On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 15:06 -0500, Nicholas Evans wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> > > wrote: > > > I know, but you never make a /profit/ by spending Shinies. So > > > failing to make a loss is the best you can manage. > > > > That's not true. Since FV changes weekly, and it takes a week for a > > proposal to pass, you just need to pend a week before an FV increase. > > Pending itself will (marginally) increase FV. Buying a stamp would do > > so even more. The more people pending and buying things W1, the more > > the proposal will payout W2. > > Doesn't FV decrease over time, though (as more Shinies accumulate in > the hands of people who won't use them)? Timing a pend for just before > an FV increase seems almost impossible. > > FV decreasing means stamps get cheaper though. Week-over-week hoarding and FV decrease should lead to a wave of stamp purchases. That wave should lead to a sudden spike in FV, which continues the cycle. That's the theory of course. If you're right and it stagnates in the mid-term, we can try to patch it then. > I guess it's possible you'd get into a pattern where people alternated > between having a week where everyone pends, and a week where nobody > pends, in an attempt to make a profit. But that sort of extreme FV > manipulation seems unlikely to be something that people would bother to > do in practice, and even then it'd be unlikely to counteract the > general downwards trend of the FV longterm (in fact, it would > accelerate it). > > -- > ais523 >
