| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
   |
Posted - 2009.09.24 19:16:00 -
[1]
Which businesses in EVE move alot of ISK?
By alot I mainly refer to lots of transactions - The amount of ISK involved is irrelevant.
And by move, I mainly refer to "pay out" ISK (to other characters)
The reason being that this is a manual task.
(Recieving ISK can be recorded automatically thanks to the EVE API.)
So basically, who has to regularly (daily?) make alot of ISK payments to other players?
The only one I can think of at the top of my head is EOH.
And I don't even know if it's "alot" - Is it 10 a day, 50, 200 or more?
Would EOH reveal this number?
EBANK would be another candidate, if it was still operating.
Historical numbers would be interesting none the less. Although with the discovered shoddy bookkeeping I don't know if such numbers are even available.
But perhaps some former bankers can "guestimate".
Any others anyone can think of?
(feel free to take a guess at the number of transactions as well)
-----
2nd part of this question would be:
If it *wasnt* a manual task to transfer ISK to another character - Would other existing businesses benefit (grow/gain more profit/more customers etc) if they did not have to do this manaully?
Which new businesses might spring into existence if this "barrier" didn't exist?
(I have a drawer full of those myself)
----
Why am I asking?
Two fold:
Is there actually a substantial demand for being able to do this (transfer ISK to another character without manual labor - ie. automated) - Or is it just a few of us MD'ers who would think it would "be nice" to be able to?
Given substantial demand (I kinda doubt it - But await the answers) a case might be made to try and get CCP to take a (2nd) look at it.
Secondly, a substantial demand (both from existing, and future businesses being enabled by this) will partly decide if a new business idea would be worth the effort to implement (again - I doubt it)
---
Awaiting some interesting suggestions.
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 19:59:00 -
[2]
Edited by: TornSoul on 24/09/2009 19:59:21
 Originally by: HawkBlade
I can't honestly answer your question because the possibilities are so many.
For the 2nd part of my question : Agreed. (as i said, got a drawer full of projects myself)
What about the first part of the question?
Any existing businesses you could think of?
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 20:20:00 -
[3]
Manual bonds - Agreed. I guess there's a couple of those.
Lotteries - The *recieve* alot of payments, but do hardly any pay outs (just to the few winners)
(and yes we agree it's the potential that's the really interesting part - But I'm also interested in current businesses as they could be used as "testbeds" should I go forward with this at all - I'd give that a 2% chance atm)
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:15:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Martosh Toma
number of people that would be put at risk by it...
What risk?
It's the ability to transfer ISK from your *own* wallet only.
Say, using your existing full EVE API key credentials (or a new level of code - Say "admin" EVE API Key (In contrast to "full" and "limited"))
Which can even be changed at the click of a button, without affecting your actual account credentails.
(It's actually easier (less clicking) to change your EVE API code than your account code - Bit ironic  )
Risk is not CCP's argument for not doing it.
It's due to legal reasons... But as legal stuff is almost the definition of "elastic band" I'm fairly confident, if the will was there, that something could be worked out.
Originally by: Martosh Toma
webshops.
Bingo!
Nothing else needs to be said.
Everything else follows from there. And it's *alot* (even left shar speachless - sorta  )
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:33:00 -
[5]
Edited by: TornSoul on 24/09/2009 21:34:26
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
Given the criminal nature of gold farmers, they will actively seek for those security holes
Ok - I should probably have said "additional risk"
We already face the gold farmer risk as it is.
Agreed it would give an additional attack vector but.. The overall risk pattern would be unchanged imo.
And as said - It's not the actual (stated) reason for CCP saying no.
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:49:00 -
[6]
@Selene
Thanks for the numbers.
The alternative mechanism you propose, I have already suggested as a minimum over in the Moondoggie Feedback (new IGB) thread.
Do go over there and quote/sign it.
------
From the answers given sofar, it appears that my initial suspicion is correct - ie. *atm* there's not that many services "requering" the automated transfer functionality - But on the other hand an explosion of projects are being held back by the lack of it.
------
Sadly I think it's a pretty fair bet that we *wont* get the automated functionality (shouldnt stop us from keep pushing the issue though), so what can we do instead as a "workaround" to accomplish this?
===================================
Let me outline my own thoughts on that:
We need a centralized ISK holder(1), where you can then make "virtual accounts", that their API can then move ISK between (when services etc are bought/sold/traded/etc)
EBANK was getting close to becomming that place.
It was still a far far way away though -- But it was getting there - As more and more accounts got opened.
I think the last number I heard was something in the order of 6000 accounts (of which many ofc will have been idle).
Now 6000 accounts is far from being (near) ubiquitous in EVE, as a scheme like this really would require for it to work.
And even then, you can't expect everyone to trust any one given entity trying to fill this role.
-----
Which leads me to the following:
1)This however requires a centralised ISK holder
I said that above, to make the concept a bit easier to understand. But as I've argumented above, not everyone would trust any one entity.
So let's instead break it up.
Instead of one central ISK holder (ISKH), lets have many.
But lets keep the _one_ API.
Each ISKH would then interface with the API.
And you could choose whatever ISKH you trust with your ISK.
