Greetings,
The Monthly Economic Report for June is ready for your enjoyment.
You can find the downloadable data for this last months report in the follow LINK .
o7
8 Likes
<Insert joke about tin foil hats sold below market price at Jita 4-4>
Also first. 
2 Likes
Same reply as every month: The amount of Ice mined by semi-afk massmultiboxers or bots in highsec is absurd. Fix that already by removing the static ice belts. Make them randomly spawning anomalies of rather small size plus scannable ice signatures of bigger size. This gives an advantage to active and flexible groups that are willing and able to be on the move and quickly go after those anomalies as they appear, rather than having one guy with 20 hulks/macks logging in every day at the same system just undocking his multibox fleet and cleaning the belt in like 30 minutes.
Do it already, it will make EVE a better game!
3 Likes
Should we be concerned about the rising ISK supply?
Itâs nice to see ISK velocity has gone up a little bit, but overall the long term, ISK supply is still growing and it makes me wonder if that makes activities that pay in ISK becoming less and less worth it over time.
This is why I suggested previously that CCP implements a wealth tax. A percentage of all ISK in the game just gets straight up deleted from all accounts/wallets on regular intervals to counterbalance the growing supply. Normally something like this would result in wealth fleeing from a nation but CCP has god-like power over the entire EVE Universe. No one can run from such a wealth tax.
Iâm not an economist though so if thereâs someone more educated than me on this subject that could explain why this is a bad idea, Iâd be really interested in learning about it.
1 Like
I think this is the fallout of the two events.
And what happens then? Do prices drop because people donât have the money? Theyâd have to drop across the board, which means small miners stop being able to make money. Or do people just stop buying things, stop risking ships, and we end up with a production glut and the economy starts to tank as people react the way they did to the sudden price increases on capitals during the industry overhaul and scarcity?
Personally⌠I donât know how it plays out. But I also donât think EVEâs economy has come anywhere close to recovering from the Scarcity hits, and I donât know if it can handle a significant system shock.
If anything, itâs probably a bettr idea for CCP to accept the inflation thatâs gone on over the last 20 years and do things like increase mission payouts and tie those to some baseline economic indicator, like making them X * [price of 1 unit of trit].
3 Likes
The amount of Ice mined by semi-afk massmultiboxers or bots in highsec is absurd. Fix that already by removing the static ice belts.
Nah.
The game already has a fix for âsemi-afk massmultiboxersâ.
Shoot themâŚ
As for bots, they are already disallowed by CCP.
Report them.
Changing the ice belts wonât help you get more ice.
Compete better.
âHelpful Gadget
Looking at the graph, that fix quite obviously donât work very well.
But, of course you are free to think whatever you like. In my opinion every change that makes the game more inconvenient and less efficient for mass-multiboxers is a good change. And dynamic anomalies/sigs are a much better way to distribute key resources, as they force and reward constant activity and group play with different people having different roles and demand more than just undock, fleetwarp and activating the same lasers on 20 mackinaws.
2 Likes
How is getting Concorded a fix? You lose your ship, security standing and the 20 hulk fleet keeps mining.
3 Likes
How is getting Concorded a fix? You lose your ship, security standing and the 20 hulk fleet keeps mining.
You are not that new to EvE, that this deserves a real responseâŚ
In my opinion every change that makes the game more inconvenient and less efficient for mass-multiboxers is a good change.
I donât think that the resources to make the change you are requesting are worth the minor inconvenience for large mining fleets. It wouldnât have much, if any, change to the over all dynamics, and the resouces could be much better spent elsewhere.
But you are also free to believe what you will.
âUnderstanding Gadget
Iâm doing my part
Since they add new random anomalies and sigs in basically every event (and even have added mining sites in the past for events), the resources to to make this change canât be that significant. Iâd even say they are not worth mentioning.
