EVE Search - Can we get rid of CSM after the recent PLEX insider trading fiasco?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Can we get rid of CSM after the recent PLEX insider trading fiasco?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6253	Posted - 2017.03.22 05:48:27 - [1] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Sir BloodArgon Aulmais wrote: Plex prices go up and down all the time. Proof? Or are you just spewing garbage. Check PLEX price history for last 3 days. Disturbing. I don't believe last patch had some much influence. Today we have devblog about PLEX changes. Price rising would start today not 3 days ago. It stinks, PLEX is bought with real money and CCP may have real problems with that situation. What problem would that be? That the item you bought for real money would be worth more in game? That is bad how? Edit: To be clear: the people losing out on this price increase are not people buying PLEX for RL money. Nor is it people currently holding PLEX. The people who lose out are those who are going to be buying PLEX for ISK after after the price started going up in game. Seriosuly, learn to think thing through in a rational and based on solid economic theory not some bullshit nonsense. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6253	Posted - 2017.03.22 05:57:33 - [2] - Quote Professor Push wrote: GÇ£People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.GÇ¥ GÇò Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations Execellent, bringing up Adam Smith, but..... Who loses on this? People buying PLEX for RL money and selling them for ISK? No. People who are holding PLEX? No. People who have lots and lots of ISK and are looking to buy a PLEX to extend their account? Yes. So you are butthurt over rich, long term players with a large pile of ISK. Wow....people upset over the mega rich in game. WITF? "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6253	Posted - 2017.03.22 06:02:53 - [3] - Quote commander aze wrote: Or... just a thought we elect people with high moral character via elecrions from the popular vote Hahahahahahaha.... Sure. That will work. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6281	Posted - 2017.03.23 16:38:20 - [4] - Quote KaarBaak wrote: You missed a very important group. Some might say the KEY group: People selling ISK/PLEX for RL money. aka RMTers. It's not like that has ever been a problem before, right? And certainly not involving the CSM. Oh, so you are butt hurt because of players deliberately violating the EULA....that a price increase in PLEX makes that slightly more appealing. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6282	Posted - 2017.03.30 00:31:29 - [5] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Zarek Kree wrote: Somebody please connect the dots and explain to me how insider trading led to an INCREASE in plex prices when all indications point to MORE plex entering the market based on this decision, because the economic logic escapes me. Pending division of PLEX into 500 units, its a good time to buy them up now, before the change. Afterwards its far easier to trade PLEX as x/500 units, rather than in 500 unit blocks as equivalent to now. What you're describing makes absolutely no economic sense because 1 PLEX today will be exactly the same as those 500 PLEX following the change. In fact, it will be worth LESS because of the additional PLEX getting dumped into the market from the aurum conversions. This is exactly like a stock split and economic advisers and investment bankers will tell you that it makes no difference whether you buy before or after a split. Now if CCP was allowing shorter subscriptions or training time buys, then those smaller chunks might see higher demand - but they're not, so demand should be fairly constant. Only the trade volumes change - not the stock value. However, I mentioned behavioral economics as a possible explanation because it describes non-rational economic decision-making. Your theory isn't true in any kind of classical economic sense, but the fact that you THINK it's true can drive you to buy PLEX despite that being completely irrational. But still, the smart money dumps it - and insider trading is always built around smart money plays. So if anybody DID have advance notice of the announcement, they got burned because they dumped their ISK. They certainly didn't buy more of it. The train of thought might be as follows: Because they are dumping Aurum as a form of currency and allowing PLEX to be sub-divided and for these sub-divided PLEX to take the place of Aurum there will be increase demand for the new sub-divided PLEX. You are also correct that since Aurum balances will be converted over to PLEX it will increase the supply of PLEX as well. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6282	Posted - 2017.03.30 17:28:58 - [6] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Because they are dumping Aurum as a form of currency and allowing PLEX to be sub-divided and for these sub-divided PLEX to take the place of Aurum there will be increase demand for the new sub-divided PLEX. That's a legit point. The demand for Aurum will be shifted to PLEX, which will put some upward pressure on the price over the long term. However, I'd argue that such pressure will be entirely offset by the introduction of the PLEX Vault which should almost entirely eliminate PLEX losses through ganking because it eliminates the need to manually move PLEX in-game. So the supply is also increased over the long term because PLEX will no longer be getting blown up and wasted. My view is that I'm not entirely sure the increased demand for PLEX is going to matter that much in the end. Up until now people would buy Aurum, soon they'll switch over to PLEX, so the increased demand should be offset by increased supply. Of course, there is something going on in markets that allows for asset price bubbles--i.e. when the price of some asset becomes uncoupled from that assets intrinsic value. For example, experimental economics shows that in an experiment where there is an asset that pays out a dividend of $0.24/period and the experiment runs for 9 periods and participants are given various amounts of "cash" and the asset. The initial price of the asset should be $3.60, and it's price should fall from that initial value by $0.24 every turn. In fact, classical/rational expectations indicates there should be no trading at all really. After all, the price of the asset is going to be exactly equal to it's dividend payouts from that point forward (discounting is ignored as it is only 9 periods and there is not much time between periods). Yet in experiments the assets are often traded a prices well below their intrinsic value, then the price rises and overshoots it's intrinsic value at the time, and eventually crashes well before the 15th period--i.e. there is an asset bubble even when there is no uncertainty. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6282	Posted - 2017.03.30 17:39:12 - [7] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: If you have less than 1000 AUR, it will be deleted. Period. Nope. Quote: Next up: Aurum conversion for players with Aurum balances of 1000 or less. The goal behind the initial plan was to minimize devaluation of PLEX at launch due to Aurum stockpiles entering the market, which is still a big priority, but, we hear you loud and clear that leaving some balances to not be converted is not a good enough solution. After several days of looking at alternatives, we now intend to delay conversion for small balances rather than not converting at all. On feature release, we will convert Aurum balances greater than 1000 to PLEX immediately, and then, 3 months later, convert balances under 1000 Aurum. This should mitigate impact on the PLEX market and give us a good window to look at activity and adjust if needed. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6282	Posted - 2017.03.30 17:40:03 - [8] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: It just did... there is a discount the next few days. CCP routinely runs discounts - and frequently much greater than the current 15%. Those discounts are one of the ways CCP controls the in-game exchange rate ensuring that it stays relatively flat. The recent spike may very well be why they put it on sale. A discount leads to people buying it, which increases supply, lowers in-game demand and reduces the exchange rate. True, meaning if you just bought PLEX for ISK...whoops. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6283	Posted - 2017.03.30 18:20:25 - [9] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: My view is that I'm not entirely sure the increased demand for PLEX is going to matter that much in the end. Up until now people would buy Aurum, soon they'll switch over to PLEX, so the increased demand should be offset by increased supply. Of course, there is something going on in markets that allows for asset price bubbles--i.e. when the price of some asset becomes uncoupled from that assets intrinsic value. For example, experimental economics shows that in an experiment where there is an asset that pays out a dividend of $0.24/period and the experiment runs for 9 periods and participants are given various amounts of "cash" and the asset. The initial price of the asset should be $3.60, and it's price should fall from that initial value by $0.24 every turn. In fact, classical/rational expectations indicates there should be no trading at all really. After all, the price of the asset is going to be exactly equal to it's dividend payouts from that point forward (discounting is ignored as it is only 9 periods and there is not much time between periods). Yet in experiments the assets are often traded a prices well below their intrinsic value, then the price rises and overshoots it's intrinsic value at the time, and eventually crashes well before the 15th period--i.e. there is an asset bubble even when there is no uncertainty. That's an interesting experiment. The pattern actually describes a classic bubble pretty well. The difference is that most bubbles are associated with uncertainty. The fact that it can happen under conditions of complete certainty almost sounds like the Greater Fool Theory in which rational buyers purchase items well above their intrinsic value in the belief that somebody else will be even more "foolish" than them and pay an even greater value. Of course it's all rooted in behavioral economics/finance. People aren't rational - especially in a game in which they have much greater risk tolerance. That's why economics is a social science and not a hard science. If I'm not mistaken, CCP keeps a trained economist on the payroll to help them navigate these issues. CCP DrEyjo no longer works for/with CCP. He accepted the position of rector at H+ísk+¦linn +í Akureyri back in 2014. