EVE Search - [proposal] Banking Evolved: Consequences and Incentives

All Channels

Market Discussions

[proposal] Banking Evolved: Consequences and Incentives

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.19 18:51:00 - [1] From the "Banking in EVE" thread - Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist You can have all that you want - it won't change it. Until there is a consequence to defaulting or scamming, you will never have a safe and economically successful banking system. I've been thinking alot about Banking and consequences in EVE, and Thrasy is right...well...half-right. I'll never really rule out it out as impossible, but the point is the chances of Banking "working" in EVE is largely hinged on consequences. These consequences can take many forms; reputation, collateral, etc. But maybe, just maybe, EVE Bankers really need to put some skin in the game. Have something at stake. Assumption: I'm assuming there is some way that the Bank is making money. Loans, insurance, fund managers, whatever. Primary function of the Bank; to provide financial services to the players of EVE. These include core functions such as interest bearing accounts and handling withdraws in a prompt manner. Secondary function of the Bank; to make the person(s) running it real world money. I will explain. Until the person running the Bank has a real tangible stake in it, there are no consequences. Not really. But if they count on a hundred bucks extra a month (or more), that creates a real incentive to continue and a disincentive to stop. What I'm saying is that not only must the bank find a way to generate ISK in-game, but it must find a way to generate RL currency out of game. Find a compelling reason for people to micro-subscribe for a monthly service...perhaps extra reporting, aggregated assets and accounting for multiple characters and multiple accounts, graphs which present data in a more meaningful way, etc. As an example, EBANK had over 6,000 users before Ricdic's actions came to light. If 2,000 were individuals and active, and only a mere 15% (300) subscribed to extra reports or features for a dollar a month, that's $300. $3,600 a year. Imagine if the number was greater. What I've proposed demands more of out-of-game services -- but given the long life of EVE and the potential of what I'm suggesting, I think the effort is worth it in many ways. Projects Blog
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:03:00 - [2] cant we just make a legally binding document OOG? that holds the person economical responsible if he scams/steals the ISK. and partial responsible in the case of bad management... that way there would be RL consequences at least where i live, if i where to break that binding agreement!
Grozen Caldari Titan Core	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:08:00 - [3] Hexxx is right about one thing unless these goes over the binds of the eula and in real life, there is never going to be real eve-bank.Simply because the eve consequences are so small.Lets take a look at them: 1.Use bpo locking by shareholders?If the ceo wants these bpos may never end up back in investor hands and eventually he is going to find a way to get them. 2.Collateral?What if the person holding it runs a away with it? 3.Wars?Seriously so many ways to evade this one its not even option. If this were to evolve into real bank irl somehow connected to eve then there would be even legal punishment for stealing isk and nobody would think twice about that. Unfortunately i doubt ccp would ever think to go that far or even take Hexxx's proposal into consideration. knowledge is power
Dezolf Minmatar DAX Action Stance	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:10:00 - [4] Hexxx, you get all the good ideas. :D
Gabriel Virtus hirr	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:12:00 - [5] I think you hit it right on the head Hexxx and I think that this might be possible; however, I highly doubt an extra 100$ a month will keep someone from scamming in the game. Furthermore, through salaries, banks already offer realworld income in the form of PLEX so that they do not have to pay for their gametime across multiple accounts and have more money in the real world because of it. @ Ji Sama - OOG contracts will have no affect whatsoever. You are not going to sue for the small amounts of money most people have in their bank accounts. Furthermore, you would need to outline the money value of a service and not assets in game because you own no assets in game - in the eyes of the legal system. The transaction costs of collecting on a breached contract, even for trillions of in-game isk, would far outweigh any benefit one would get from the value of the isk. This is ignoring the difficulties with international contracts and enforcing those contracts, many of which would make these sorts of international OOG contracts worthless. I would suggest realworld information about those involved in the bank that would be available to the depositors. -GV
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:16:00 - [6] Gabriel, it might be so where you are from, where i am from we have an agreement-law (aftalelov) and while i am no lawyer, the punishment for breaking such an agreement, is the same you get if your commit to fraud! So it would have consequenses, and it would show up in RL on ones record, however you are right about he civil lawsuit! (you could get a freeprocess, I am not sure how that works, and especially considering if it where an international lawsuit!)
Dirk Mortice	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:18:00 - [7] Against the EULA? If I remember right you can sell OOG services for isk but not ingame services for RL isk, and regardless as to whether or not te reporting is ingame I get the feeling providing market/financial reports constitutes as that
Lecherito	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:25:00 - [8] One of the better things I've read on the boards, as of late. It has, hopefully, been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the ingame benefits (plex = rl isk?) and consequences (reputation, collateral, etc) are not enough to deter banks from eventually scamming and/or collapsing. Until that factor can be resolved, ingame banks will never work. I'm thinking Hexx's idea, having a real world stake to lose, is on the right track. -L
Dezolf Minmatar DAX Action Stance	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:38:00 - [9] Originally by: Ji Sama Gabriel, it might be so where you are from, where i am from we have an agreement-law (aftalelov) Which is exactly the problem with making a legally binding OOG agreement. You'd have to either make it country specific (lots of work) or just "rule out" countries with "strict" laws (which some companies do). Also, while a bit off topic, how did I not know about that law?
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:45:00 - [10] Originally by: Dirk Mortice Against the EULA? If I remember right you can sell OOG services for isk but not ingame services for RL isk, and regardless as to whether or not te reporting is ingame I get the feeling providing market/financial reports constitutes as that I'm not suggesting selling bank accounts, only access to premium reporting outside of game. I believe this is already happening, perhaps you could clarify? Projects Blog
Grozen Caldari Titan Core	Posted - 2010.07.19 19:57:00 - [11] Doubt you could charge ppl for that kind of thing, but maybe you could provide some real life securifty+ the benefits you said for rl currency.In case it needs to be a damn good service. knowledge is power
Dirk Mortice	Posted - 2010.07.19 20:18:00 - [12] Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: Dirk Mortice Against the EULA? If I remember right you can sell OOG services for isk but not ingame services for RL isk, and regardless as to whether or not te reporting is ingame I get the feeling providing market/financial reports constitutes as that I'm not suggesting selling bank accounts, only access to premium reporting outside of game. I believe this is already happening, perhaps you could clarify? Not too sure myself tbh, just throwing the point out that selling some eve service for RL cash could be risky. I suppose CCP could clarify for us but :ccp:
Block Ukx Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2010.07.19 20:40:00 - [13] Yes, interesting incentive for the people managing the bank. I'm more concern on how to make loans worth the risk. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.19 20:45:00 - [14] Originally by: Block Ukx Yes, interesting incentive for the people managing the bank. I'm more concern on how to make loans worth the risk. It is my opinion that loans are not an activity a large Bank should be engaged with. It's more of a small Bank activity which inherently forces a smaller loan portfolio which hopefully provides more oversight. Put another way, a large loan portfolio (and collateral) is too unwieldy to reasonably maintain in EVE. At least, for now. Projects Blog
Dzil Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve OWN Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.19 20:50:00 - [15] While it certainly couldn't hurt, there have been bigger, more complex and labor intensive feats accomplished in EVE that didn't require paying the core leadership real money to make it happen. As a motivational tool it might better encourage other directors to be more vigilant, but ultimately if a Ricdic in the organization gains access to massive amounts of isk, even a 100 USD salary may not persuade him from not making a couple grand in a one-time cash out ... further if he's become disillusioned with the leadership denying them that real world paycheck would make the bargain even sweeter. Retired from corp sales. Time to spend some of this on pretty explosions :)
SetrakDark Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.07.19 20:58:00 - [16] EULA violation. Reported.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.19 21:04:00 - [17] Originally by: Dzil While it certainly couldn't hurt, there have been bigger, more complex and labor intensive feats accomplished in EVE that didn't require paying the core leadership real money to make it happen. As a motivational tool it might better encourage other directors to be more vigilant, but ultimately if a Ricdic in the organization gains access to massive amounts of isk, even a 100 USD salary may not persuade him from not making a couple grand in a one-time cash out ... further if he's become disillusioned with the leadership denying them that real world paycheck would make the bargain even sweeter. Good points. I'm not suggesting that it's a bullet proof idea, or that it will 100% stop fraud. I do believe (and am suggesting) that what I've proposed would bring stability to EVE Banking by introducing "real" consequences, at least from a cashflow perspective. The idea being, it would significantly reduce the risk of fraud by creating strong financial disincentives against fraud. Projects Blog
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.19 21:51:00 - [18] ..I'm not paying $1 a month for anything. Instead of an OOG scheme to help banks in Eve, why doesn't someone ask in the correct forum signature contracts that can only be offered/accepted by *accounts.* The only con I can see in this feature being implemented is that scamming is part of the user experience. On another note, in real life, some of the perks and sole reasons of having a bank account is: No requirement to carry large sums of liquid $$ around. -Eve without banks has this. Direct deposit to a central location. -Eve without banks has this. Ability to purchase items/service online/(Eve world) remote locations. Eve without banks has this. Even in RL, there is no point for a savings account, which is what EBANK primarily is. You can get WAY better returns through other methods in RL and Eve then shoving all your isk into a savings account. In closing, banks in Eve are a fun element, just window dressing. A weird combo of role playing and financial maturity. It's fun to have a bank account in your video game. It's fun for the BOD's to pretend that they are financial managers. It's fun to have a safe (lol ya rite) investment that is earning you .2% interest monthly. It is fun to pretend that there is a valid* reason to have a bank in Eve. As for me, my isk is secure, in my wallet. Earning greater then the amount of interest that any in game bank can offer.

CCP Zymurgist Gallente C C P	Posted - 2010.07.19 22:22:00 - [19] Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact Us

TornSoul BIG Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.07.19 22:31:00 - [20] I'm very very much against mixing RL money/value into anything EVE related. Thankfully as Zym just posted it's also against the EULA. It's a game. Period. Lets keep it that way. As soon as RL money/value gets involved - it stops being a game. In my opinion anyhow. If that really is your thing there are actually a couple of other "games" out there that will cater to such desires. Any solution has to be within the EULA - and as such, not tied in with any RL money/value. If that ever changes I would seriously have to consider my involvement with EVE en large. BIG Lottery
Breaker77 Gallente Reclamation Industries	Posted - 2010.07.19 22:34:00 - [21] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. So by giving CCP $15 a month I'm violating the EULA and can be banned? I'm giving CCP RL currency and receiving EVE related services in exchange. I always knew CCP was into RMT.