Oh, the guy with his dozen accounts who is used to just undock, warp to the belt and farm afk while watching youtube/netflix whatever will surely hate it to look around in the constellation where ice anos are. Then warp to one and realize the ice amount in there is so small that his dozen macks have cleared it after like 7 minutes and then need to find another one that will also last for only ten minutes and maybe is 3 systems away. Or he looks for a larger one, but he has to scan 3 systems with a prober first. Yes, thats for sure more than a âminor inconvenienceâ for a mass multiboxer and I really like the idea.
1 Like
In the increase in NPC bounties because BRM is now bottom-capped at 100%
We donât need a wealth tax. We simply need the removal of player markets in high sec so that all market trading removes appropriate amounts of ISK again, as it did in the past before CCP wrecked the economy with structure 0% BF markets.
Plus, of course you an run from this tax. You just stash your ISK away in items like PLEX or minerals or whatnot. Ideally PLEX, though, because that creates toxic deferred income.
2 Likes
Thatâs not how it works. As the money supply goes down, the purchasing power of ISK goes up. So in other words, you donât need as much ISK to buy the same amount of stuff.
Also, a wealth tax would likely cause a rise in the velocity of ISK, because anybody who is hoarding ISK would want to turn it into something that doesnât get taxed, like minerals, plex, etc.
1 Like
Thatâs how it works when money supply goes down organically.
When people who are used to having money suddenly lose a lot of it, they often seek to regain it, fast. For some, this means increasing the price of their products/services. For others, it means foregoing unnecessary expenditures. IRL, this is limited by things like âneeding to eatâ, âpaying taxes and rentâ, etc⌠in EVEâŚ
Well, weâve seen what happens when people in EVE need to tighten their belts: the economy slows down, top to bottom. People reduce their risky behaviors, so they donât lose as many ships. So they donât replace as many ships. And then people arenât selling as many ships⌠One of the reasons ISK velocityâs dropped is that weâre already dangerously close to the lower bound for keeping a number of things viable.
3 Likes
Perhaps, but if it ainât broke, donât fix it.
And the system ainât broke just because you donât like it.
Personally, I think that the work and the risk of messing something up inadverdently is greater than any benefit such a change might have, becauseâŚ
Reasons quoted
Since while icebelts do spawn in the same systems, they arenât always available or are nearly depleated when a fleet forms (or logs onâŚ). The fleet already needs to scout for a good system to mine at that time. Ice is already shown in the Agency tab, and scannable Ice would force changes with the agency system - or it wouldnât, and the agency tab would still tell you where the ice is, you would just need to go there to scan it down.
At best changes to how ice works wouuld add a few minutes getting a fleet into position. Itâs certianly not going to stop any of themâŚ
But at worst, changes could bork the agency system for other items - a minor risk perhaps, but it still needs to be considered.
IMO, Thatâs still too much risk and too many recources for far too little gain.
âProject Director Gadget
Can you define organically? Whatâs the difference between organic and inorganic deflation?
My original suggestion in a previous thread was 1%-5% per month, but I recognize that I pulled that number out of thin air. I wouldnât consider 1-5% a lot.
Reading through the rest of your post, itâs important to repeat that if all ISK in the entire game, from every wallet, was taxed at the same rate (letâs say 1%-5% per month, then everyone would be proportionally the same in terms of wealth; but there would be a small difference, ISK transactions that are inflexible (like for example insurance, bounty payouts, loyalty point store costs, items seeded by NPCS, etc) would be more impactful.
Donât get me wrong. I am open to arguments against this. A good well informed argument would be interesting to read. Arrendis might be correct but Iâm not finding it to be convincing. It seems more like a knee-jerk reaction.
1 Like
Organically, in EVE terms, would be prices settling on their own as the larger playersâindividuals with tens or hundreds of trillions of ISKâgo idle again and drop off of the MERâs charts. Most of their moneyâs idle. So when they drop off, thatâs a natural drop in the money supply, but not a significant drop in the money moving through the system, and ISK velocity rises.