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6283	Posted - 2017.03.31 05:00:10 - [10] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: Veine Miromme wrote: The same goes for weapons and ships. The less PLEX they have & more liability , the less power of defense they'll have for their citadel homes. & this also goes for their moral opportunities. There are powers that be who know when the oppressed are unfairly denied. Take away their ships, weapons and ability to defend themselves, in equal values, and they will lose credibility and the power to protect the value of those assets, credit and so on. Okay, fine. I'll bite...WTF are you talking about dude? It's like you're running your posts through a random word generator. Post modernist nonsense at it's finest. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6284	Posted - 2017.03.31 07:43:24 - [11] - Quote Veine Miromme wrote: Vigirr wrote: Veine Miromme wrote: Zarek Kree wrote: Okay, fine. I'll bite...WTF are you talking about dude? It's like you're running your posts through a random word generator. lol you don't seem friendly. It's not about being friendly or not, he's pointing out that your post makes no fcking sense. And it doesn't, so he's right. No, you're not friendly either, you're both just trying to attack me. Or you could, you know...make a cogent point and preferably one that does not drag in current RL politics into it. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6284	Posted - 2017.03.31 07:45:58 - [12] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: More transparency would help. What Transparency? There is an assumption of bad actions, yet there is little reason to think it has happened. The price movements could very well be explained by post hoc ergo propter hoc vs. a grand conspiracy. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6286	Posted - 2017.03.31 19:21:50 - [13] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: More transparency would help. What Transparency? Exactly. Selective quoting does little to improve your position. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6286	Posted - 2017.03.31 20:18:13 - [14] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Zarek Kree wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: It just did... there is a discount the next few days. CCP routinely runs discounts - and frequently much greater than the current 15%. Those discounts are one of the ways CCP controls the in-game exchange rate ensuring that it stays relatively flat. The recent spike may very well be why they put it on sale. A discount leads to people buying it, which increases supply, lowers in-game demand and reduces the exchange rate. Bollocks. Well, the only appropriate response to such a carefully considered and articulated assessment is to say "Does so, does so, does so!" Really? I thought it was, "Your Mama!" "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6289	Posted - 2017.04.01 06:03:32 - [15] - Quote So in looking at the market....PLEX prices are heading back towards 1.1 billion ISK. Whoops, guess that conspiracy to profit of the massive increase in the value of PLEX just went totally sideways. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6289	Posted - 2017.04.01 07:30:56 - [16] - Quote Bjorn Tyrson wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: So in looking at the market....PLEX prices are heading back towards 1.1 billion ISK. Whoops, guess that conspiracy to profit of the massive increase in the value of PLEX just went totally sideways. its pretty much like clockwork, any time the plex prices break the 1.2 billion mark, you can almost guarantee that there will be a sale in the near future. it is so reliable in fact that if I had the isk to spare for long term investments I would bank on that one being pretty safe. It is almost like CCP is doing some sort of profit maximizing...who'd have thunk it!?!!? To be clear: If I were CCP I'd be watching PLEX prices and when PLEX prices move up X% it triggers a sale. Why? Because a high in game price means more people will want to sell PLEX for ISK. When the price hits a certain level, end the sale. Totally batshit crazy idea I know. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6291	Posted - 2017.04.01 19:00:23 - [17] - Quote Bjorn Tyrson wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Bjorn Tyrson wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: So in looking at the market....PLEX prices are heading back towards 1.1 billion ISK. Whoops, guess that conspiracy to profit of the massive increase in the value of PLEX just went totally sideways. its pretty much like clockwork, any time the plex prices break the 1.2 billion mark, you can almost guarantee that there will be a sale in the near future. it is so reliable in fact that if I had the isk to spare for long term investments I would bank on that one being pretty safe. It is almost like CCP is doing some sort of profit maximizing...who'd have thunk it!?!!? To be clear: If I were CCP I'd be watching PLEX prices and when PLEX prices move up X% it triggers a sale. Why? Because a high in game price means more people will want to sell PLEX for ISK. When the price hits a certain level, end the sale. Totally batshit crazy idea I know. I remember hearing that ccp had actually admitted that right around 1b isk is the "sweet spot" that they like to keep plex in (although I don't have a direct source for this so take it as rumor), inflation will inevitably drive the prices up, so all they need to do is have sales when they want to drive them back down. and as you said, its a good money making strategy on their part as well. We are in a period of deflation according to the latest report (February 2017) from CCP Quant. Actually, having PLEX can help with this problem. An old bitter vet with 50 billion in his wallet buying some PLEX puts billions of ISK into new players