That sounds like fairly reasonable statistics. If someone writes out some specific scenarios I suppose I'll take a look and do some number-crunching when I am slightly less busy.
天火狐 On 23 September 2017 at 16:36, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > It sounds like the kind of thing that could work. Right now, what I'm > really > dying for is for someone to do a very simple simulation. E.g. assume N > players, > M officers, each player pends a random# of proposals a week - how do things > fluctuate and do holdings diverge between have and have-nots? Then we > could > try various scenarios such as taxes. (coding this was on my todo list but > not > likely soon...) > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Sep 23, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > >> > > >> I suspect that welcome packages are considerably too large, but I > don’t think that > > >> that was at all obvious at the time. Consider: in the last month or > so, the pending > > >> price has fluctuated between 1 and, approximately, 6 sh. repeatedly. > We’ve actually > > >> managed to keep most shinies in the hands of player. 50 sh. is enough > to author > > >> and pend more proposals than I have written since I started playing, > more than a > > >> year ago - and each Welcome Package causes the pend price to drop at > least one full > > >> shiny in the following week. > > >> > > >> I strongly suspect that that’s more economic impact than intended or > wanted. I > > >> know you’re planning to vote against any economy proposals that > doesn’t enact a > > >> reliable source of shinies in one form or another, but would you > consider > > >> supporting one that shrinks welcome packages? > > > > > > You mean instead of fixing basic income, do something that makes the > problem worse? > > > No, I don't think I'd support that, and in general I disagree that > this is the > > > issue to fix. > > > > Fair enough, it never hurts to ask. > > > > What about something like: > > > > * To “distribute” an amount fungible asset to a set of recipients is to > transfer one instance of that asset at a time to the recipient with the > fewest of that asset, until either no more instances of the asset are > eligible to be distributed or the number of instances so transferred equals > the amount to be distributed. If two or more recipients are tied for the > fewest of an asset, then the recipient that most recently became eligible > to own the asset shall be selected. > > > > * The Tax Rate is a singleton natural switch which can take values > between 0 and 100, inclusive, tracked by the Secretary. The Tax Rate has a > default value of 50. > > > > [It’s a switch for consistency and ease of tracking, but it can only be > flipped by proposal.] > > > > * When a player pays Agora, the Secretary CAN cause Agora to distribute > a percentage of that payment equal to the Tax Rate to all players, and > SHALL do so in a timely fashion. As part of eir weekly duties, the > Secretary SHALL do so for all payments to Agora that have not yet been > scattered. > > > > [This gets rounded up, the Assets rule takes care of that, so the net > result is that when the Pend Value is 1 sh., every shiny spent pending > proposals goes to a player. It’s a trickle, but it’s a trickle proportional > to the amount of activity going on.] > > > > -o > > > > >
