Posted - 2007.10.06 01:13:00 - [3]

 

No.

Posted - 2007.10.06 01:37:00 - [5]

 

Originally by: Pang Grohl

---

Since it's inception the EVE financial market has be a free-wheeling do as you will kind of place. For the most part we've worked out the best practices for various types of ventures, and have successfully made improvements to how business is done outside the game mechanics that CCP has instituted.
All well and good. However, lately there has been a lot of forum demagoguery about how things should be done. Those arguing for standards of conduct have been well matched by those arguing for conduct to suit business needs. There are common hindrances that we all seem to agree need to be overcome if the market is to grow: lack of trust, lack of a common vision, and a lack of tools.
The market community can take steps to move past some of these impedances. We can solve the issues around trust and vision on our own. We need CCP's help with some of the tools we desire. I'm curious what the general body of the market place forum feels about regulation, and the many forms it can take. Be it self-regulation by committee, self-regulation by public opinion, CCP imposed regulation, or some other form.
I have my opinion about this, but I'd rather not turn this discussion to a debate just yet, by voicing it. So, I ask, "What's yours?"

---

Personally...I have always been pro-regulation and pro-standards. It is an ideal which I readily acknowledge may be very impractical and in some cases...pure lunacy. Regardless...I would like to see more structure. Standards.

This is why I did the IPO Template and why I'm working on a standard Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Statement.

Again, this is my personal position on this, and I will always work towards seeing this happen. I don't care what I do or don't accomplish, I'm going to keep pushing it for as long as I'm around. Realistically, regulation has been and probably will continue to be a loosely structured community excercise.

As to the three items you highlight:

1) Lack of Trust
This can never go away completely....but I really do hope we can all improve on this. We have to rely on judgement for much of the trust issue.

2) Lack of Common Vision
This comes from the sort of chaotic democracy that arises from all the market voices clamoring together. I think the market grows organically...evolving. Although this is slow...it does seem to be working well. Well enough for now that I won't try to push it any harder than I already do.

3) Lack of Tools
Well...I'm working on that part right now actually. Seriously though, I really do want to see more tools. We already have some great ones, wallet programs and such, but we need to push for improved in-game mechanics and API capabilities. I think that ultimately, it's a question of the right people coming around at the right time to meet the needs of the market.

Posted - 2007.10.06 04:34:00 - [7]

 

No, because red tape is never efficient and there is absolutely no way to enforce it.

Posted - 2007.10.06 08:50:00 - [9]

 

I think this is going to split between liberal and conservative ideas.

Free markets are great and generally I agree the goal should be to strive for as much freedom as possible. But there are some situations when a free market is not the best situation. Essential goods/services come to mind. I wouldn't want to rely on unregulated companies and the free market to provide me with water/power/fight wars/etc.

But I don't see how you could enforce rules on IPO's. The closest thing would be to have an agreement between all the big players not to invest if an IPO doesn't follow certain rules... but there is nothing stopping those people from investing with alts, etc. So it's a futile task to impose standards.

The best idea is to have a list of standards and to let people follow or not as they choose. If someone feels the investment is good, even tho some standards are not met then that is their choice. I like the way Hexx has come up with some templates and such and I am in favor of more general guidelines like that.

Posted - 2007.10.06 10:11:00 - [11]

 

Proper regulation is a non-starter even if it were desirable. Where would we find independent, non-investing, competent people to be the regulators? Claiming to be independent and/or unbiased is easy: convincing anyone of it is much harder.

I've no doubt there's plenty of people who'd like to be the regulators - but I don't particularly want to be regulated by anyone who actually wants to regulate me.

Posted - 2007.10.06 11:26:00 - [13]

 

Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/10/2007 11:44:25
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/10/2007 11:28:30
(sorry for rapid posting)

I support this truly free market we have. That means coping with lack of trust, common vision, and (for the most part) tools.

However, to address each point directly:

Trust: We have to deal with this, difficult as it is. Everything I've heard indicates that CCP wants things this way, and that leads me to believe they're not about to change it. The only thing that counters the trust issue segues nicely into the issue of Common Vision: profit. A flourishing economy, especially a flourishing stock market, will lead to great profit potential for all involved at every level. I think we can all agree that the market is what interests us, and I for one am interested in it for the money I make from it. It suits all of our wallets, and the wallets of everyone who wants to get involved, to see this market succeed. Since we have no way to depend on idealism to carry this through, we have to depend on everyone serving their own self-interests, and keep the market moving in that direction.