Tekota legion industries ltd Veni Vidi Vici Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.19 22:42:00 - [22] Originally by: Syds Sinclair good stuff I'm very much with Syds on this one. Further, not only is there no real driving need for more robust banking in Eve, I personally have no desire whatsoever to tie in real life financial obligations and responsibilities to a game played for entertainment. Once in game actions have real life fiscal implications it becomes a job. If I screw up at work I lose my job; if I screw up in my online entertainment then I lose my job also? Yep the real one and the virtual one. Running the risk of troll bait here, but as Hexx has already referenced Ebank & Ricdic I'll risk it. Ebank's demise was characterised not just by theft perpetrated by one individual but by ignorance (and I use that in the dictionary definition sense of the word) bordering on recklessness on the part of some of the past staffing. Failing to properly manage fiscal instruments has serious implications, regulatory bodies in most countries have the powers to prevent such people from holding positions of financial responsibility in the future. Now, Ebank has it's established pitchfork wielding mob, but I doubt any but the most extreme of them would suggest that incompetent space pixel management should cost Directors their real life bank job and prevent them from in the future running an investment fund or becoming a company director. The other thing is of course the ESRB Teen rating that CCP looks to aim for. Obviously can't hold 13 year olds to legally binding financial contracts (I say obviously, I've no idea on Icelandic law, guessing here). In principle, nerdy spreadsheet wielding 13 year olds may be supreme space pixel fund managers (just as nerdy spreadsheet wielding 30 year olds may be atrocious fund managers) - unwise to bar spotty four-eyed accountants of the future (part of CCPs target market undoubtedly!) from a substantial part of their game.
Thrasymachus TheSophist	Posted - 2010.07.19 22:51:00 - [23] There are many, many opportunites to have real consequences that remain in game. They require, however, some action on the part of CCP that may (or may not?) be contrary to their vision of a "sandbox". If the Devs were into it, they could create a very interesting set of "laws" in Eve that would have far reaching effects on all sorts of scams - banks included. Whether they would ever want such a system is unclear, at best. Just for ***** and giggles, consider a revamped bounty system, a revamped taxation/fee system, and a revamped security status system. Consider financial reporting tools (in game). Consider character reporting tools (in game). Consider locator agents who want to help you find outlaws. The opportunities here are truly limitless to make a character worthless (in game), or worth less, based on their actions, but only if people want criminality to have consequences. Combine that with an "in game" ability to check a character's SP and age and you have a functioning legal system. Of coursee, its all about consequences - not prophylaxis ....
Grozen Caldari Titan Core	Posted - 2010.07.19 22:59:00 - [24] Edited by: Grozen on 19/07/2010 22:59:14 i think everything is pretty clear atm.CCP doesn't want to deal with real life stuff that would breach eula. knowledge is power
Gabriel Virtus hirr	Posted - 2010.07.19 23:04:00 - [25] Ji Sama - I didn't know that and am unfamiliar with european law; however, I am well-versed in American law and international agreements, but this issue becomes incredibly complex when dealing with certain countries. If what you say is accurate, then maybe this idea would be wonderful for Euro players. You would: A) disallow any players from certain countries with disadvantageous law; or B) Hope that the agreement between the players in Europe would give vicarious protection to players in countries that would be disallowed by option A. I am guessing B would be doable. Hexxx - Why would a 100$ a month stop players from a scam that would net thousands? Or even significantly reduce the risk of scam? Judging by how many players will spend thousands getting GTC to fun pvp or their extravagent ships, I don't know if this RL service payment would reduce risk.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.19 23:09:00 - [26] Quote: The other thing is of course the ESRB Teen rating that CCP looks to aim for. Obviously can't hold 13 year olds to legally binding financial contracts (I say obviously, I've no idea on Icelandic law, guessing here). In principle, nerdy spreadsheet wielding 13 year olds may be supreme space pixel fund managers (just as nerdy spreadsheet wielding 30 year olds may be atrocious fund managers) - unwise to bar spotty four-eyed accountants of the future (part of CCPs target market undoubtedly!) from a substantial part of their game. Don't know if I made myself clear, and I am only using this quote as an example, and in no way implying it was directed at me. But when I speak of a contract, I am only talking about the managers! Hold them accountable, by a RL contract! If they live in a country where no such law exist, they have automatically excluded themselves from a position in the fictional BOD! I also agree with some in this thread, that a large bank, should not be in the loaning business, unless loans are 110% collateralized. No special credit lines etc. Finally I do think there is a place in eve for a bank, for the reasons syd mentioned. Its fun roleplaying, and looking at your "fake" bank account, or playing a tycoon or bankdirector etc :)
OwlManAtt Gallente Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.07.19 23:23:00 - [27] Edited by: OwlManAtt on 19/07/2010 23:24:47 Originally by: Grozen Edited by: Grozen on 19/07/2010 22:59:14 i think everything is pretty clear atm.CCP doesn't want to deal with real life stuff that would breach eula. It was suggested that he charge RL money for additional reporting tools, not for ISK or bank accounts or anything sinister. It's like charging ten US dollars for EveWalletAware; a piece of software that runs analysis on data imported from the API. I can't see anything in the EULA that prohibits that: Quote: You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction. The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions (such as ebay), newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game. Please correct me if I'm missing something, but according to that clause, what I describe is completely permissible. That said, what kind of reporting tools could you offer when all you're managing is the balance + interest? You can't have a RL fee for opening / maintaining the bank account and I really doubt you'd get an appreciable amount from advertisements on the bank management website. --- Owl
Thoraemond Minmatar Far Ranger	Posted - 2010.07.20 00:02:00 - [28] Originally by: Hexxx Primary function of the Bank; to provide financial services to the players of EVE. These include core functions such as interest bearing accounts and handling withdraws in a prompt manner. Secondary function of the Bank; to make the person(s) running it real world money. These primary functions seem "consumer-oriented" and might thus be something that is better suited to CCP development and the company can simply use their behind-the-scenes data to balance the new ISK source of interest payments with other factors in the economy. The secondary functions seem like something better accomplished by getting a real-life job (possibly in banking, if you're interested in the field!). So long as the "universe" remains legally and practically owned and controlled by CCP, the company has an interest in fighting to ensure that the activity of "operating" a "bank" in that universe is also under the company's control (i.e., not outside its real-life jurisdiction). I suspect that CCP's owners would not want them to cede ownership of in-game "assets" to players. á á
Messoroz	Posted - 2010.07.20 00:29:00 - [29] Edited by: Messoroz on 20/07/2010 00:29:40 <NVM>
cosmoray Bella Vista Holdings Corp	Posted - 2010.07.20 00:38:00 - [30] Assuming that CCP were to allow RL exchange of money OR that players could have RL $$ stakes in Eve corps it would be a legal minefield especially in the USA. Gaming companies would have to be insane to allow it, I can almost see the lawyers in America rubbing their hands at the thought of it. I thought the main point of Eve was to have fun. Soon as it stops being fun you stop playing. Why give yourself an extra headache in RL.
Red Doppler	Posted - 2010.07.20 00:40:00 - [31] Let me get this straight... The way to stop an in game bank from scamming, would be to not just send them our isk, but send them our isk and our real money too? I'm so glad I never touched E-Bank with a ten foot pole.
Block Ukx Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2010.07.20 00:41:00 - [32] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. Could you comment on this? Eve Strategic Maps I beleive this is the sort of service Hexxx is refering to. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
Vilgan Mazran Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2010.07.20 00:56:00 - [33] Why do banks need to exist in Eve? Just because we have banks in real life, does not necessarily mean we need to have them in Eve. They are two different worlds with two different sets of needs and ways to meet those needs. Should we start having unions in Eve too just because they exist in real life? The reality of it is, imo, that without some of the penalties that exist in real life for defaulting that the bank concept can't really get very far. CCP has wisely forbidden such RL links to exist, thus the foundation for any bank is built on sand and is likely to eventually erode.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.20 01:08:00 - [34] Originally by: Block Ukx Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. Could you comment on this? Eve Strategic Maps I beleive this is the sort of service Hexxx is refering to. I was ready to post a snarky response to CCP Zymurgist's rather broad statement, but instead, I will simply agree with you. Projects Blog
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.20 01:24:00 - [35] Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: Block Ukx Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. Could you comment on this? Eve Strategic Maps I beleive this is the sort of service Hexxx is refering to. I was ready to post a snarky response to CCP Zymurgist's rather broad statement, but instead, I will simply agree with you. ..Maybe the difference is that the cartographer service is a static service with limited, or even non existent day to day, month to month, year to year interaction. $$ = prepackaged glimpse of the well readily available Eve universe. Whereas what you are suggesting for a banking system in eve is a dynamic service which directly charges $$. $$ = service. And I dunno, maybe discussion of this topic inside of the official E-O forums might require a response from a CCP Mod. But a personally owned website with a few creative links offering said service but without the mention of character or account names might be fruitful. Without my $1 tho.
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2010.07.20 03:15:00 - [36] Amarr for Life
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.20 10:48:00 - [37] Originally by: cosmoray Assuming that CCP were to allow RL exchange of money OR that players could have RL $$ stakes in Eve corps it would be a legal minefield especially in the USA. Gaming companies would have to be insane to allow it, I can almost see the lawyers in America rubbing their hands at the thought of it. I thought the main point of Eve was to have fun. Soon as it stops being fun you stop playing. Why give yourself an extra headache in RL. Two things. 1) No where in any of my writings, anywhere at anytime, have I suggested or endorsed the idea of exchanging RL money for IG money. Ever. Never. Period. 2) This is my idea of fun. Projects Blog
Magnu Stormhawk Stormhawk Enterprises	Posted - 2010.07.20 11:57:00 - [38] Originally by: SencneS Edited by: SencneS on 20/07/2010 03:30:13 How does this stop people like Ricdic was simply doing it anyway? Remember he took all that ISK to pay for real life bills and had no problems leaving EVE after that. To him and quite possibly most scammers, even Real Life impacts wouldn't stop them. I mean lets face it, Ricdic claimed he made off with $7,000. There is no way he would have paid $7,000 to get to that point. Most people wont. Herein lies the problem with the idea as I see it. RL consequences I agree would bring some of the required security, but I cant see how it can be balanced with the amount RL cash that could be made in on hit, from a one-time scam. Maintaining a future income stream is an incentive to not scam, but its not free, you would be working for it surely. How does that balance with the ultimately risk free option of cashing it in when you've had enough of eve by doing a Ricdic? As far as issues with the EULA go, I am sure there will be a way to play by the rules, despite the ccp response above. It would just need the details ironing out and the nature of the payments making clear. I think this is less of an issue than whether such income would have the effect you want it to on the management of a bank.
