are in fact in stockpiles. (Yes, including mine. I owned around 10% of all Shinies at the start of the week, and PSS another 10%.) I’m not sure that adding more shinies would meaningfully cause much inflation in the actual prices, in the medium term, unless we did something to address stockpiling, but it _would_ cause the Floating Value to spike for a while, locking some (all, if we kicked the FV up to 3,000 at a stroke) players out of FV-limited actions for a while until enough shinies enter circulation. This is the core of G.’s protest: there’s nothing to drive transaction volume, so prices sink inexorably towards the lowest value they _can_ reach. We’re demonstrably holding onto shinies until we’re sure we’re maximizing the utility of spending them. Therefore, kicking the FV up will make stockpiling worse without really doing anything to address liquidity. I strongly suspect we need a basic revenue for all players for Shinies to remain effective and fun. This is a purely pragmatic stance, as I like seeing the game more active, and hoarding is the opposite of that. I suspect we also need a use-it-or-lose-it mechanic, so that large stockpiles don’t act as an effective trump card. (Who wants to bid against PSS or I on an Estate auction, as things stand?) -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