As for Tools, only CCP can really provide the in-game tools we might need. While I like the third-party tools we already have, I think we do need CCP to help us out here. I'm not sure how they could do it, but that's why I'm not into game development I guess.

Posted - 2007.10.06 13:03:00 - [15]

 

power corrupts is more than a catchy name for a corp or alliance.

I believe there should be information contained in a consolidated sticky.

This information would have items "needed" for this segment of the community to prosper and grow.

Templates are good. When Hexxx first introduced his template, there were naysayers who stated he was just making it easier on scammers. After all these months, we can now say, historically speaking, Hexxx' (Hexxx's?) template has helped people introduce their corporations to the publicly-traded sphere with a lot less pain and heartache. Bravo indeed~!!

If he does indeed make a web interface for his proposed balance/earnings report template; then, I believe that also would be of great benefit to the community as a whole.

EGSE / RESX - whether you personally like/dislike anyone involved in these two institutions, is irrelevant. They both have valuable places in this community. A huge, and sincere thanks to all involved in both~!!

"Trusted persons". This is something we don't have in a sticky. A list of "trusted persons", why they are trusted, why the should be trusted, and equally important -- with what they are currently trusted. I say this so as to have newcomers to the publicly-traded-corp field not all put their collateral into the same person's hands. As I said, power corrupts, and in this game, isk is certainly power.

Another section could be "financial institutions", Fury Bank(er? not sure if the bank is called fury bank as well), BMBE, Ebank, etc.

Perhaps a ratings system along the lines of what Kasia is doing in esman/esmar. Although, i believe Kasia is still somewhat MIA from eve at the moment.

Now, this rating system COULD be seen as yet another "roadmap on how to scam"; except that major parts of this rating system would involve collateral assets being locked down and/or held by several "trusted persons". I believe this is part of the EBank plan already and perhaps they could work in conjunction with other trusted entities in New Eden, to provide shared security?


I believe that type of easily available information is the extent of what can be done presently in New Eden.

The ratings system would have to be a living entity, i.e. not a one time rating at IPO release, but a monthly/bi-monthly updated, with a history of how the rating has improved/lessened over time and why.

Not using any entity as an example; but just making an example. Issuing x% of divs gives you a certain rating, based upon the actual percentage this month and also your overall average of 6 months, 12 months, lifetime.

Deviation/adherence from/to stated business plan. Communication with the public would be a huge one. Shareholder votes (along with asking shareholders to simply post that they DID vote, to give an idea of the amount of shares which voted), over items that determine the future of the corp -- could be an rating about how serious the corp takes the opinions of shareholders, or some such thing.

There could be a number of items for the ratings. Some would seem to be subjective; but, could be made objective by having the standard for each level of rating spelled out (and ratified as this evolves).


It wouldn't have to be a "i have a good rep, you can always trust me" thing. because, honestly, your good rep, in some of our opinions, only lasts until you **** that good rep up. i.e. you had a great rep and just blew off everything for months - you HAD a great rep, at this point; because obviously YOU changed. This would also stop the "i know he's a good person" bull**** and require everyone have the same playing field IF they desire the same treatment.

You guys can read into / amend whatever sounds good with these suggestions. But, it would make things easier on new ventures and new offerings, and most importantly -- easier on the investor.

There's seemingly plenty of people who would be interested in running all these items. I believe that would be a non-issue.

Posted - 2007.10.06 14:57:00 - [17]

 

Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/10/2007 14:59:33
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/10/2007 14:58:59

Quote:

---

Also, do you actually think a dictatorship is better than a free society?

---

When it comes to expediency and the ability to swiftly react to changes in any given situation, yes, I do believe that a single individual is better suited to the task than a committee. Do you disagree? However, it would be just plain stupid to say that one normal person could even hope to adequately represent every individual opinion on this forum. Thus my statement that democracy is really the only way we have. And no, I don't believe a dictatorship is better than a free society, but I don't see how my political views impact the issue. I'm not discussing a full society, only the economy.

Quote:

---

You seem to be talking about democracy and volunteerism as somehow connected, can you explain?

---

Any democracy must be voluntary, and any truly democratic standards must be adopted voluntarily, or we risk mucking things up quite a bit for those individuals who are honest but want to do things differently.

Even if you're unwilling to accept that a forced democracy is not a true democracy, you must admit that, barring regulations enforced by mechanics (and all of the ways that would limit everyone, not just the fakes), there aren't many ways to force the issue. Full-scale regulation harms economies and limits options for enterprising individuals.