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six	Posted - 2010.07.20 12:36:00 - [39] Edited by: Selene D''Celeste on 20/07/2010 12:38:13 Originally by: Block Ukx Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. Could you comment on this? Eve Strategic Maps I beleive this is the sort of service Hexxx is refering to. I'd also like to mention that we've had petition chains with the GM staff in the past for EULA clarification on this matter, since one of the many future ideas for EOH is to provide things like a full personal playing statistics package, a leaderboard, or customized avatars to anyone who has donated at least X in $ to subsidize server costs (which are 100% donated at the moment). This is the same as what Hexxx is discussing here, where the users are paying $ for information. We were told that as long as no in-game currency or assets are tied to the $, and it is information only, then that does not break the EULA. So something like free chips/ISK for donators is bad, but a pretty graphic is okay. If this is not the case, then a more explicit clarification needs to be made, but I am assuming this post was made without actually reading the thread in detail =P P.S. These ideas for EOH are quite a ways off, as I have a long list of features I want to implement before even fleshing out what I mentioned above. Edit: It's important to note that this isn't much different than donating to popular EVE services, such as eve-radio or to Chribba to help with bandwidth, except in this case there is packaged information provided back to donators as a thank-you. ______________________________
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.20 12:40:00 - [40] Edited by: Hexxx on 20/07/2010 12:40:17 Originally by: Magnu Stormhawk Originally by: SencneS Edited by: SencneS on 20/07/2010 03:30:13 How does this stop people like Ricdic was simply doing it anyway? Remember he took all that ISK to pay for real life bills and had no problems leaving EVE after that. To him and quite possibly most scammers, even Real Life impacts wouldn't stop them. I mean lets face it, Ricdic claimed he made off with $7,000. There is no way he would have paid $7,000 to get to that point. Most people wont. Herein lies the problem with the idea as I see it. RL consequences I agree would bring some of the required security, but I cant see how it can be balanced with the amount RL cash that could be made in on hit, from a one-time scam. Maintaining a future income stream is an incentive to not scam, but its not free, you would be working for it surely. How does that balance with the ultimately risk free option of cashing it in when you've had enough of eve by doing a Ricdic? As far as issues with the EULA go, I am sure there will be a way to play by the rules, despite the ccp response above. It would just need the details ironing out and the nature of the payments making clear. I think this is less of an issue than whether such income would have the effect you want it to on the management of a bank. That simply means that the RL revenue stream from extra reporting services would have to be significantly larger than the possible "one hit" scam in my opinion; but it's an excellent point. If the premium service is generating too little, yet the Bank has a very large amount of ISK, then the risk for scamming hasn't really been mitigated. edit: fixed a disastrous misspelling Projects Blog
Krathos Morpheus Legion Infernal	Posted - 2010.07.20 13:17:00 - [41] Originally by: Selene D'Celeste We were told that as long as no in-game currency or assets are tied to the $, and it is information only, then that does not break the EULA. So something like free chips/ISK for donators is bad, but a pretty graphic is okay. If this is not the case, then a more explicit clarification needs to be made, but I am assuming this post was made without actually reading the thread in detail =P It is ultimately ccp's call to say what is allowed or not, but how any of this or the previous defenses of real money trading for services account with the actual rules of software development? It is not allowed to charge real money for software build for eve, only donations are allowed, not even for "extra" features. It seems that you have blurred the line a little bit by charging for (or rewarding donors) providing data on an out of game service built on top of eve, linked by isk but disconnected from the game. It is the additional layer that may distinguish you from every other negative answer on this matter. I don't see any bank could build something like this (Charging rl money for statistics on how much isk have you deposited and withdrawn along time? What possibly useful information can it provide not directly related to eve?). Since it is not allowed (and certainly it shouldn't be unless ccp changes the rules for every other developer) this discussion is futile. Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. That is all it's needed to say, trying to distort perception to make an exception doesn't change the fact that you will be charging real money for access to software or services directly related to the game. Unless you want to charge money for useless data (not related directly with the game).
KaarBaak Minmatar Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative	Posted - 2010.07.20 13:43:00 - [42] Edited by: KaarBaak on 20/07/2010 13:45:16 Originally by: Block Ukx Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. Could you comment on this? Eve Strategic Maps I beleive this is the sort of service Hexxx is refering to. I pretty sure those maps are put out by E-ON magazine, which is the "official" magazine for EvE Online. As pointed out above, many 3d party app developers have gone round and round with CCP over this. Some iPhone apps that were originally sold for .99, had to be re-priced to "Free" after contact from CCP. That said, it IS a very grey area. Can I sell little white oval bumper stickers with "JITA" on them for 3.00? For 20M isk? What about T-shirts with Alliance logos? Killboards? Corp website hosting? I don't think RW money is the answer to the banking problem. In-game controls are...and CCP has demonstrated that (A) They don't want to do it and (2) Even if they did, it would be 18 months before they even started working on it, minimum. KB Edit: The only way I could see skirting the EULA issues is you would have to not touch the API, and use no CCP-owned graphics. =vinur allra manna MetaGaming
Anna Weston Gallente Holdings Inc	Posted - 2010.07.20 13:56:00 - [43] Earlier this year I dabbled with Global Agenda (a fun little MMOFPS if you haven't come across it) and the way they were set up each player could only have one account to which all their characters were linked. This was explained as a design decision explicitly aimed at ensuring that players cared about their reputations; we would have no access to anonymous alts for doing our dirty work (though as GA isn't at all sandboxy, there's not much opportunity for dirty work except on the forums). I'm curious as to how this would affect EVE. If every character we owned could be linked to every other you can't help thinking that it would be much easier to genuinely hold people accountable for their actions. I'm also wondering if there's room in EVE for some kind of "reputation broking" service, something like a cross between a credit reference agency and the Better Business Bureau. I've only got a vague idea what it would look like at the moment but it would be an interesting experiment.
Breaker77 Gallente Reclamation Industries	Posted - 2010.07.20 14:02:00 - [44] Originally by: Anna Weston the way they were set up each player could only have one account to which all their characters were linked. How does a company confirm that? 2 different e-mail addresses: check 2 different credit cards: check 2 different IP addresses: check 2 different RL names and addresses: easy to have a friend, relative, ect setup which can go along with the first 3 items I mentioned. Now you have 2 accounts that are separate and as long as no one runs their mouth, they are played by the same player.
KaarBaak Minmatar Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative	Posted - 2010.07.20 14:07:00 - [45] Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Anna Weston the way they were set up each player could only have one account to which all their characters were linked. How does a company confirm that? 2 different e-mail addresses: check 2 different credit cards: check 2 different IP addresses: check 2 different RL names and addresses: easy to have a friend, relative, ect setup which can go along with the first 3 items I mentioned. Now you have 2 accounts that are separate and as long as no one runs their mouth, they are played by the same player. I think it stopped being "just a game" somewhere between "2 different credit cards" and "2 different IP addresses" for that person. =vinur allra manna MetaGaming
Anna Weston Gallente Holdings Inc	Posted - 2010.07.20 15:00:00 - [46] Originally by: Breaker77 How does a company confirm that? 2 different e-mail addresses: check 2 different credit cards: check 2 different IP addresses: check 2 different RL names and addresses: easy to have a friend, relative, ect setup which can go along with the first 3 items I mentioned. Now you have 2 accounts that are separate and as long as no one runs their mouth, they are played by the same player. And two or three years after you've done all that work you slip up and start using the same e-mail/password/IP for both accounts. BAM! automatic EULA violation, bye-bye to all your training and assets. It's a high-risk as well as high-effort approach! Anyhow, how many broadband connections do you have at your house? I think most of us would find it non-trivial to have to run EVE accounts from separate IPs! Meanwhile, back to my actual question.
Hel O'Ween Men On A Mission	Posted - 2010.07.20 15:45:00 - [47] Originally by: OwlManAtt It's like charging ten US dollars for EveWalletAware; a piece of software that runs analysis on data imported from the API. Just to clarify before someone gets confused: I never did nor do I have the intention to ever charge anything for EVEWalletAware, especially no RL money. I personally think that the later would even be in violation of the EULA/ToS, because it would be selling "content appearing within the Game environment" (= your transactions, journal etc.) for RL money. It is my understanding that this is not allowed. -- EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager
Dzil Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve OWN Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.20 16:01:00 - [48] Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. That is all it's needed to say, trying to distort perception to make an exception doesn't change the fact that you will be charging real money for access to software or services directly related to the game. Unless you want to charge money for useless data (not related directly with the game). [/justify] Unfortunately this is an area where precedent defends both sides of a gray area. We have support tools like EMMA, the EVE maps, EVE Radio, etc that do take in RL $$ for out of game services: the question of how relevant to the game seems to be the dividing area. Obviously a direct exchange of cash for ISK is forbidden, but what about access to market data that allows you to act on regional price differences faster than your competitor, making loads of isk in the process? Or starmaps that let you settle an optimal place for PI/moon mining without exhausting hours of time and millions in probes? Or a radio station that will advertise your EVE business on live airwaves? One thing ebank did right IMO is they worked closely with CCP GMs to ensure services were EULA friendly before offering them to the public. I would recommend a similar practice before getting to serious with any model that included real life revenue ;) Retired from corp sales. Time to spend some of this on pretty explosions :)
Dzil Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve OWN Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.20 16:10:00 - [49] Originally by: KaarBaak Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Anna Weston the way they were set up each player could only have one account to which all their characters were linked. How does a company confirm that? 2 different e-mail addresses: check 2 different credit cards: check 2 different IP addresses: check 2 different RL names and addresses: easy to have a friend, relative, ect setup which can go along with the first 3 items I mentioned. Now you have 2 accounts that are separate and as long as no one runs their mouth, they are played by the same player. I think it stopped being "just a game" somewhere between "2 different credit cards" and "2 different IP addresses" for that person. I could come up with 2 credit cards as easily as using my wife's and my own (plus, atm you can run a game with just GTC/PLEX - you don't have to use a CC). And this brings the added question: if you get a Billy and Bobby Sue with the same IP address, how to you differentiate between family members with different accounts, vs one guy with aliases? Retired from corp sales. Time to spend some of this on pretty explosions :)
Thrasymachus TheSophist	Posted - 2010.07.20 16:18:00 - [50] Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 20/07/2010 16:22:12 Originally by: Anna Weston I'm also wondering if there's room in EVE for some kind of "reputation broking" service, something like a cross between a credit reference agency and the Better Business Bureau. I've only got a vague idea what it would look like at the moment but it would be an interesting experiment. There are lots of possibilities, some have been posted with reasonable detail previously on the forums. The key is this: Character training has value, and reputation has value. You could further add "value" to some sort of in-game reputation by having it give consequences -- sort of like security standing but on steroids. There are many such consequences you could consider from tax rates to denial of use of stations to shooting on site to denial of use of star gates, to Empire paid bounties, to denial of paying for killing rats, to denial of use of market or cotnracts, to denial of giving any missions, to pretty much anything you can think of that would devalue the character. Obviously you have to balance the consequence to the act, and you need to have a solid underlying system that insures your rep hits and the consequences are legit and not subject to abuse/manipulation. But by making a character less valuable in game, you're hitting the player where it hurts. Its not jail, but its something. And I'd suggest its very doable. But I'm not convinced CCP even cares, or wants there to be any consequence beyond social ostracization (to the extent that even exists) . ...