wallets who will more likely go and spend it (ships, ammo, implants, etc.). PLEX are an other example of emergence in the game. CCP appears to have started it for the purpose of combating RMT (a good thing). But it helps redistribute ISK from those older players to newer players (a good thing) and it helps keep ISK in circulation vs. sitting in a wallet (a good thing). "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6291	Posted - 2017.04.02 01:58:05 - [18] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Bjorn Tyrson wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: So in looking at the market....PLEX prices are heading back towards 1.1 billion ISK. Whoops, guess that conspiracy to profit of the massive increase in the value of PLEX just went totally sideways. its pretty much like clockwork, any time the plex prices break the 1.2 billion mark, you can almost guarantee that there will be a sale in the near future. it is so reliable in fact that if I had the isk to spare for long term investments I would bank on that one being pretty safe. It is almost like CCP is doing some sort of profit maximizing...who'd have thunk it!?!!? To be clear: If I were CCP I'd be watching PLEX prices and when PLEX prices move up X% it triggers a sale. Why? Because a high in game price means more people will want to sell PLEX for ISK. When the price hits a certain level, end the sale. Totally batshit crazy idea I know. But discounts di not stop the increase of prices. So it is indeed batshit crazy. Yes it probably did. You posted on 3/30 that there was a discount on PLEX. Looking at the price of PLEX in Jita it peaked (for the last few months on March 29 with a median price just over 1.2 billion. The price has been falling since then and right now you can buy a PLEX for 1.139 billion. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6294	Posted - 2017.04.02 18:37:06 - [19] - Quote Nyx Viliana wrote: I love how everyone is demanding an investigation. Even if IA looks into this I feel pretty confident that no matter what was said you would all scream cover up. Probably. And consider, the "proof" of this is that the price started to rise before the announcement....but why? The story is somebody or somebodies were snapping up PLEX knowing the price would be permanently higher in the future. Lets run through this logic though.... 1. Was there increased trading volume? No. Uh-oh. While this is not fatal to the Cornspiracy TheoryGäó, it is a bit problematic. It is problematic in that there would need to be changes to both supply and demand so that the quantity traded does not change much. We would need demand for PLEX to decrease (i.e. the whole frigging demand curve to shift--i.e. demand is higher at all price levels). Further, we would need a supply decrease (i.e. a shift in the supply curve so that there is less PLEX supplied at all price levels). Is this possible? Theoretically sure, but while we understand the shift in demand based on the Cornspiracy TheoryGäó it leaves unexplained the shift in supply. Now somebody might argue, "Well after the change they are going to see the value of their PLEX increase, so they take them off the market." Okay, but now the Conrspiracy TheoryGäó just got bigger. Now it is people who supply PLEX and not just some opportunistic people entering the market. The bigger the CornspiracyGäó the more likely there is to be a leak. Further, the price increases are essentially double. That is, both movements in the supply and demand curves are reinforcing--i.e. they both push prices higher. Is only a 20% increase reasonable? IDK, seems pretty small beer for amount of ISK we are talking about. And before some numpty comes in and says, "But, but, but, they could buy up trillions of PLEX!!!!" Lets go back to volume traded mmmmkay? And what happens when the suppliers re-enter the market and put their PLEX back on the market? Hmmm...might have a problem with this "permanent price increase"....which bring us to 2. 2. The implicit assumption of the permanent price increase. Yes, there will be increased demand from PLEX since PLEX will continue to be used for its current purposes, but also take over for Aurum. Are we all agreed on this? Yes? Good. Won't there also be an increase in supply as Aurum is converted into PLEX? All Aurum. I linked back up stream another Dev Blog where CCP decided that ALL Aurum balances will be converted in two waves. First wave those Aurum balances over 1,000 and then later those under 1,000. Now in this case, the movement in supply will be towards a lower price. Supply will shift outwards. Further, suppose the Cabal did go out and buy up a bunch of PLEX. What happens when they try to capitalize on the increased price--i.e. what do they do and how will it affect the market. If they put a bunch of PLEX on the market what happens to the price? Sure they can try to sell them off slowly, but if there are several members to the Cabal then that brings in another problem: coordination. If I am a member of the Cabal and I have say, 10% of the PLEX we bought up, if I dump I'll likely decrease the paper gains the rest of the Cabal members have gotten. And since this is true of all Cabal members, there will be more pressure to unwind their respective PLEX investment to hold them. They could try to trade them for valuable in game items, but then that same pressure applies to the new holder of the PLEX. So really, all this looks like a giant pile of steaming post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning to me--i.e. bullshit. And for full disclosure, I am do participate in the PLEX market, but as a consumer--i.e. I use them to extend my game time on some of my accounts. So, if anything I would be harmed by such market manipulation. I just don't see much indirect evidence of market manipulation. Why did PLEX start going up around March 8th? IDK. But just because IDK does not mean that some other theory must be true. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6294	Posted - 2017.04.02 20:41:07 - [20] - Quote BTW, in looking at the volume traded we see what supply and demand analysis would tell us. When the PLEX prices hit 1.15 billion around March 16th (the day of the Dev Blog announcing this change) we saw a spike in volume traded. We see 3,541 on the 15th and 5,002 on the 16th. Now some might say, "Ah-ha! The Cabal at work!" Maybe. But how about this, the rise for the in-game price is a "shift parameter" for the out-of-game market. What does that mean? Most people take an econ course, maybe in high school and maybe in college and a few both. You might take more than one. But in the end you'll come away with this: Supply : S(P) = a +bP Demand: D(P) = c - dP. And you'll know: S(P) = D(P) is your equilibrium condition. Set those two equations equal to each other and solve. Ta-da your equilibrium. But, for those few masochists who went further you learn that this is the result of solving this problem: max U[x(1),x(2),....x(n),] subject to: p(1)x(1) + p(2)x(2) +....+ p(n)x(n) = M That is you are maximizing your utility for 'n' goods and you only have M dollars to spend (we'll omit things like the labor-leisure trade off, and inter-temporal utility maximization as we really don't want to get into the vagaries of Bellman's equation). What does all the nonsense dell use, that for a given good the demand is actually: D[p(1),p(2),...p(n),M]. That is demand depends on not only the price but your income and all other prices. The reason for this is that other goods are, to varying degrees either substitutes or compliments to all the other goods. Price of beef goes up, the demand for chicken and pork shifts outwards because pork and chicken are substitutes for beef. Technically there are other parameters in the utility function as well. That is for 2 goods the utility function might look like, U(x,y) = alog(x) + (1-a)log(y). In this case the demand function would be, D[p(x),p(y),M,a]. The parameter 'a' represents a taste parameter. Changes in 'a', will shift the standard demand graph around--i.e. it can lower (increase) demand for say x as 'a' decreases (increases). Note, 'a' satisfies 0 < a < 1. What is the point? The point is that the price in game will influence the demand out of game. As the in-game price rises there will likely be more demand to buy a PLEX to sell in game. Hence the jump in volume on the 16th. Oh, and look, the price in game fell 17th, and it fell again on the 18th, and fell yet again on the 19th as the price drop bottomed out. And yes, people who had been holding PLEX might also have decided to "take some profits" too. In other words, we can explain the in-game price movements around the 16th-19th with out* having to resort to a conspiracy. In short, be very careful when reasoning from a price change. Bob: The price went up. Mary: And? Bob: Clearly demand increased? Mary: Really, why couldn't supply have decreased? Bob: Errrr.... Mary: Or maybe it was both? Bob: Look, the economy is controlled by the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission, it would suit their interest for there to be more demand! Make people dependent! Mary: Where is the evidence for this? Bob: The very lack of evidence is evidence of the far reaching control and power of the conspiracy, don't you see!?!?!? Mary: [edging slowly away]....uuuhhhmm sure Bob, that sounds interesting and I'd love to stay and talk, but oh look at the time, I need to go home and paint my dog's nails. Bye! "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6302	Posted - 2017.04.03 19:00:53 - [21] - Quote Girka Kring wrote: Zarek Kree wrote: How about 15 pages of analysis demonstrating that there is no logic or economic rationale for blaming the spike on insider trading? Have you even bothered to read even a portion of this thread or did you just skip to end? Insider information would have resulted in a sell off of PLEX - not buying it up (logical argument). There was also no increase in trade volume that would have been necessary to move the market through insider trading (evidentiary argument). Can you refute any of that? Or is your argument simply "Price go up - bad man do it."? What do you have in support of your theory? A simple causal explanation of any kind? Just connect the dots for me. Higher price, same volume means increased demand and reduced supply. Sad thing is that all those arguments were already answered among those 15 pages, and you didn't even bother to read it. You post sth that 50 other ppl already thoroughly discussed and state that the case is closed. The investigation should be conducted by real men (CCP) with necessary tools, knowledge and skills not some wannabe economics students. So please move on, unless you actually have sth meaningful to add here. Really? I saw no such arguments. Your theory is that there was a surge in buying--i.e. demand shift. What caused the shift in supply? Why was supply shifted at all price levels? Oh, and you do understand you are making pretty much a knife's edge argument: That supply and demand shifted in such a way so as to pretty much exactly offset each other without an increase in volume. That is a pretty precise conspiracy! "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6303	Posted - 2017.04.03 19:11:22 - [22] - Quote Girka Kring wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Girka Kring wrote: Zarek Kree wrote: How about 15 pages of analysis demonstrating that there is no logic or economic rationale for blaming the spike on insider trading? Have you even bothered to read even a portion of this thread or did you just skip to end? Insider information would have resulted in a sell off of PLEX - not buying it up (logical argument). There was also no increase in trade volume that would have been necessary to move the market through insider trading (evidentiary argument). Can you refute any of that? Or is your argument simply "Price go up - bad man do it."