Posted - 2007.10.06 15:34:00 - [19]

 

Originally by: Daeva Vios

---

Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/10/2007 15:10:06

Quote:

---

"Trusted persons". This is something we don't have in a sticky. A list of "trusted persons", why they are trusted, why the should be trusted, and equally important -- with what they are currently trusted. I say this so as to have newcomers to the publicly-traded-corp field not all put their collateral into the same person's hands. As I said, power corrupts, and in this game, isk is certainly power.

---

I take issue with this. Simply put, who decides who is trusted? We'd have to have a committee for this or nothing would ever come of it. How would the committee be chosen? How would we guarantee impartiallity? Barring impartiallity, how would we ensure the findings of the committee itself could be trusted? Would the members of the committee have to be trusted individuals themselves? It seems to me they would. This leads to the old boys club issue, if the committee has any sort of power. If they have no real power, why do they exist at all?

I think a list of trusted persons is a bad idea. It's something everyone should decide on for themselves based on whatever criteria they choose. Dumbing it down for players by providing a ratings system/trusted persons list of any kind really opens the door for all kinds of harmful manipulations.

Beyond that, at the moment I don't see anything I really disagree with, but I admit I just skimmed your post.

---

then you end up with one person "guaranteeing" the safety of a trillion isk worth of assets.

to me, it doesn't matter how these "trusted" persons are determined; there's already a number of people considered as such by old schoolers. but spelling out why everyone SHOULD consider them trusted, and what they're currently trusted WITH, are two things that aren't known so well.

also, there's some trusted persons who back things, but they're in corps/alliances you may/may not like. should you not invest in that venture because of your political distaste of it's trusted persons? i know it plays into why i do things and how much i honestly do trust those people.

Posted - 2007.10.06 16:22:00 - [21]

 

Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 06/10/2007 16:26:34

Originally by: Ionia

---

I don't think a list of trusted people is a good idea. It will centralize power to some degree and would also have ramifications if one of the 'trusted' people becomes untrustworthy; indirectly it would undermine the trust of the others that are on the same list.

---

what we have now are people going "i'm very trusted in the community, i'll back you".

some of these people may indeed be trusted by everyone; but not all of them.

some of these existing trusted folk, who aren't trusted by everyone, maybe should be -- but there's no reasons why other than "i've played a long time and i value my e-rep more than 50b isk".

there's nothing showing what they've done in the past, what they're currently involved with, or anything other than "hey, these guys say i should be trusted, let's all listen to them".


edited: here is an example of what i'm talking about.

let's say i'm totally new to here.

- i have no idea who ricdic is, nor why i should trust that because HE thinks this guy is trustworthy, I should also trust him. they've spent a lot of time talking together it seems - were they planning on scamming billions during this time?


so now, if i were doing my homework, i'd have to start researching everything both of these fellows were involved with. depending on what i find, i might decide they're on the level, or not.

Posted - 2007.10.06 16:28:00 - [23]

 

Originally by: Daeva Vios

---

Quote:

---

there's nothing showing what they've done in the past, what they're currently involved with, or anything other than "hey, these guys say i should be trusted, let's all listen to them".

---

There's also nothing preventing people from ignoring that entirely and thinking for themselves.

---

exactly, that's what i pointed out in my above edit also.

as i originally stated -- all things i've proposed would make it easier on the INVESTOR community. everything they need to know (including links to discussions, facts, sites, whatever) would be in one handy-dandy place.

this, in turn, helps promote the player run market.

Posted - 2007.10.06 16:41:00 - [25]

 

Originally by: Ionia

---

Who exactly will maintain this list of trusted people?

---

Ionia raises a great question. Not just in terms of "Who can we trust to maintain the list", or "This is gonna be a popularity contest", but also "Who's actually got the time and energy to spend on this AND keep it updated?"

I've been mulling over some way we can preserve a sense of history in the markets so that people don't have to head to the thread graveyard and sort through dead threads just to learn more about a person.

Has anyone considered a "Market Wiki"? When describing someone, just reference their posts as citations or as evidence of their accomplishments. It would allow alot of people to be involved in the process and probably give us a better product in the end.

Just an idea I'm throwing out there, does anyone think it has any legs?

Posted - 2007.10.06 18:12:00 - [27]

 

You should google all the wikipedia drama over the past months, wiki has an inherent flaw: anyone can edit it.

Posted - 2007.10.06 18:23:00 - [29]

 

Originally by: Ionia

---

You should google all the wikipedia drama over the past months, wiki has an inherent flaw: anyone can edit it.

---

In that case, some kind of account restriction would be needed.

In-Game names only for usernames, to be verified in game, no alts allowed?