Hel O'Ween Men On A Mission	Posted - 2010.07.20 17:01:00 - [51] Originally by: Dzil Unfortunately this is an area where precedent defends both sides of a gray area. We have support tools like EMMA, [...] that do take in RL $$ for out of game services: To my knowledge, EMMA never charged RL cash for anything. The licenses once sold where sold for ISK, which is allowed by the EULA. Also, donations of RL money are fine, as long as they're really donations (=voluntarily). I.e. asking for a (RL cash) "donation" in order to access extra features -> no go! I wish people would be a bit more careful with stating something like the above. This could easily be misunderstood and get someone banned. -- EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.20 17:04:00 - [52] Originally by: Hel O'Ween Originally by: Dzil Unfortunately this is an area where precedent defends both sides of a gray area. We have support tools like EMMA, [...] that do take in RL $$ for out of game services: To my knowledge, EMMA never charged RL cash for anything. The licenses once sold where sold for ISK, which is allowed by the EULA. Also, donations of RL money are fine, as long as they're really donations (=voluntarily). I.e. asking for a (RL cash) "donation" in order to access extra features -> no go! I wish people would be a bit more careful with stating something like the above. This could easily be misunderstood and get someone banned. I've been doing my homework on this and while I haven't found a specific reference in the EULA, I haven't found real evidence of any charging any RL money for any service. The exception being the strategic maps (as a product, primarily to subsidize printing it). It may be that this idea is dead in the water. Projects Blog

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2010.07.20 18:30:00 - [53] Originally by: Block Ukx Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. Could you comment on this? Eve Strategic Maps I beleive this is the sort of service Hexxx is refering to. EVE Maps is published by MMM, the same people who publish and sell EON. You order through that page and redirect to the EVE Store, or go directly to the EVE Store and order it from there. Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us

SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2010.07.20 18:36:00 - [54] If I remember correctly I think the only reason EBANK was allowed to have a donations link was because it was used to fund the operation of the service itself. Like EVEMaps costs money to print so they charge for printing it but not for profit turning. I don't think CCP is against real life costs being covered. I think the main issue is people giving you $ and you though the service giving them ISK. If you remember Hexxx the idea Ricdic came up with was giving people who donated to the site a savings account if they didn't have one. I don't think it was ever proposed to CCP and EBANK didn't do it anyway, because we all viewed savings accounts as the devil. I think the main reason was people are getting additional ISK in the form of savings account for RL$. That's a pretty gray area because the Money could be proven to go pay the web/database server etc but people would be getting rewards. I still think it's a loop-hole but I can imagine this would be the extreme edge of what is OK and not OK. Applying a similar idea to any service would be questionable at best. So I think you're right, the idea would never really leave the planning stage because it's a fine line between money for something EVE related. Amarr for Life
Gabriel Rosencrantz Red Frog Investments	Posted - 2010.07.20 19:19:00 - [55] The initial post specifically mentions ôhaving some skin in the game.ö If that is the intent, why not use a mediated legal instrument? The CEO, directors, and staff put up $250 each. An official, properly credentialed, and disinterested third party (e.g., in the U.S. there are professional associations of mediators) holds the money in escrow and a formal instrument of agreement is drawn up to specify the conditions under which the money would be forfeit. For added ôskin in the game,ö one might consider having all of the money be forfeited even if only one of the staff members violates the agreement and perhaps make the fee an annual payment. If a staff member leaves in good standing, the money is returned less a small percentage for mediation expenses, and the replacement staff member puts in his money. The ceo/directors/staff should also have their real identities verified and recorded; whether that is made public immediately or upon forfeiture is debatable (I favor the CSM model). This would solve the problem of international jurisdiction, lawyerÆs fees, and other legal impediments. All of the parties will have agreed up-front to the terms and have deposited their money. All of the parties will have a vested interest in keeping an eye on each other. All of the parties get their money back (less the mediation fees). EveryoneÆs happy. Red Frog Freight: Hisec Courier Service
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.20 19:38:00 - [56] Originally by: SencneS If I remember correctly I think the only reason EBANK was allowed to have a donations link was because it was used to fund the operation of the service itself. Like EVEMaps costs money to print so they charge for printing it but not for profit turning. I don't think CCP is against real life costs being covered. I think the main issue is people giving you $ and you though the service giving them ISK. If you remember Hexxx the idea Ricdic came up with was giving people who donated to the site a savings account if they didn't have one. I don't think it was ever proposed to CCP and EBANK didn't do it anyway, because we all viewed savings accounts as the devil. I think the main reason was people are getting additional ISK in the form of savings account for RL$. That's a pretty gray area because the Money could be proven to go pay the web/database server etc but people would be getting rewards. I still think it's a loop-hole but I can imagine this would be the extreme edge of what is OK and not OK. Applying a similar idea to any service would be questionable at best. So I think you're right, the idea would never really leave the planning stage because it's a fine line between money for something EVE related. Donations seem to be the only way to collect RL money without incurring CCP wrath for non-sanctioned EVE related products/services (like EON, etc). Projects Blog
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.07.20 19:46:00 - [57] Quote: Why do banks need to exist in Eve? Just because we have banks in real life, does not necessarily mean we need to have them in Eve A bank can be a platform, the bow that can fire arrows (the 3rd party initiatives). If I wanted to start an added value service that involved people depositing money in accounts, using a bank as mediator would simplify the process tenfold. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.20 20:07:00 - [58] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Why do banks need to exist in Eve? Just because we have banks in real life, does not necessarily mean we need to have them in Eve A bank can be a platform, the bow that can fire arrows (the 3rd party initiatives). If I wanted to start an added value service that involved people depositing money in accounts, using a bank as mediator would simplify the process tenfold. That's the thing of it...I have a hunch people don't do more 3rd party services because of a lack of a "paypal" between EVE and their 3rd party websites. But it's rough to build that "paypal" if there's no 3rd party services lining up for it. Chicken or the egg? Projects Blog
Grozen Caldari Titan Core	Posted - 2010.07.20 20:59:00 - [59] no way to legally get around the eula. knowledge is power
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six	Posted - 2010.07.20 22:30:00 - [60] Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Originally by: Selene D'Celeste We were told that as long as no in-game currency or assets are tied to the $, and it is information only, then that does not break the EULA. So something like free chips/ISK for donators is bad, but a pretty graphic is okay. If this is not the case, then a more explicit clarification needs to be made, but I am assuming this post was made without actually reading the thread in detail =P It is ultimately ccp's call to say what is allowed or not, but how any of this or the previous defenses of real money trading for services account with the actual rules of software development? It is not allowed to charge real money for software build for eve, only donations are allowed, not even for "extra" features. It seems that you have blurred the line a little bit by charging for (or rewarding donors) providing data on an out of game service built on top of eve, linked by isk but disconnected from the game. It is the additional layer that may distinguish you from every other negative answer on this matter. I don't see any bank could build something like this (Charging rl money for statistics on how much isk have you deposited and withdrawn along time? What possibly useful information can it provide not directly related to eve?). Since it is not allowed (and certainly it shouldn't be unless ccp changes the rules for every other developer) this discussion is futile. Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. That is all it's needed to say, trying to distort perception to make an exception doesn't change the fact that you will be charging real money for access to software or services directly related to the game. Unless you want to charge money for useless data (not related directly with the game). There's no distortion about this. We had a hypothetical idea of tying future informational services to donators, either through ISK or $. The $ would be nice to subsidize the server fees that the host currently pays. We asked CCP through a petition chain if we could give out informational andnon-ISK/asset services/rewards to donators as a way of thanking them. We were told yes. I am simply saying that this conflicts with what was said earlier in this thread by Zymurgist. Luckily this is a ways off for us, but I would rather see clarification now than later. ______________________________
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.20 22:35:00 - [61] Originally by: Selene D'Celeste Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Originally by: Selene D'Celeste We were told that as long as no in-game currency or assets are tied to the $, and it is information only, then that does not break the EULA. So something like free chips/ISK for donators is bad, but a pretty graphic is okay. If this is not the case, then a more explicit clarification needs to be made, but I am assuming this post was made without actually reading the thread in detail =P It is ultimately ccp's call to say what is allowed or not, but how any of this or the previous defenses of real money trading for services account with the actual rules of software development? It is not allowed to charge real money for software build for eve, only donations are allowed, not even for "extra" features. It seems that you have blurred the line a little bit by charging for (or rewarding donors) providing data on an out of game service built on top of eve, linked by isk but disconnected from the game. It is the additional layer that may distinguish you from every other negative answer on this matter. I don't see any bank could build something like this (Charging rl money for statistics on how much isk have you deposited and withdrawn along time? What possibly useful information can it provide not directly related to eve?). Since it is not allowed (and certainly it shouldn't be unless ccp changes the rules for every other developer) this discussion is futile. Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Anything having to do with real life currency would be a violation of the EULA. That is all it's needed to say, trying to distort perception to make an exception doesn't change the fact that you will be charging real money for access to software or services directly related to the game. Unless you want to charge money for useless data (not related directly with the game). There's no distortion about this. We had a hypothetical idea of tying future informational services to donators, either through ISK or $. The $ would be nice to subsidize the server fees that the host currently pays. We asked CCP through a petition chain if we could give out informational andnon-ISK/asset services/rewards to donators as a way of thanking them. We were told yes. I am simply saying that this conflicts with what was said earlier in this thread by Zymurgist. Luckily this is a ways off for us, but I would rather see clarification now than later. I too would like clarification. Projects Blog
Thoraemond Minmatar Far Ranger	Posted - 2010.07.20 23:14:00 - [62] Originally by: Anna Weston Originally by: Breaker77 How does a company confirm that? 2 different [...] Now you have 2 accounts that are separate and as long as no one runs their mouth, they are played by the same player. Anyhow, how many broadband connections do you have at your house? I think most of us would find it non-trivial to have to run EVE accounts from separate IPs! One problem to keep in mind is that the "bad actors" who would seek to improperly game a reputation system might be amongst the few people who are most willing to figure out how to do all the devious things that Breaker77 mentioned. Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz The CEO, directors, and staff put up $250 each. [...] All of the parties will have agreed up-front to the terms and have deposited their money. In some ways, that sounds like you would be selling a $250 ticket to obtain a privileged position from which to scam. á á
Breaker77 Gallente Reclamation Industries	Posted - 2010.07.20 23:21:00 - [63] Originally by: Thoraemond Originally by: Anna Weston Originally by: Breaker77 How does a company confirm that? 2 different [...] Now you have 2 accounts that are separate and as long as no one runs their mouth, they are played by the same player. Anyhow, how many broadband connections do you have at your house? I think most of us would find it non-trivial to have to run EVE accounts from separate IPs! One problem to keep in mind is that the "bad actors" who would seek to improperly game a reputation system might be amongst the few people who are most willing to figure out how to do all the devious things that Breaker77 mentioned. Not just that, but it is easy to do. As already mention by someone else, his credit card and his wifes card. Plus with proxy servers you can have unlimited IP addresses. No amount of work required by a company to ensure that one person only has one account could be done to prevent it. Short of them physically meeting every person starting an account.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.20 23:25:00 - [64] Guys, I think we can all imagine how to circumnavigate various parts of the EULA, but how about we NOT discuss it in my thread? Projects Blog
Caleb Ayrania Gallente TarNec manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.21 00:08:00 - [65] Honestly.. This endless banking discussion is really rather simple.. Make sure its run by the right people. Make sure its rather transparent, so users can see how its compartmentalized and security is handled. Make sure the risk is shared widely internally and externally. In short.. Make it public owned, and make internal and external projects to produce the profits needed. With transparency comes more trust. I see no reason to bring this out of game.. there are plenty of ways to keep it within the current game. Tycoon wannabe go here: SCC Lounge ****tails and Dreams.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.21 00:10:00 - [66] Originally by: Caleb Ayrania Honestly.. This endless banking discussion is really rather simple.. Make sure its run by the right people. Make sure its rather transparent, so users can see how its compartmentalized and security is handled. Make sure the risk is shared widely internally and externally. In short.. Make it public owned, and make internal and external projects to produce the profits needed. With transparency comes more trust. I see no reason to bring this out of game.. there are plenty of ways to keep it within the current game. No we do not want unlimited buy/sell orders! Now go back to your cave!