Human beings donât look at their wallets in terms of âproportionalityâ. Nobody says âoh, hey, Iâm in the bottom 20%, I canât afford a new carâ, they say âI have $20k in the bank, I canât afford a new carâ. Among other things, people tend to not know where they are, âproportionallyâ. The guy who had 100M in his wallet is minorly inconvenienced to find himself at 95 million. The guy who had 100 Trillion is mad about losing 5T, but itâs not actually impairing his ability to do jack. The guy whoâs got limited play time and is in his first 30d, running missions that pay out absolute crap and is scraping everything he can do buy his first destroyer?
When he loses a full day of working toward that ISK because there are jackwagons out there who do have 100T sitting idle on the money supply graph, do you think heâs saying âoh, well, proportionally Iâm no further behind that dude with 3 faction titansâ or do you think heâs cursing up a storm because what the hell did he do to deserve getting set back like that?
Knee-jerk reactions are a)the majority of human reactions, and b)exactly what you need to be worried about here. EVEâs economy is not out of the woods. Donât kick it in the balls.
EDIT: Oh, and just as a point⌠the biggest problem with the âwealth taxâ youâre proposing is that it isnât one. Itâs a wallet tax. Here, lemme put it in clear terms: I currently have about 5b in my wallet. So Iâd lose 50-250M under your plan.
Thing is⌠I wouldnât lose any of my Hel, Aeon, Nidhoggur, Apostle, Lif⌠Or my pirate capitals and super⌠or literally any of the other several hundred billion of assets I have, that I can liquidate at literally any time, because, you know, itâs wealth, not just riches. So all your wallet tax does is punish the people who are mostly liquid⌠which tends to be the folks who donât have a lot to begin with.
(You really donât want to start thinking about the actual wealth the EVE 1% have, not sitting in their wallets.)
Second edit: And letâs keep in mind that the truly wealthy in EVE know how to game the market. And, often, how to manipulate it outright. Hell, many of them do that as their RL day job. You wonât get their money with some facile flat tax. Like all flat taxes, youâll just end up punishing those who canât game the system, while the people with the money, talent, and assets will avoid serious impact.
2 Likes
The effect of people leaving the game and their ISK leaving the economy slows down the increasing money supply, but itâs not happening at a high enough rate to cause a long term reduction in the money supply. If that was happening, Iâd consider that to be a pretty bad sign for the health of the game. Hereâs the money supply chart again. As you can see, itâs regularly climbing. Itâs not even staying level.
An important part of your statement was ârunning missions that pay out absolute crapâ part of the reason missions pay poorly is because they pay a static amount of ISK, and in an inflationary economy, the purchasing power of ISK decreases. Mission payout would be better if the purchasing power of ISK increased. If anything, people who run missions would be benefiting from this.
Let me form a better argument against my own idea:
The people who lose out the most on my suggested tax are people who hoard large volumes of ISK, people who hard ISK are doing us all a favor because they help ISK maintain itâs purchasing power. There might not even be a need for a wealth tax because there are players like this. Anyways, if there was a wealth tax on ISK itself, this would incentivize ISK hoarders to go out there and spend their ISK, driving up the velocity of ISK; however, this would in turn likely lead to inflation for awhile. If they start spending it, the purchasing power of ISK would likely go down for awhile. But in exchange, anyone producing anything other than ISK (like minerals, loyalty points, etc) would be able to liquidate it into larger volume of ISK very fast. People who farm ISK faucets would likely then get negatively impacted for awhile. If things continued and the wealth tax created small, incremental decreases in the money supply, I would expect there to be a need for people to farm ISK faucets again.
1 Like
Your idea also harms people like me who have a ton of liquid ISK for specific reasons, like ultra-high collateral contracts. I regularly need a few dozen to hundreds of B to transport some contracts. Such a wealth tax would impact my play style and make it a collateral-damage of a fix that only makes things worse for every player, old and new. Would be in line with CCPâs modus operandi, though.
3 Likes