Stupid quote thing is not working for me...but I like several ideas presented here. Removing the fee is one, especially if you are in a loss. In the real world, you are not taxed if you are in a loss. I have not invested much in real world but that is what i have heard.
Putting a cap per stock could also work but not sure if I am a fan of that.
Or capital gains tax could work but would need to be setup as a step procedure. For example, for every 100m there is a % increase in the tax owed. That would help with folks making insane amount to keep inflation down.
I wouldn't give your taxing ass a single dollar. Are you ched Jr? Do you also think that every member of this game community is legally mentally retarded?
Something like this 400B limit would be a good step in the right direction. It would be great if the stock market could be a way for all players to make money, instead the old market was dominated by a few people who would buy up 100% of available shares in certain stocks, and now the new market has been neutered so no one can make money in it.
a cap sounds great if we get the volatility back but 400b is too much
a cap of 100b - 200b is better as it forces players who are rich enough to at least invest in other stocks instead of putting all 400b into one
even increasing the fee would change so much about money being generated and then that money can fund comps/ tournaments whatever bogie really wants or just adding it to the church fund
Fresh stocks 3.0 was a literal money printer. It needed to be balanced and I honestly can support the volatility change that Ched did, as a "holy shit this is getting out of hand" reaction. HOWEVER, I don't like how he changed it without being clear about the change via announcing it in patch notes or something. The stock analysts had to figure out the change on their own and call him out for it in forum threads (not cool dude). It also sucked moreso for the people still holding out in stocks like EWM, since the volatility change meant that they now won't break even for an extremely long time.
On to the actual post now....I think that implementing a per-stock investment cap would be a good idea, but it needs to be a realistic amount. If it were a 400B PER STOCK cap, then it wouldn't affect the investing habits of even half a percent of the stock investor population (according to HoF, it would only affect the top 29 networth players in the game who have 400b to their name). I think that a 100B cap per stock would be more appropriate, albeit still more on the high end of it (maybe something around 75B would fit better since IMO making 1B per 1% increase is still insane). This wouldn't affect the small stock investors, and would work as a limiter that stocks 3.0 needs to keep it from turning back into the money printer it was on release. It would also allow Ched to restore the volatility of the stock system that day traders relied on to make their active torn income. The lower the per-stock cap, the more volatile he can let the system be.
I don't understand how this got 280 likes. How would an arbitrary cap of 400b change anything?
There's still loads of volatility, substantially more than the previous stock system. We only resolved the fairly broken 'very short-term' volatility, I can't imagine any possible change would allow us to bring that back as it was before, while also still meeting our long-term economy health targets.
I'll be more than happy to pass this to Chris for his thoughts.
Since removing the fee was something you mentioned could be considered in the future (upon release) even with that short-term volatility in place, would you now be willing to look at removing it? Since that's pretty much what the fee targeted and made impossible to capitalise on.
It's clear that because of short term volatility, the fee is definitely required. If short-term volatility is increased, the fee would need to increased in-kind.
There's some pretty weird and interesting counter-intuitive phenomena's in this stock system that took a long time to make sense of - I still don't quite have a full grasp of it all. I'll see if it might be acceptable for Chris to try simply explaining them in the upcoming economy report.
What if the volatility was volatile? Fluctuating at random between slightly more than you think is acceptable, and slightly less than you deem acceptable.
This would allow for (lesser) short term opportunities for those with a keen eye, but would still entail risk.
Well now it feels like we've hit a great balance according to our data, short-term volatility is still strong and profitable, producing an average of 30b in profit daily - which is right in-line with our requirements. If we removed the fee, we'd have to totally cripple all volatility as it'd allow minute-by-minute high-frequency trading - where scripts basically take over.