Tom Grey
said
:
Wow your seller mercher buyer diagram is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen to say that prices are manipulated.
Real world example:
Seller wants to sell 1,000,000 apples. Buyer wants to buy 5 apples. Supermarket (a merchant in your case) connects the two to make the transaction happen. Without the supermarket the apples will rot and the buyer would starve. The commission they get is reciprocal to the risk of not being able to sell the goods.
Runescape example:
Staker wants to sell a partyhat at 2am for 10b. Buyers at 2am are minimal. Buyers at 10am want to buy a partyhat for 10b. An intermediary (mercher in your example) connects the two to make a transaction happen. The commission they get is reciprocal to the risk of not being able to sell the goods.
If you think this is manipulation of prices, there is no help left.
Didn’t read the rest of the post because they are usually just garbage arguments anyway.
Wow your seller mercher buyer diagram is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen to say that prices are manipulated.
Real world example:
Seller wants to sell 1,000,000 apples. Buyer wants to buy 5 apples. Supermarket (a merchant in your case) connects the two to make the transaction happen. Without the supermarket the apples will rot and the buyer would starve. The commission they get is reciprocal to the risk of not being able to sell the goods.
Runescape example:
Staker wants to sell a partyhat at 2am for 10b. Buyers at 2am are minimal. Buyers at 10am want to buy a partyhat for 10b. An intermediary (mercher in your example) connects the two to make a transaction happen. The commission they get is reciprocal to the risk of not being able to sell the goods.
If you think this is manipulation of prices, there is no help left.
Didn’t read the rest of the post because they are usually just garbage arguments anyway.
Oh my god, those evil supermarkets are manipulating apples, we need to rerelease them immediately!
Err, wait a tick...
Nah but seriously speaking, I think there's a certain difference between those two examples that you didn't highlight enough: in the supermarket example, the apple seller risks not selling some of his apples at all, whilst in the partyhat example, the partyhat seller (the staker) risks not having the cash flow to make more money than if he waited to sell it with the best profit margin. And that's a real thing: weighing time and money.
If you have the time to actively play with your money, and can make more money within the same amount of time by selling your partyhat cheaper than if you waited, then it makes sense to sell it to someone who then sells it slightly more expensive to another person. It doesn't mean that you were manipulated, because it allowed you to make more money yourself. Otherwise, you could just be passive yourself: wait.
Nah but seriously speaking, I think there's a certain difference between those two examples that you didn't highlight enough: in the supermarket example, the apple seller risks not selling some of his apples at all, whilst in the partyhat example, the partyhat seller (the staker) risks not having the cash flow to make more money than if he waited to sell it with the best profit margin. And that's a real thing: weighing time and money.
If you have the time to actively play with your money, and can make more money within the same amount of time by selling your partyhat cheaper than if you waited, then it makes sense to sell it to someone who then sells it slightly more expensive to another person. It doesn't mean that you were manipulated, because it allowed you to make more money yourself. Otherwise, you could just be passive yourself: wait.
"Volat Accipiter libera est; venandi sua natura est."
~Accipiter striatus
29-Mar-2019 12:33:40