On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
> As promised.
>
> -o
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't really like changing the supply level.
>
> I don’t really like _ad-hoc_ changes to the supply level, particularly as a
> first-line tool. Our primary problem right now is that we haven’t got safety
> nets in place to make players comfortable spending Shinies, so players
> without a fixed source of income are holding their coins in case they need
> them later and relying entirely on AP, instead.
>
> However, structured and principled changes to the supply level are probably
> fine. I think we should probably have some wiggle room to deal with
>
> * long-term insolvency, which this proposal addresses,
> * changes in the player population, both explicit (through registration) and
> implicit (through inactivity)
> * scams
>
>> I submit the following proposal.
>>
>> title: Solvency
>> ai: 2
>> author: nichdel
>> co-authors:
>>
>> Amend R2487 "Shiny Supply Level" to read in full:
>>
>> The Supply Level is a singleton switch with possible values integers
>> and a default value of 1000.
>>
>> When a Shiny Releveling event occurs, Agora's Balance is increased or
>> decreased such that all Balances add up to the Supply Level.
>
> As mentioned, balances aren’t adjustable like this any more. Here’s my
> proposed alternative. The wording could probably use work; the idea is that
> either we mint shinies, or we destroy Agora’s shinies, and if Agora doesn’t
> own enough shinies, we get as close as we can to the Supply Level. (We can
> always call another SRE once Agora owns more shinies.)
>
Pardon? Rule 2166: {
The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x that
entity possesses. If a rule, proposal, or other competent
authority attempts
to increase or decrease the balance of an entity without
specifying a source
or destination, then the currency is created or destroyed.
}
-Aris