This would allow corps or other organisations to run their own isolated thing (someone above mentioned various corp payouts), but they wouldnt have to create the API.
That's not all however!
It's not a large step to let each ISKH interface with *each other* through the API - And to the end user it would be transparent.
Each ISKH is free to decide which other ISKH's they trust (or if they simply want to run their own thing).
--------
Example :
User A buys something from webshop B.
A's account is however with a different ISKH than that of the webshop.
So two things could happen
1: Either the purchase is denied (as theres no trust between the two ISKH's) or
2: The purchase is accepted, and both the User A's, and webshop B's (virtual) accounts are updated (via the API).
At some later time the ISKH's transfer the actual ingame ISK between their ingame holding accounts.
The transfers between the ISKH's is a manual process.
But it can now be batched. So one transfer of ISK (once or twice a day or whatever) will potentially take care of thousands of "webshop" transactions.
---
So in conclusion :
Lots of ISKH's, tied together by an API, that also ties in the webshops.
---
It's by no means a perfect scheme, and some ISKH's can still decide to scam etc.
But I think over time, a number of ISKH's will emerge that "everyone" trusts. It will take time however...
And it might not even take of either - But I would like to see it happen.
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:27:00 -
[7]
I should perhaps mention that the above outlined scheme is based directly on RL (with one difference).
The ISKH's from above are the RL banks/Credit card issuers.
The webshops are, well.. the webshops
The API is what in RL is called a "Payment Service Provider" (PSP).
In RL banks don't allow webshops to interface with them directly (unless you are a *very* large webshop). They simply dont have (want!) the support structure for dealing with all the webshops (they leave that to the PSP's instead)
And in general the webshops don't want to either, because each bank has thier own API and rules. It would be far too much work for stamp seller Smith to interface with all the banks.
Instead Smith contacs a PSP, who has just one interface to Smith, and the PSP then takes care of all the nasty (different API's) business with the banks (there is some trust issues involved a well)
The various bank API's in RL, as opposed to the single one suggested above, is the only real difference.
In principle there would be no issue with allowing each EVE bank their own API, the API (PSP) would simply have to deal - But why complicate it?
(The above is a rather simplistic description of how things work, but is accurate enough for the purpose. As a side note : I used to work as a programmer for a PSP, doing all that nitty gritty stuff towards the banks )
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 21:32:00 -
[8]
I think we just might have overloaded everyone
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 20:23:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Haskell
What's the incentive to participate? I think the webshop example might be the wrong example here. Alice could wire the ISK directly to Bob, and Bob's webshop would note the purchase by polling the EVE API.
But this takes time, due to the API cashe times.
Anymore than a couple of minutes and it's no good.
Instant (as with the PSP solution) is exponentially better.
Ofc another solution to this would be to get rid of the EVE API cashe (not going to happen).
And it wouldnt solve all problems anyhow - See below.
Originally by: Selene D'Celeste
To be fair, it's not the cashout automation that is holding anything back.
Yes and no.
*Currently* it isnt.
But given a solution as outlined above, I can easily see the numbers explode, an thus automation being a must.
Also, even with a removed EVE API cashe, to wire ISK you would have to be logged in (could be solved by allowing us to transfer ISK from our own wallet via the EVE API - Again, not going to happen)
Imagine a news service - Which could perhaps even be read on your mobile.
Bit tedious having to log in to wire a small sum, to be able to read (imagine they charge 10 ISK per read or similar)
Imagine a news service that could actually (in a practical fashion) make some ISK (to pay reporters etc) for their service!
Lots of other examples along the same vein.
Accessability and speed being the key elements.
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 00:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Haskell
The biggest problem I see so far is the trust between ISK holders.
Agreed.
Which is why I believe there will be 2,3,4 or so BIG ones, that each trust each other, and a lot of smaller ones (that are trusted by no one, nor do they necessarily want/need to be).
The smaller ones, mostly being used for corp affairs and the like.
The ability to have a lot of smaller ones "on the edges" is imo a strength, as it will get people used to the process. A sort of "grass root movement" that will benefit the overall system over time.
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 15:47:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Haskell
Originally by: TornSoul
Which is why I believe there will be 2,3,4 or so BIG ones, that each trust each other
So basically a bank that doesn't pay interest? I'm sure everyone in EBANK trusted Ricdic most of the time.
Not exactly sure what you mean...?
Each bank (ISKH) can set their rates as they wish.
And perhaps offer other services, that makes them attractive to customers.
And trust in whoever runs the bank would naturally be a parameter as well.
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 18:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Haskell
If customers trust one member of this group, they practically (have to) trust the whole group, because this member they trust unconditionally trusts every other member.
Each webshop should list with which ISKH they have an account with(*).
A buyer, who happens to have an account with one of those ISKH's wouldn't have to worry about a thing (the ingame ISK doesn't have to move - it's just shuffled from one virtual account to another)
On the other hand, if the buyer hasn't, he will have to make a choice.
(*)This is a kind (but not identical) to the requirement of RL webshops having to clearly list which payment methods (CC's etc) they accept.
---
Didn't really wan't to get this technical at this stage.
But why not - There's after all *a lot* of ground to be covered.
As was mentioned, something like this won't be build in one day.
BIG Lottery |
| |
|