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.21 01:50:00 - [67] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Why do banks need to exist in Eve? Just because we have banks in real life, does not necessarily mean we need to have them in Eve A bank can be a platform, the bow that can fire arrows (the 3rd party initiatives). If I wanted to start an added value service that involved people depositing money in accounts, using a bank as mediator would simplify the process tenfold. ..So a bank would benefit the owner(s) (BOD). Tell me how it would benefit the depositors. 3% safe (lol ya rite) a month interest? Nothing else? Oh ok, like I said before, banks in Eve are a novelty that benefit only: Role players who like to pretend they are financially mature, and deposit their excess isk into a safe (lol ya rite) venture. Role players who like to be the chief of an online "omglolbanking service." There is no reason for a bank in Eve. Anyone scammed post EBANK deserves to lose their isk.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.21 09:54:00 - [68] Originally by: Syds Sinclair Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Why do banks need to exist in Eve? Just because we have banks in real life, does not necessarily mean we need to have them in Eve A bank can be a platform, the bow that can fire arrows (the 3rd party initiatives). If I wanted to start an added value service that involved people depositing money in accounts, using a bank as mediator would simplify the process tenfold. ..So a bank would benefit the owner(s) (BOD). Tell me how it would benefit the depositors. 3% safe (lol ya rite) a month interest? Nothing else? Oh ok, like I said before, banks in Eve are a novelty that benefit only: Role players who like to pretend they are financially mature, and deposit their excess isk into a safe (lol ya rite) venture. Role players who like to be the chief of an online "omglolbanking service." There is no reason for a bank in Eve. Anyone scammed post EBANK deserves to lose their isk. your forgot the depositors/clients, that like to look at their imaginary funds/bank accounts grow! But you are right, it is roleplaying.
Krathos Morpheus Legion Infernal	Posted - 2010.07.21 10:01:00 - [69] Originally by: Selene D'Celeste There's no distortion about this. We had a hypothetical idea of tying future informational services to donators, either through ISK or $. The $ would be nice to subsidize the server fees that the host currently pays. We asked CCP through a petition chain if we could give out informational andnon-ISK/asset services/rewards to donators as a way of thanking them. We were told yes. I am simply saying that this conflicts with what was said earlier in this thread by Zymurgist. Luckily this is a ways off for us, but I would rather see clarification now than later. I did not include you into that, as I said, the difference would probably be that the extra info that you would be providing is separated from eve with another layer, since it would not be info that refers to the game, but to the service you are providing, which only link with eve is the isk and characters (ie: it has no reference to anything that happens in the game). My point is that I don't see any useful info that could be offered by a bank in the same fashion as you would, unrelated to the game. And the distortion quote refers to the fact that no matter how you dress it, if you offer information of eve markets or anything directly related to eve and you charge rl money for it you would be doing something that is not allowed for any application right now, so is forbidden unless they change the rules. PS: I'm assuming from the start that all graphs and extra info that you would be offering would be refered to the poker games and not to anything in the game, am I right?
Anna Weston Gallente Holdings Inc	Posted - 2010.07.21 11:02:00 - [70] Originally by: Syds Sinclair ..So a bank would benefit the owner(s) (BOD). Tell me how it would benefit the depositors. 3% safe (lol ya rite) a month interest? Nothing else? Oh ok, like I said before, banks in Eve are a novelty that benefit only: Role players who like to pretend they are financially mature, and deposit their excess isk into a safe (lol ya rite) venture. Role players who like to be the chief of an online "omglolbanking service." There is no reason for a bank in Eve. Anyone scammed post EBANK deserves to lose their isk. Nonsense. The question of whether EVE needs banks has already been asked and definitely answered by the marketplace. Trillions of ISK in deposits and loans don't lie. Passive income is the Killer App, everyone wants it. If someone could construct a bank that looked plausibly stable and reliable then potential depositors would be throwing their money at it just as fast as they did for the previous attempts. And the continuing demand for loans is clearly indicated by the appearance of a new [BOND] thread on this forum nearly every day. Yes of course roleplaying is an element, but then we're all roleplayers here. I've lost more money in bank failures than to any other cause in EVE (despite being a fan of stupid cap ship losses) because of the coolness factor undermining my judgement of risk. But that doesn't change the fact that the demand is clearly there; the question is whether it's possible to meet that demand given the current structure of EVE.
Anna Weston Gallente Holdings Inc	Posted - 2010.07.21 11:11:00 - [71] Originally by: Hexxx Guys, I think we can all imagine how to circumnavigate various parts of the EULA, but how about we NOT discuss it in my thread? To be fair, we were discussing how to circumnavigate a future hypothetical EULA, not the current one!
TornSoul BIG Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.07.21 14:10:00 - [72] Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Why do banks need to exist in Eve? Just because we have banks in real life, does not necessarily mean we need to have them in Eve A bank can be a platform, the bow that can fire arrows (the 3rd party initiatives). If I wanted to start an added value service that involved people depositing money in accounts, using a bank as mediator would simplify the process tenfold. That's the thing of it...I have a hunch people don't do more 3rd party services because of a lack of a "paypal" between EVE and their 3rd party websites. But it's rough to build that "paypal" if there's no 3rd party services lining up for it. Chicken or the egg? See this old one : http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=119226 (Note that the post is from before the EVE API) EBANK was sooooooo close to being the chicken... And I was sooooooo close to laying that egg (as described in the old post) Alas... It would truly make 3rd party services/apps explode imo. And add yet another layer to EVE. BIG Lottery
Miriam Letisse	Posted - 2010.07.21 14:16:00 - [73] Originally by: Hexxx Guys, I think we can all imagine how to circumnavigate various parts of the EULA, but how about we NOT discuss it in my thread? Don't you mean circumvent?
Dzil Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve OWN Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.21 14:31:00 - [74] Originally by: Miriam Letisse Originally by: Hexxx Guys, I think we can all imagine how to circumnavigate various parts of the EULA, but how about we NOT discuss it in my thread? Don't you mean circumvent? I'd support that the EULA is big enough to call it circumnavigation. BTW, I want to apologize for not fact checking some misinformation before putting it forward: EMMA was indeed sold for ISK and not USD, and was therefore a poor choice of example of a business making RL profits from EVE. That said, any website running an ad banner collecting revenue, whether or not it only covers server costs, is generating revenue from CCP IP and technically violates the EULA in the broadest of interpretations. Retired from corp sales. Time to spend some of this on pretty explosions :)
Breaker77 Gallente Reclamation Industries	Posted - 2010.07.21 15:32:00 - [75] Originally by: Dzil That said, any website running an ad banner collecting revenue, whether or not it only covers server costs, is generating revenue from CCP IP and technically violates the EULA in the broadest of interpretations. How is that breaking the EULA? It's usually a service such as Google's Adsense that displays the ads. On top of that, the website only gets paid if someone clicks those ads. I don't know about you, but I never click on ads. Too great of a chance they lead to risky sites like www.buyisksowecanhackyouraccount.youidiot!!