? What do you have in support of your theory? A simple causal explanation of any kind? Just connect the dots for me. Higher price, same volume means increased demand and reduced supply. Sad thing is that all those arguments were already answered among those 15 pages, and you didn't even bother to read it. You post sth that 50 other ppl already thoroughly discussed and state that the case is closed. The investigation should be conducted by real men (CCP) with necessary tools, knowledge and skills not some wannabe economics students. So please move on, unless you actually have sth meaningful to add here. Really? I saw no such arguments. Your theory is that there was a surge in buying--i.e. demand shift. What caused the shift in supply? Why was supply shifted at all price levels? Oh, and you do understand you are making pretty much a knife's edge argument: That supply and demand shifted in such a way so as to pretty much exactly offset each other without an increase in volume. That is a pretty precise conspiracy! Why are you linking your own post? Just read what others already wrote about this. What caused the shift in supply? Again, read the topic. Confidential info that leaked caused the shift in both demand and supply. Ppl who knew that PLEX will be 20% more expensive in a few days decided either to not sell PLEX and wait or to buy PLEX when they are still cheap. Obviously. It seems like you assume there was neither a shift in demand or supply. Therefore I'm really curious how do you explain 20% higher prices with same volume. That's right, you don't. So you got nothing then. Okay. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6304	Posted - 2017.04.03 19:34:47 - [23] - Quote You mean like this screed of yours? Let me see you assume there is no other possible reason for the price increase. Just because you cannot see it or figure it out does not mean it does not exist. Markets are interesting in that while they aggregate information they do so via the price--i.e. markets do not tell you why the price moves, only that the price has moved. In other words, you are engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc and circular reasoning, IMO. Quote: I already said that there will be even more demand for PLEX when all ppl having less than 1000 AUR realize that without buying a PLEX their AUR will be wasted. And this condition is no longer true. And CCP said the reason they were not initially going to convert lower Aurum amounts was to avoid adversely affecting the PLEX market--i.e. drive prices down. Now, it turns out those lower amounts WILL BE converted meaning the supply in the future will go up which will decrease the price all other factors held constant (yes a huge assumption). And what do we see, now that the PLEX sale is over prices are going back up....so now that crap you wrote means we should not be seeing this. Or this load of crap where you simply assume your knife's edge argument with line of Bravo Sierra, Quote: The increase in prices by 20% with pretty much the same quantity of traded items means that there was both a decrease in supply and increase in demand for PLEX over those 2 weeks. Dingbat, there is no explanation there. None. It is a statement necessary to maintain your view that there was a leak. "There was a leak and because volume did not change both supply and demand had to change just so, so that there was no change in volume." That is the entirety of your argument. Here is an idea...how often does CCP have sales for PLEX? I honestly don't know. Do they do it frequently? Could some people who play in the PLEX market as speculators be keeping track of that? I know some EVE players do some crazy **** when it comes to making ISK...maybe? Naw, lets just full on bonkers with the conspriarcy. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6304	Posted - 2017.04.03 19:35:43 - [24] - Quote Girka Kring wrote: Zarek Kree wrote: Girka Kring wrote: What caused the shift in supply? Again, read the topic. Confidential info that leaked caused the shift in both demand and supply. Ppl who knew that PLEX will be 20% more expensive in a few days decided either to not sell PLEX and wait or to buy PLEX when they are still cheap. Obviously. What would cause them to think that the announcement would cause a spike in PLEX prices? The initial decision that all AUR below 1000 will be erased, so ppl below 1000 AUR bought PLEX to get AUR above 1000. Then after CCP changed their mind it was already too late, PLEXes were bought and a new, higher price equilibrium was reached. It was also established that there was no other reason for the PLEX price to jump at that moment. There was no increase in active accounts number so the theory about rorqual pilots switching to multiboxing hulks was invalid. Then why are prices still going up now that the sale is over? Especially now that Aurum below 1,000 is to be converted too just at a later date. And why would I buy PLEX to get my 300 Aurum over 1,000? Why not just buy Aurum and wait? "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6305	Posted - 2017.04.03 19:58:14 - [25] - Quote I want to also point out that this conspiracy has lots of hidden assumptions: 1.That the conspirators went to both the buyers and the sellers. 