On 24 Jun 2013, at 16:24, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
>> On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002);
>>
>> What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to
>> more recent economies that I've seen?
>
> Heh, I think I'll defer this one to Steve...
>
>
>
> Okay, enough deference. Short answer: stable unified system for 3+
> years with multiyear investments on 4 interlinked currencies (with much
> active speculation), money supply and tax issues permeated elections
> (prices depended on balance of 4 officers' decisions), pretty much
> everyone played (couldn't be involved without it), spawned some very large
> scale deals (at least one where everyone was involved in a massive trade/
> bidding coalition battle to corner a currency), spawned both secondary
> trading markets and tertiary investments (bonds on debts) and even
> (arguably) quartenary ones (obligations to create bonds or debts).
>
> Key to the last points were that they evolved more or less "naturally"
> (i.e. different people over time because it was sensible) not just for
> the sake of it ("hey, I'm going to make a debt for a debt for a debt just
> because I can").
>
> Of course, I could probably summarize any 3 years of Agora like this
> and it would sound exciting in a compressed form... I dunno. Michael,
> Chuck, Steve am I just wearing rose-colored glasses here...
>
> -Goethe
It does sound exciting, but I guess we'll see what the other ancients think.
I'm amazed the game could support many different currencies and the secondary
(never mind tertiary and quartenary) markets. I think that modern day Agora
isn't active enough for that, but maybe if you build it, they will come.
What were the currencies based on? Was it something like "you can spend X to
submit a proposal, Y to increase your votes", or "you get X for being an
officer and Y for being a judge"? Or something else?
Money supply and tax issues in elections are a good idea; we have the kernel of
that with Budgets. It seems like making it impossible not to join in is the
most important thing, not just because it 'forces' players to, but because it
makes the economy interesting and worth playing if it permeates all aspects of
the game.
-- Walker