Gabriel Rosencrantz Red Frog Investments	Posted - 2010.07.21 21:25:00 - [76] Originally by: Thoraemond Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz The CEO, directors, and staff put up $250 each. [...] All of the parties will have agreed up-front to the terms and have deposited their money. In some ways, that sounds like you would be selling a $250 ticket to obtain a privileged position from which to scam. I'm not sure how that would be a license to scam since the third-party mediator (not some random EVE player but the real deal) would keep the money (or donate it or whatever) if the staff scammed. That is the purpose of the mediated legal instrument. Red Frog Freight: Hisec Courier Service
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2010.07.21 22:05:00 - [77] Originally by: TornSoul It would truly make 3rd party services/apps explode imo. And add yet another layer to EVE. There was plenty of discussion in EBANK forums about what could happen if successful features and functions beyond anything even seen in EVE before. The problem was pure demand, beyond the point of which EBANK could handle. Apart from the obvious failings, EBANK was set to fail eventually even if there was no theft or big uncollateralized loan defaults. Athre and I put a lot of resistance on expansion, consistently voted against expanding beyond 1.5 Trillion. Pushed for audits and I even asked the question several times "How much ISK is really EBANK's? As in "Given everything we have, how much profit does EBANK have." It was missing several keys which Hexxx and I have identified, issues that Hexxx is not going to allow again in his new "thing" for lack of a better word. It's not a bank but it is leaving room to act like one but may never come to light. Some of the key things is undeniable accounting consolidation. EBANK relied heavily on "Poor mans, mom & pop shop" type accounting. Until Ray, EBANK had never really done a full on audit and valuation. It was Ray that showed everyone just how bad it was. So that was really the first key. The second key is literally "Just say NO!" attitude. Here is something people just never really mentioned or even called on it while all the trolling goes on. People ask "Why have banks?" the answer is simple, "Because people want them..." And believe me people want them. When EBANK wasn't so real time it did stick to it's guns about paying interest to the limits which where set out. Last one was 750B before it moved to a "Lets vote before it runs out again." See what was happening was people deposit billions even hundreds of billion when we allowed interest bearing accounts filling it up very quickly. We even held at that level allow people to deposit, but holding interest account from them because it was over the limit. The "Shared and Sweep" accounts where added to allow that functionality. The ONLY REASON EBANK allowed 2.5Trillion expansion was literally because people demanded it. People wanted their interest bearing accounts so the directors would expand with simple account measures in place. Titan BPOs was an expansion based on public demand for EBANK Interest account for example. The defaulted KIA loan was another. IF The Directors simply said "NO" to the public to keep on tossing ISK into accounts... maybe the pot Ricdic stole from wouldn't have been so sweet. Maybe EBANK wouldn't be able to afford to 250B ISK loan that was unsecured. I'm not blaming the public for EBANK failures, but they are defiantly the catalyst for the failure. Selene's Bank took part of the what made EBANK fail and included security measures to prevent that from happening. They where literally going to say "NO" to people demanding more interest bearing accounts, until they knew they could cover the interest. Now that says a lot about how heavily those choices to expand effected EBANK's viability, that the very NEXT Bank included security to prevent that from happen. If anything the ideas and possibilities of a Bank are still workable in EVE, EBANK was the largest of it's kind and suffered unique circumstance that no one before had even experienced, this will be corrected in any new bank that comes along. I'll say this though, when a new Bank does come along and it's fully successful and working it will have security measures, ideas, and implement functions that not only made EBANK what it is, but have those newly discovered issues resolved. Amarr for Life
Breaker77 Gallente Reclamation Industries	Posted - 2010.07.21 22:12:00 - [78] Originally by: SencneS I'll say this though, when a new Bank does come along and it's fully successful and working it will have security measures, ideas, and implement functions that not only made EBANK what it is, but have those newly discovered issues resolved. That statement was pretty much the reasoning I gave when I asked Ray in a post why he's trying to save EBank. The groundwork is there, it was just mismanaged by uncollateralized loans and theft.
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six	Posted - 2010.07.21 23:22:00 - [79] Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Originally by: Selene D'Celeste There's no distortion about this. We had a hypothetical idea of tying future informational services to donators, either through ISK or $. The $ would be nice to subsidize the server fees that the host currently pays. We asked CCP through a petition chain if we could give out informational andnon-ISK/asset services/rewards to donators as a way of thanking them. We were told yes. I am simply saying that this conflicts with what was said earlier in this thread by Zymurgist. Luckily this is a ways off for us, but I would rather see clarification now than later. I did not include you into that, as I said, the difference would probably be that the extra info that you would be providing is separated from eve with another layer, since it would not be info that refers to the game, but to the service you are providing, which only link with eve is the isk and characters (ie: it has no reference to anything that happens in the game). My point is that I don't see any useful info that could be offered by a bank in the same fashion as you would, unrelated to the game. And the distortion quote refers to the fact that no matter how you dress it, if you offer information of eve markets or anything directly related to eve and you charge rl money for it you would be doing something that is not allowed for any application right now, so is forbidden unless they change the rules. PS: I'm assuming from the start that all graphs and extra info that you would be offering would be refered to the poker games and not to anything in the game, am I right? I misinterpreted your intention with your statements then =) And yes, all information would be related to non-EVE things, like game-histories and winnings-histories. ______________________________
Mr Kidd	Posted - 2010.07.21 23:32:00 - [80] Edited by: Mr Kidd on 21/07/2010 23:34:13 In game banking will never work without some form of dedicated resources from the developers to govern it. At best Eve banking is good faith, nothing more. As for having RL stakes, you do not want this. Once you start tying RL value to in game value, enter stage left RL regulation of in game play. Now you can say this is already happening with Plex and GTC. True. But technically it is nothing more than purchase of service. You're not taking isk, or ships or territory and directly equating it to currency. If such a thing were to happen and become prevalent I wouldn't be surprised that in game theft would start having RL consequences. You do not want RL stakes tied to in game play.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.21 23:40:00 - [81] Originally by: Mr Kidd Edited by: Mr Kidd on 21/07/2010 23:34:13 In game banking will never work without some form of dedicated resources from the developers to govern it. At best Eve banking is good faith, nothing more. As for having RL stakes, you do not want this. Once you start tying RL value to in game value, enter stage left RL regulation of in game play. Now you can say this is already happening with Plex and GTC. True. But technically it is nothing more than purchase of service. You're not taking isk, or ships or territory and directly equating it to currency. If such a thing were to happen and become prevalent I wouldn't be surprised that in game theft would start having RL consequences. You do not want RL stakes tied to in game play. why not? its simple; dont steal! then there are no consequences, only reason for being against RL consequences is if you plan on scamming.
Svarty II Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.22 00:39:00 - [82] Originally by: Ji Sama cant we just make a legally binding document OOG? that holds the person economical responsible if he scams/steals the ISK. and partial responsible in the case of bad management... that way there would be RL consequences at least where i live, if i where to break that binding agreement! Well, that's no different from if you could REALLY nail someone down in-game. The problem is that they can conjure up a new identity from nowhere and escape the wrath of the in-game community. Secondly, and pretending that the above could somehow be overcome, there should be a way to point out untrustworthy individuals to other players. Give people bad reps. Perhaps Incarna... no, probably not.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.07.22 02:28:00 - [83] Ji Sama I think the bit about banning people for making RL threats is still in the eula. I would think a lawsuit would definitely be an RL threat. If I was nasty, I'd set up a deal with you, with such a contract as you propose. And as soon as I have your signed copy I'd petition you with ccp. I think that by the time I would have to live up to my end of the agreement I would not be able to anymore, as you would not be playing eve anymore, and unable to prosecute.
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.22 03:21:00 - [84] ..ITT: I wanna be a e-financial manager. Waaa. Disclaimer: Waaa added for effect.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.22 08:09:00 - [85] Originally by: Leneerra Ji Sama I think the bit about banning people for making RL threats is still in the eula. I would think a lawsuit would definitely be an RL threat. If I was nasty, I'd set up a deal with you, with such a contract as you propose. And as soon as I have your signed copy I'd petition you with ccp. I think that by the time I would have to live up to my end of the agreement I would not be able to anymore, as you would not be playing eve anymore, and unable to prosecute. I think everyone misses the point, I am not talking about holding the clients legally accountable, only the managers, how can a voluntarily contract that the managers make with the clients be a threat?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.07.22 10:10:00 - [86] While I personally like the idear of adding an incentive to play by the rules as promised, rather than the rules as enforced by ccp, I do not think this would be good for the game in the end. I think all the incentives should be kept in game. Getting some assitance to keep your hobby afordable is something else, but please do not turn this game into a job (any more than it is already!). Where ever eve is (indirectly) used to provide someone with RL income you create an incentive for someone to maximize this income at least possible cost by any availeble means. This causes EVE not to ba a game for that indevidual, but an income source. We all know to what that can lead (hacking etc) and how it curtails the pleasure we as users can gain from this game. In addition, RL penalties as you suggest, even for breaking volluntairily accepted rules beyond the rules as enforced by ccp, limits the freedom of the player to act as he wishes within the rules as stated by ccp. Thus blocking part of the game, rather than having a player choose to refrain from something. Aside from that, what if someone hacks an account just to make it appear that that person broke the rules to claim the RL bounty? Is this a can of worms you realy want to get involved in?
Anna Weston Gallente Holdings Inc	Posted - 2010.07.22 10:54:00 - [87] Originally by: Syds Sinclair ..ITT: I wanna be a e-financial manager. Waaa. Disclaimer: Waaa added for effect. ITP: I can't construct a worthwhile argument, all I have left is a routine troll built from tired old memes. Fake edit: Waaaaaa
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.07.22 15:02:00 - [88] (Premise: my delays in answering come from my current vacation location (Isle of Rhodes) which pose some limits on the times I can use my EEE PC). Quote: ..So a bank would benefit the owner(s) (BOD). WHAT A NOVEL REALIZATION WE GOT! Every bank is made to benefit itself, its BOD, its stakeholders. In fact the only real challenge is to find an EvE's way to prize the above so that they don't find it easier to cash out with robbery. Customers and people willing to start initiatives under the bank's umbrella? Plenty of both, without further incentives. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Thrasymachus TheSophist	Posted - 2010.07.22 16:06:00 - [89] I'm really surprised this has gone on so long. Tying RL consequences to in game actions is foolishness. It will never be supported by CCP. Two individuals are, of course, free to make whatever kind of side deal they want outside the game, but this is just asking for trouble. Bad idea is bad.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.22 17:07:00 - [90] Originally by: SencneS As in "Given everything we have, how much profit does EBANK have." It was missing several keys which Hexxx and I have identified, issues that Hexxx is not going to allow again in his new "thing" for lack of a better word. It's not a bank but it is leaving room to act like one but may never come to light. This is an important thing, something I think about alot and a driver for what I'm working on now. We have to develop better audit/accounting tools for EVE that help businesses. Until we lower the barrier to perform this kind of thing, it just won't happen. This is a game afterall. As for my own efforts....after one year of design and a year of coding, recoding, redesign, and more recoding I'm still quite a ways away from releasing anything to the public. It's a tough nut to crack. Projects Blog
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.22 21:07:00 - [91] Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 22/07/2010 21:09:29 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: ..So a bank would benefit the owner(s) (BOD). WHAT A NOVEL REALIZATION WE GOT! ..Wow, my post got misread, WHAT A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE THAT IS! Imagine that, someone taking one line out of my post and then making a sarcastic reply. My point was, a bank benefits the BOD greatly by providing isk. The benefit to the depositors is what, 3% a month? Great. Oh and that little thing about no collateral. But I guess no member of any bank's BOD would ever scam billions of isk. Oh also, I forgot, the BOD and depositors get to role play. It's so fun having a real life grown up bank account in a video game!
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries manufacturing disaster	Posted - 2010.07.22 21:16:00 - [92] Originally by: Syds Sinclair Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 22/07/2010 21:09:29 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: ..So a bank would benefit the owner(s) (BOD). WHAT A NOVEL REALIZATION WE GOT! ..Wow, my post got misread, WHAT A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE THAT IS! Imagine that, someone taking one line out of my post and then making a sarcastic reply. My point was, a bank benefits the BOD greatly by providing isk. The benefit to the depositors is what, 3% a month? Great. Oh and that little thing about no collateral. But I guess no member of any bank's BOD would ever scam billions of isk. Oh also, I forgot, the BOD and depositors get to role play. It's so fun having a real life grown up bank account in a video game! some like to grief, some like to look at imaginary funds growing.. who are you to judge what some find fun? it also whent completely over your head, that we are talking about a passive income, sure you can make more than 3% on ISK you are working! but the point is that you use excess capital that you for some reason cannot work, and still get a return! but its obvious now that you are just a silly little troll, that got burned in some investment!
