You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Dcity: State of The Union.

in LeoFinance3 years ago

I am all for having a stable currency but stable at 0.0047 or stable at 0.004 is twice as good as stable at 0.005 peg. I do not know which one is better but both are twice as good as the peg. Why? Because in case of need, the price can move twice as many directions to smooth things up (without inventing "market maker" with an endless pocket).

While the Pensionado Tax has been criticised for a reason, I agree the Luxury Tax feels bad as well. It should be dropped. Just do what @rabona does when the club that receives a reward is in debt - they convert the Hive reward to RBN (their equivalent of SIM) so the payout lowers the debt (ie. it is not cashable). For dCity, your daily SIM loss could be converted to Hive value and the daily liquid Hive payout lowered by that amount rather than the artificial (10-)30% tax.

OK, I do not actually want to make it an unplayable strategy, I just want to point out how irrelevant the fairness analysis is.

If you like LEOM, buy less dCity cards and more LEOM. I like how various tokens spice up the game and LEO should be one of those but paying out considerable amounts in token that is not tied to Hive (in terms of pricing) introduces a new decently sized layer of risk.

It was a good read, although you overused "we". Thanks for posting it.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Sort:  

@jelly13 Thanks for your reply, it's good to hear your take on things.
I am kinda hoping that at some point added value to SIM holding, does make it possible to move in both directions with a sim peg of 0.005, but we are a long stretch away from that point.

concerning the luxury tax, it's a tricky one. For now i think it works fine and it does not really compare to being in debt as in Rabona. There's just not enough sim to pay for full social support, so income is zero and support per citizen is lower than the standard 0.02 SIM. I can imagine a sort of opposite popularity effect, where population shrinks when social support is lower than 0.02 SIM.

Or maybe a ranking where all stats are added to a final number: so population + sim sim income + popularity + education + creativity + amount of cards. I am sure the last word hasn't been spoken on this, but for now i think it works pretty good. In my opinion building a zero income city is a valid strategy, which brings interesting battles and keeps certain cards valuable, which may otherwise become almost in. Which makes it less interesting for the "professional" card sellers to keep doing what they are doing.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

With additional SIM holding rewards non players will also hold SIM. This is already happening with the Index token. I for one welcome the idea that holding SIM is interesting even for non players when rewards are interesting enough to do so.

Concerning the reward pool: If it was up to me i would leave things as they are, only i would choose for a lower payout % of 0.75% when we pass 350k. I think zero income cities follow a solid strategy amd bring both interesting battles and help in keeping value for otherwise non desirable card types. I am merely responding to comments from several players who feel there is an element of cheating when it comes to zero income cities. This is the reason lux tax was introduced in the frst place. So to make it crystal clear: The ranking system works fine as it is as far as i am concerned.

I find it funny that you say i try to find creative ways to break the balance. The balance is all i am concerned about, but with a growing SIM economy certain changes from time to time are needed to maintain it. IT seems to me you confuse balance with Status Quo. In the past i have lobbied hard to get the daily payout percentage lowered from 1.5% tp 1%. The fact that we have a 280k plus reward pool now is due to this lower percentage.

Now i feel the time has come to focus on creating additional rewards for SIM holding. That won't break the balance, it will enforce it.

Memento Audere Semper: Remember to never be afraid to act.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Yes, you are clearly a cynical person, but that's fine, we like cats of all colours here.

As the tresurer part of the game is what i am most concerned about, i will certainly continue to give my opinion in that area. I have noticced that apart from being cynical, you also have the habit of referring to remarks that were never made. I have never said that Gerber's numbers were off. I have only given my opinion on how i would like to see certain aspects of the game developed. He's a big boy and can surely handle some constructive discussion.

As for the crowds cheering for me, i don't see them, but it's good to know that we have our own Don Q, who's going barehanded against them.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

I guess in your world Chutzpah is both starter, main and dessert. In my world however, stating an opinion and proposing change isn't insolence.

But it's good that i know where you are coming from now, with your remark that i am wasting Gerber's time. Sitting quietly in a corner, waiting for change to come to me, is not my cup of tea. In the end it's all up to Gerber to choose which path Dcity will take and i will most certainly continue to give him unsollicited advice along the way.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta