I am not trying to hoard shinies, but I also do not want to just collapse the economy, but if anyone has any interesting contract ideas or things the require shinies, email me and I will probably help out.
On 10/25/2017 02:25 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 25, 2017, at 1:51 AM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au >> <mailto:j...@iinet.net.au>> wrote: >> >> I'm not the only one who feels like this is a horribly designed rule? >> For a start, basic income is designed to overcome the cost of living, >> which in Agora is 0. You could also argue its purpose is already >> fulfilled by Action Points, which are far simpler, far more >> effective, and far less damaging to the economy as a whole. In >> addition, this rule is easy to scam (as has already been pointed >> out), and making it impossible to run out of shinies seems /very/ >> counterproductive. It's also giving a lot of shinies to inactives, >> and we're running up against the supply limit enough as it is. Can we >> repeal it? It's not like there aren't other ways to get shinies, even >> if you aren't an officeholder. > > Some background: the statement "It's not like there aren't other ways > to get shinies, even if you aren't an officeholder” has not been held > to be true, up to at least last month. The lack of reliable shiny > sources for non-officers for any amount of effort caused at least one > player to pledge to vote against any changes to the shiny rules unless > they provided _some_ form of income available to all players. We’ve > had substantial hoards develop - at one point, P.S.S. and I combined > held a full fifth of all Shinies, and P.S.S. is on track to beat that > record singlehandedly. > > In particular, the primary ways to get shinies if you’re not an > officer are largely driven by speculating against the Floating Value, > but the cadence for speculation and the cadence for changes to the FV > align badly. Passing a proposal span up to three weeks even if all of > the officers involved act promptly - the remainder of the first week > to propose and pend it, one week of voting, and some fraction of the > third week for the proposal to be assessed. By experience, it’s nearly > impossible to predict the Floating Value three weeks out: pending > cheap proposals (when the Pend Cost is 1 sh., for example) is no > guarantee of a return unless the FV both goes up and _stays_ up for > the following two weeks. > > AP, which you cite above, were enacted partly as a workaround for the > stagnation of the Shiny economy (or, if you prefer, a tacit > acknowledgement that it wasn’t functioning as an economy). I suspect > there are a few players who would push to repeal AP if the Shiny > economy picks up again. > > I’ll freely admit that my solution is deeply flawed. Tapping half of > the shinies passing into Agora’s coffers damps the Floating Value > fairly hard, and I can’t see an obvious value for the Tax Rate that’s > both sufficient to provide a steady stream of shinies back into > players’ hands and low enough to keep Floating Value moving. I’m > hopeful that I haven’t completely broken it, but I’m also fearful that > I have. Put forward a repeal if you like; I can’t predict how voting > will go, at this point, and I’m not even sure how I’d vote. I do ask > that you put forward something to replace it that ensures that > non-officers have a source of shinies that’s more reliable than > gambling, available in return for _some_ reasonable amount of effort. > > In conclusion, as my partner regularly reminds me, inventing money is > rude, and inevitably leads to these kinds of problems. > > -o >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