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.22 21:29:00 - [93] Originally by: Anna Weston Originally by: Anna Weston Nonsense. The question of whether EVE needs banks has already been asked and definitely answered by the marketplace. Trillions of ISK in deposits and loans don't lie. ..Wonderful. So I guess the moral of this story is that if a lot of people do something, it must be the right thing to do. Kind of like the trillions of isk garnered from buying plex with real $$. That looks like a pretty popular thing, so it must be right! Originally by: Anna Weston Passive income is the Killer App, everyone wants it. If someone could construct a bank that looked plausibly stable and reliable then potential depositors would be throwing their money at it just as fast as they did for the previous attempts. Yes everyone does want passive income. And you are correct, I bet you potential depositors would be throwing their money at it. Just like the did at the previous three banks. Use eve-search.com and tell me how well those ventures turned out. Originally by: Anna Weston And the continuing demand for loans is clearly indicated by the appearance of a new [BOND] thread on this forum nearly every day. Do you mean to say that just because there are people out there who want free isk with no security deposit, and people who are intent on being the next Reithe, that the public should put their isk and faith into some catch all offering with zero securities, and just let them decide what offerings to invest in? To be honest, my advice is and always will be don't invest unless there is locked down securities. Don't invest if you can use that isk better. To this date I have invested exactly 0 isk into any bond/IPO. Originally by: Anna Weston Yes of course roleplaying is an element, but then we're all roleplayers here. I've lost more money in bank failures than to any other cause in EVE LOLGREAT!! Sign me up!! I guess there is nothing better then role playing AND loosing your hard earned isk. So tell me, what is the loss/hour of a financial mature space cowboy? Originally by: Anna Weston But that doesn't change the fact that the demand is clearly there; the question is whether it's possible to meet that demand given the current structure of EVE. Sure the demand is there. I'll go as far as to say Eve, and the real world, will never have a shortage of people who want other people to just give them isk without any risk involved. Surprise surprise. As for whether it is possible to meet that demand, I think the answer relies on people like you: How deep is your wallet and how much isk are you willing to forfeit?
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.22 22:54:00 - [94] Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 22/07/2010 22:54:07 Originally by: Ji Sama Originally by: Syds Sinclair Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 22/07/2010 21:09:29 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: ..So a bank would benefit the owner(s) (BOD). WHAT A NOVEL REALIZATION WE GOT! ..Wow, my post got misread, WHAT A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE THAT IS! Imagine that, someone taking one line out of my post and then making a sarcastic reply. My point was, a bank benefits the BOD greatly by providing isk. The benefit to the depositors is what, 3% a month? Great. Oh and that little thing about no collateral. But I guess no member of any bank's BOD would ever scam billions of isk. Oh also, I forgot, the BOD and depositors get to role play. It's so fun having a real life grown up bank account in a video game! ..Here is a passage from the Troll Identification Handbook Criteria for a forum troll # 37: Target poster must have a viewpoint that opposes your own. If the target poster posts something that is in direct conflict of your own philosophy, it is your duty to identify said poster as a troll. Originally by: Ji Sama some like to grief, some like to look at imaginary funds growing.. who are you to judge what some find fun? I am in no position to judge what anyone finds fun. I am however in a position of stating the differences of Fun and Well thought out financial responsibility. Big difference here. Some people might find it fun to produce T1 ship hulls at a loss, because being a space manufacture is a great way to relax after a long day at the office. Or how bout a rogue miner, working long hours in the asteroid fields, I mean the ore he mines are free! But let's all be honest here, even tho it is fun, it is not the most financial sound thing to do. And has been pointed out on these very forums. Same with banks in Eve, except they are considered by the elite, serious business. Originally by: Ji Sama it also whent completely over your head, that we are talking about a passive income, sure you can make more than 3% on ISK you are working! but the point is that you use excess capital that you for some reason cannot work, and still get a return! And maybe even invest that excess capital into a bond/IPO with collateral! Unheard of, I know, but check this out: MD Browser A decides to invest 100m into IPO/bond/bank A, which is offering 4% monthly. IPO/bond/bank A turns out to be a great investment, doubling MD Browser A's investment after 25 months. MD Browser B decides to invest 100m into IPO/bond/bank B, which is offering 4% monthly. IPO/bond/bank B turns out to be a scam, resulting in a loss for MD Browser B of 100m, after IPO/bond/bank B announces the sacm one month after the initial offering. Originally by: Ji Sama but its obvious now that you are just a silly little troll, that got burned in some investment! Actually, I never have, and hopefully never will. As it turns out, I will probably keep that track record, as I've never invested any isk into any offering. Call me crazy, but I'm a firm believer that my isk is more secure while it resides inside my wallet. And a single note on the mention of troll in your post. Again, I do not believe that I have ever called anyone a troll. Care to explain why you decided to label me as such just for disagreeing with the public opinion?
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.23 00:05:00 - [95] Them's alotta' fancy words yer using there boy. Projects Blog
Grozen Caldari Titan Core	Posted - 2010.07.23 01:20:00 - [96] No offense or anything but this thread is only going down 2replies by ccp are more then enough to understand that the final word is: NO. Most of the recent posts are trolling.. knowledge is power
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.23 01:56:00 - [97] Originally by: Grozen Most of the recent posts are trolling.. ..Please explain why. If you cannot, then it is you who is the one trolling, I'm afraid.
Amarr Citizen 155 Nordar Innovations.	Posted - 2010.07.23 03:12:00 - [98] Originally by: Syds Sinclair Originally by: Grozen Most of the recent posts are trolling.. ..Please explain why. If you cannot, then it is you who is the one trolling, I'm afraid. I don't know about this whole trolling argument, but you suck at using quotes. Originally by: Syds Sinclair I suck at using quotes, they are always broken and you can never tell who is saying what. Also, Amarr155 is a sexy *****.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.07.23 06:37:00 - [99] Quote: Imagine that, someone taking one line out of my post and then making a sarcastic reply. My point was, a bank benefits the BOD greatly by providing isk. The benefit to the depositors is what, 3% a month? Great. Oh and that little thing about no collateral. But I guess no member of any bank's BOD would ever scam billions of isk It's called market. People offer goods / items / services and others accept / pay for them or not. No one except dictatorial regimes arrogate the right to decide what's "good" / "smart" / "convenient" for others and what's not. People got the right to suicide themselves if they wish, much more to waste their virtual money in a virtual reality for whatever reason they want. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2010.07.23 11:19:00 - [100] Originally by: Hexxx Secondary function of the Bank; to make the person(s) running it real world money. I don't believe this will ever happen for two reasons: 1. CCP will not allow it. 2. Players will not pay RL money. There's a good reason for the large GTC and PLEX markets. :) As a wise woman once said, don't bash your head against a brick wall. Walk round it.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.23 14:07:00 - [101] Originally by: Varo Jan 2. Players will not pay RL money. There's a good reason for the large GTC and PLEX markets. :) Just like they wouldn't donate almost $400 bucks to EBANK to pay for hosting costs a year after it started? Fascinating. Projects Blog
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.23 20:38:00 - [102] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha No one except dictatorial regimes arrogate the right to decide what's "good" / "smart" / "convenient" for others and what's not. ..I am in no way trying to dictate what other players should do with their time or isk. All I am saying is that banking in Eve is first and foremost, very risky, and secondly, the gains are not worth the risk. Please, feel free to open a bank or deposit isk into a bank. But what happens a year or so after the bank opens has a pretty strong trend. Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha People got the right to suicide themselves if they wish, much more to waste their virtual money in a virtual reality for whatever reason they want. What a great choice of words to promote banking in Eve. Just remember, you said it, not me.
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.23 22:34:00 - [103] Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 I don't know about this whole trolling argument, but you suck at using quotes. ..Ok great, I am not as proficient as you at using quotes. I can, and have rectified that mishap by editing my post. Now can you please discredit any of my viewpoints? Probably not, because you are on the BOD of EBANK. Sorry for hurting your meal ticket.
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six	Posted - 2010.07.24 00:12:00 - [104] Originally by: Syds Sinclair Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 I don't know about this whole trolling argument, but you suck at using quotes. ..Ok great, I am not as proficient as you at using quotes. I can, and have rectified that mishap by editing my post. Now can you please discredit any of my viewpoints? Probably not, because you are on the BOD of EBANK. Sorry for hurting your meal ticket. I'm one of the last people to jump to the defense of the current EBANK, but what are you even arguing about in this thread? That banks don't benefit customers assuming they were legitimately run? Security and legitimacy aside, the same idea behind banks (borrow at X, loan at X+Y) is done by quite a few people for profit around here. The rates aren't that high either, with some people around here paying 1-2% per month and then loaning out for only 2-3%. Sorry, but saying that paying 3% or less interest on an investment isn't a benefit to the investor just isn't true. You may not think it's a good investment for you (I would agree) but plenty of people find value in such services. ______________________________
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.24 03:20:00 - [105] Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 24/07/2010 03:22:19 Originally by: Selene D'Celeste I'm one of the last people to jump to the defense of the current EBANK, but what are you even arguing about in this thread? ..Please read the thread in it's entirety. To find this answer, focus on my posts, and the posts I have quoted. Simple? Originally by: Selene D'Celeste That banks don't benefit customers assuming they were legitimately run? The bolded part is where the disparity comes from. IF they were legitimately ran, then there would be no conflict, if by legitimately ran you mean no depositors lost their deposit. Originally by: Selene D'Celeste Security and legitimacy aside, LOLGREAT again. Let's just throw those two insignificant things aside. They don't mean much anyways right? Originally by: Selene D'Celeste the same idea behind banks (borrow at X, loan at X+Y) is done by quite a few people for profit around here. Yes it is, but again just because it is done by "quite a few people" doesn't mean it is the most financial sound thing to do. And in addition to that, just because I disagree with the the practice that is done by "quite a few people" doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. It is just my opinion. But the formula I like to use for determining if I will make an investment is x+y+z. x=borrow, y=loan for y+x, z=collateral to cover x. There are enough loans out there that meet these criteria. Originally by: Selene D'Celeste The rates aren't that high either, with some people around here paying 1-2% per month and then loaning out for only 2-3%. Sorry, but saying that paying 3% or less interest on an investment isn't a benefit to the investor just isn't true. You may not think it's a good investment for you (I would agree) but plenty of people find value in such services. Plenty of people find value in such services, until the BOD decides that they need to freeze accounts until an unforeseeable date...AT BEST. If you use the theme of the other two major banks in Eve, then those accounts would have just been stolen. So find value all you want in that type of scheme. I myself..No wait, I wont even say what I'll do. Figure it out on your own. But please remember this, I am in no way telling you what to do. This is a message board, supposed to be open to varied opinions. Can I still post my opinion?