2.That they convinced the buyers and the sellers to buy PLEX/remove PLEX so that that the market price goes up and yet the volume is largely unchanged. At least until people not in the conspiracy notice the price increase and enter the market having bought PLEX for RL money and start selling them, thus under-cutting the conspirators. 3.There is some sort of enforcement mechanism to keep the participants from both blabbing and not stabbing each other in the back (e.g. buying up a lot too early, or dumping PLEX stocks onto the market). Basically this story has all the problems inherent in a cartel. How to keep the cartel members from GÇ£chiselingGÇ¥ on the cartel arrangement, especially when monitoring is quite hard/costly. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6305	Posted - 2017.04.03 20:01:20 - [26] - Quote Piugattuk wrote: Speculation happens, corruption happens, CSM is only good for those big alliances, the general public as always is left paying the bill, not much we can do doo. Working like all voting mechanisms. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6306	Posted - 2017.04.03 20:56:52 - [27] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: PLEX prices fluctuate based on the same concerns and emotions that cause fluctuations in the real life marketplace. Greed, panic, fear, ignorance, idiocy, etc. This thread has probably done more to shift buying patterns than anything the CSM did. Mr Epeen I was wondering that too. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6311	Posted - 2017.04.04 06:17:36 - [28] - Quote Well, I must have talked some sense into the conspirators or something, looks like they might be abandoning their grand scheme of cornering the PLEX market or whatever it was, prices appear to have stopped going up and are down about 6 million ISK from last time I checked. [/sarcasm] "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6311	Posted - 2017.04.04 06:37:25 - [29] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: Piugattuk wrote: Speculation happens, corruption happens, CSM is only good for those big alliances, the general public as always is left paying the bill, not much we can do doo. Well, you could always vote for someone. ... who might be another face for the same "big alliance". I keep saying, like how voting mechanisms are supposed to work.... "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6344	Posted - 2017.04.05 07:45:50 - [30] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Zarek Kree wrote: How about 15 pages of analysis demonstrating that there is no logic or economic rationale for blaming the spike on insider trading? . Info may have nonetheless been leaked, contributing in some extent to the timing and magnitude of the spike. For example if info had been leaked to me, and me alone, you would have seen almost zero effect on the plex market, cos I lack capital to act much on the info. But nonetheless, there would have been an info leak. There is no reason to believe other than "It might have happened." That is really really thin. You could say that pretty much of every CSM. Lets put them under continuous investigation. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6344	Posted - 2017.04.05 08:02:38 - [31] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Zarek Kree wrote: How about 15 pages of analysis demonstrating that there is no logic or economic rationale for blaming the spike on insider trading? . Info may have nonetheless been leaked, contributing in some extent to the timing and magnitude of the spike. For example if info had been leaked to me, and me alone, you would have seen almost zero effect on the plex market, cos I lack capital to act much on the info. But nonetheless, there would have been an info leak. There is no reason to believe other than "It might have happened." That is really really thin. You could say that pretty much of every CSM. Lets put them under continuous investigation. Not an issue of belief. The issue is its a real and constant risk regarding all inside info CCP shares with CSM. No need for constant investigation, just oversight and vigilance. Its a rare person that has never revealed a secret whilst drunk, unwary or for personal benefit. As noted already, the CSM accounts are already highly scrutinized. Seems reasonable to me that CCP would do that for CSM members. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6344	Posted - 2017.04.05 08:30:00 - [32] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: As noted already, the CSM accounts are already highly scrutinized. Seems reasonable to me that CCP would do that for CSM members. I hope so. Trust no one in EVE, that includes CSMs, even moreso. Well of course. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6347	Posted - 2017.04.05 19:17:57 - [33] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: A. Wow...no. You're talking out of your ass now. You just firmly demonstrated that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. The dividend is always split along with the stock! ALWAYS. That's money that comes directly from the company so they always endeavor to keep the total payout flat. You don't make extra money on dividends after a split. Not ever. There's also the little matter of the fact that PLEX doesn't pay dividends, so it has no bearing on this discussion anyway. So not only is it a blatant lie that you made money that way, it's a useless lie. Stick to flawed logic - at least you can be wrong with some honor that way. Don't you have a ceterius paribus assumption there? All other things equal, dividend split = stock split. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6367	Posted - 2017.04.06 20:35:55 - [34] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Don't you have a ceterius paribus assumption there? All other things equal, dividend split = stock split. Well, in theory it doesn't have to. If a company has, let's say, 1,000,000 shares outstanding and is paying a cash dividend of $1.00 per share (or an equivalent stock dividend), that's $1m in dividends. If they announce a 2:1 stock split that increases available shares to 2m, they CAN continue the same $1 dividend policy, but that then costs them a total of $2m in dividend payments. So the reality is that they always split the dividend yield at the same rate as the stock split to maintain a level payout (in this example the yield would drop to $0.50). But splitting the stock shares and splitting the dividend yield are still two independent actions. In many cases, company bylaws even require the board to vote on them separately even though they're linked. No I get that, but the dividend is not solely a function of the number of shares. So the question is, are stock splits correlated with things that tend to increase dividends. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6367	Posted - 2017.04.06 20:43:54 - [35] - Quote Lamajagarn McMyra wrote: I believe more in the rorqual nerf theory and general inflation rather than some insider leak. Judging by the last economy report: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png it to me looks like the average monthly isk generation has increased explosively compared to the sinks, as more isk is injected the value of isk to real world currency obviously decreases. Save us CCP Fozzie, ratting is way to safe! And yet we have deflation in game. Just having more ISK entering the game does not mean that it has to result in inflation. See you are looking at the gross money supply--i.e. counting up all the ISK in game. But, you also need to factor in what CCP Quant calls the Active ISK delta. See here. That is ISK that is effectively sunk out of game by players leaving and GM actions. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6368	Posted - 2017.04.06 23:13:16 - [36] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: This is the graph that produced. Note how the Average Price goes up and down more or less inversely with the number of orders and the volume of PLEX being bought and sold on the market. This shows that Supply and Demand are working normally, this whole wonky theory that Supply hasn't changed is bunk, and a drop in supply is very clearly driving the spike in prices. This is why we graph things and check our assumptions instead of just eyeballing some tiny little volume lines and deciding they look about the same. Interesting. When the price is higher the volume is lower. In fact, it looks as if the price movements are primarily supply driven unless I'm mistaken. For there to be an increase in price and a decrease in volume traded, suggests an inward shift of the supply function. Looks like there might be a lag effect as well. If my conjecture is right, then I am having an even harder time fitting this into any sort of conspiracy to make ISK out of this. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6368	Posted - 2017.04.07 00:35:20 - [37] - Quote Zarek Kree wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: This is the graph that produced. Note how the Average Price goes up and down more or less inversely with the number of orders and the volume of PLEX being bought and sold on the market. This shows that Supply and Demand are working normally, this whole wonky theory that Supply hasn't changed is bunk, and a drop in supply is very clearly driving the spike in prices. This is why we graph things and check our assumptions instead of just eyeballing some tiny little volume lines and deciding they look about the same. Interesting. When the price is higher the volume is lower. In fact, it looks as if the price movements are primarily supply driven unless I'm mistaken. For there to be an increase in price and a decrease in volume traded, suggests an inward shift of the supply function. Looks like there might be a lag effect as well. If my conjecture is right, then I am having an even harder time fitting this into any sort of conspiracy to make ISK out of this. Yeah, the inverse relationship between price and volume is really interesting because it's so consistent over time. I couldn't quite connect the dots on why that would be. If the price is generally a reflection of supply, then it makes some degree of sense to me. I've been assuming that it had something to do with the total amount of PLEX on the market being player driven (through real money purchases). But this is an area that I don't have the economic chops to properly visualize. The supply curve for PLEX with RL money is the price. So PLEX quantity "out of game" is demand driven. Which would then translate into the in game market being largely supply driven. I linked two graphs here. Let me know if I messed up the links. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

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.