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six	Posted - 2010.07.24 03:45:00 - [106] Originally by: Syds Sinclair Can I still post my opinion? I was simply pointing out that to many people (not you or I) that it is a valuable investment scheme, and that there are plenty of success stories on the smaller scales. You can post your opinion, though I think you're being both repetitive and beating a dead horse. ______________________________
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.24 04:01:00 - [107] Originally by: Selene D'Celeste I was simply pointing out that to many people (not you or I) that it is a valuable investment scheme, and that there are plenty of success stories on the smaller scales. ..Sure, just like the investment miners put into mining free ores. And sure there are plenty of success stories, as long as they got their isk out before the account freeze (EBANK) or before the scam (Fury bank, Dynasty bank.) See my point? Originally by: Selene D'Celeste You can post your opinion, though I think you're being both repetitive and beating a dead horse. Sure am. Couldn't be because the few posters I've quoted have called me a troll. Couldn't be that I have brought up different points, in response to different posters point of views. Option A: Call me repetitive. Option B: Pick apart my opinion and let's have a good ole' fashion debate. Looks like you have chosen option A. How lame.
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six	Posted - 2010.07.24 04:07:00 - [108] Originally by: Syds Sinclair Originally by: Selene D'Celeste I was simply pointing out that to many people (not you or I) that it is a valuable investment scheme, and that there are plenty of success stories on the smaller scales. ..Sure, just like the investment miners put into mining free ores. And sure there are plenty of success stories, as long as they got their isk out before the account freeze (EBANK) or before the scam (Fury bank, Dynasty bank.) See my point? Originally by: Selene D'Celeste You can post your opinion, though I think you're being both repetitive and beating a dead horse. Sure am. Couldn't be because the few posters I've quoted have called me a troll. Couldn't be that I have brought up different points, in response to different posters point of views. Option A: Call me repetitive. Option B: Pick apart my opinion and let's have a good ole' fashion debate. Looks like you have chosen option A. How lame. So what you're saying is that you're a forum troll. ______________________________
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.24 04:25:00 - [109] Originally by: Selene D'Celeste Originally by: Syds Sinclair Can I still post my opinion? You can post your opinion, though I think you're being both repetitive and beating a dead horse. ..Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of this. Prove me wrong and I'll stop posting. Let your philosophy and opinion beat mine into the ground. Stop trying to classify my posts/opinions. Stop saying troll. Just stop, and prove me wrong. Word for word line for line, prove me wrong. Discredit anything I've said. The problem is pro bankers cannot grasp this formula: fun=/=financially good for Eve or it's dwellers. Show me, show everyone that a bank in Eve can offer more then 3% return on investment a month, with securities, and otherwise be worthwhile.
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.24 04:30:00 - [110] Originally by: Selene D'Celeste So what you're saying is that you're a forum troll. ..If it helps you sleep at night, then sure, you caught me. Originally by: Selene D'Celeste Edit: The clue is that I made a simple aside, and you continued your original argument, which I'm not even disputing nor care about. If you are not disputing nor care about, then why are you posting in this thread? Isn't that some sort of trollish behavior?
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six	Posted - 2010.07.24 04:49:00 - [111] Originally by: Syds Sinclair Originally by: Selene D'Celeste Edit: The clue is that I made a simple aside, and you continued your original argument, which I'm not even disputing nor care about. If you are not disputing nor care about, then why are you posting in this thread? Isn't that some sort of trollish behavior? Okay, I'll bite. But only one more post (this one). This thread was originally about tying $ into EVE banks, and had nothing to do with the validity of running banks in EVE on any kind of measure: value by fun, profit value for owners, profit value for customers, entertainment potential, etc. Skimming the thread, you're the only person I see posting on that topic. So who exactly is posting in the wrong thread? My original post was in response to you talking about how banks are not a financially wise decision. By what metric? I wouldn't know since you didn't define one, you just said that banks suck and are of no value to depositors. If you're going to debate the merit of banks, I recommend you both state what specific metrics you're using to judge and why, and also have the argument with people who care. Your opinion is that the risk that banks present while presenting a low interest rate is a stupid financial decision compared to other things people could do in EVE. Sure, I'd buy that, if you presented a clear argument instead of just mocking everything posted here. Lots of examples above. The -only- issue I wanted to respond to was when you said that giving ISK to someone else at such a low interest rate is always a bad idea. Quote: "Tell me how it would benefit the depositors. 3% safe (lol ya rite) a month interest? Nothing else?" I disagree with this statement because I know of many examples of private loans (and bonds here) where both investor and investee were happy with their decision, and the loan concluded successfully. Sure, bad ones happen, and banks (which do the same thing but on a largeer scale) have to-date all failed. Okay, that's great, but it doesn't mean that individual people haven't done the exact same thing, were happy, and given the scenario were also making smart business decisions. TL;DR - argue about banks as much as you want, but don't be dismissive of lending at low rates simply because it's not something you're interested in. I'm not interested in it either, but that just means I ignore it and focus on other things. Like arguing on the forums =D ______________________________
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.07.24 07:10:00 - [112] Quote: If you are not disputing nor care about, then why are you posting in this thread? Isn't that some sort of trollish behavior? People cared of this thread before you turned it in the usual noise generator that nowadays every constructive (or trying to) MD thread is turned and flamed into. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2010.07.24 08:12:00 - [113] Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: Varo Jan 2. Players will not pay RL money. There's a good reason for the large GTC and PLEX markets. :) Just like they wouldn't donate almost $400 bucks to EBANK to pay for hosting costs a year after it started? Fascinating. That's interesting. However, I don't think it changes anything for these reasons: 1. There's a big difference between people helping to defray the cost of running a website, and people paying for unspecified in-game services. Besides, they were voluntary donations, not obligatory payments for services rendered. Were those donations primarily from EBank staff? As an aside, I can see people donating to Chribba's websites as he's demonstrated his worth to the community many times over. 2. I simply cannot see CCP allowing for the payment of in-game services. The maps example looks like it's from a preferred supplier of CCP. An in-game bank would not be.
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.24 23:04:00 - [114] Originally by: Selene D'Celeste Stuff. ..Haha, you are right on a few accounts, firstly that I have derailed this thread. For that I am sorry. In my humble defense, it happened by the process after my initial post, and post after post, people would post then I would respond to the content of their post, and not in the spirit of the topic at hand. To address your point on by what metric I hold the opinion that banks in Eve are not financially sound, it is risk, and secondly trend. Both of which are not worth the 3% or whatever most bank offerings have offered. Originally by: Selene D'Celeste The -only- issue I wanted to respond to was when you said that giving ISK to someone else at such a low interest rate is always a bad idea. Quote: "Tell me how it would benefit the depositors. 3% safe (lol ya rite) a month interest? Nothing else?" I disagree with this statement because I know of many examples of private loans (and bonds here) where both investor and investee were happy with their decision, and the loan concluded successfully. Sure, bad ones happen, and banks (which do the same thing but on a largeer scale) have to-date all failed. Okay, that's great, but it doesn't mean that individual people haven't done the exact same thing, were happy, and given the scenario were also making smart business decisions. In as much as you know of happy investors and investees you and I can point out the unhappy investor. On multiple offerings. And to quote myself just to flesh out my point: MD Browser A decides to invest 100m into IPO/bond/bank A, which is offering 4% monthly. IPO/bond/bank A turns out to be a great investment, doubling MD Browser A's investment after 25 months. MD Browser B decides to invest 100m into IPO/bond/bank B, which is offering 4% monthly. IPO/bond/bank B turns out to be a scam, resulting in a loss for MD Browser B of 100m, after IPO/bond/bank B announces the sacm one month after the initial offering. The problem is risk. No collateral. Unsound investment. Let me give you a poker theory, and that is Expected Value. In the situation I describe above, someone would have to invest into 25 legit one month offerings just to break even from a one month scam. Or invest into one 25 month legit offering to break even from a one month scam. That is horrible odds. Would you state that after investing into 26 one month offerings that only one of them will be a scam? And even if that were the case, you would only be breaking even! Originally by: Selene D'Celeste Like arguing on the forums =D Haha, one of my favorite past times. I love just chewing the fat and having a debate, about anything, just ask my wife lol. Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha People cared of this thread before you turned it in the usual noise generator that nowadays every constructive (or trying to) MD thread is turned and flamed into. Tough s***. Make a damn point that shuts me up. In no way should my trollish ramblings take away from any good point that you offer up. But to detriment of your opinion, no such good point has came about. And on that note, let me tell you how to run a bank in Eve...
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.24 23:13:00 - [115] ...Here goes. Get a group of people who want to start a bank. Have them all come up with multiple billions of isk in T2 BPOs. Let's say 300B. Lock those BPOs down with trusted third parties, say Chibbra, Darkness, and Grendall (and I don't care if i misspelled any of their names.) Have those BPOs continue to pump out product, so that they are not a wasted pile of isk. The third parties could be compensated a % of the production profits for their time/manufacturing slots. So now the bank has 300b isk or so locked down in securities. The bank will only accept 150b in deposits. Each account will grow from interest, until the bank has a net dept of close to but just under 300b. At that time, the bank will issue dividends to the investors, OR the BOD will buy more T2 BPOs at the expense of the BOD. Right from their personal wallet. This would bump the securities to 350b or so. The BOD/lemmings who run and operate the loans that the bank will offer will get a % per month cut as salary. But the investors will always get their interest first. And none of this EBANK bulls*** where instead of liquidating, we're going to rebuild AND THEN honor our obligation to our depositors. Should a member of the BOD scam, or for whatever reason the bank goes bankrupt, the trusted third party will liquidate the T2 BPOs and repay depositors. To future space financial managers/bankers/role players/whatever: Put up or shut up. Put YOUR isk on the line, not just the depositors. And a disclaimer: Please feel free to change the securties from T2 BPOs to whatever security you think would be better.
Anna Weston Gallente Holdings Inc	Posted - 2010.07.24 23:22:00 - [116] That's not really a bank, more like a T2 production IPO. Nothing wrong with it as a proposal for a secure sounding investment (I wonder what the returns would be like?) But it's not a bank.
Syds Sinclair	Posted - 2010.07.24 23:32:00 - [117] ..It's a bank with FDIC (T2 BPO) backing. Does a bank need to have all risk be placed on the depositors? If that's the case, the I'm sure Reithe would be a great BOD member.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.