Not that I wouldn't vote for the inactivity tax & the income tax. I also, again, have a proposal pending to actually print money in a way that I think multiple people have said is a good idea, so that could be useful.
We could also just lower the value of welcome packages. It takes 10 weeks of reports to match 1 welcome package. On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, VJ Rada <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree more with Alexis here. We need to think of interesting > gameplay mechanics more than we need to think of tax mechanics. I've, > I don't think, never exchanged money for a good or service not sold by > the government. Contracts should help us buy and sell more things, but > it needs us to actually buy into them and use the darn things, which > I'm skeptical about. > > Maybe we could abolish Estates and like... create some kind of voting > power market? Where everyone has say three voting power and can buy > and sell the extra power at will? Or something like that might be fun. > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Alexis Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 18:53 Aris Merchant >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has >>> been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever >>> run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to >>> write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the tax rates. >>> Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I >>> propose the following two taxes. >>> >>> 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up >>> (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the >>> Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could >>> be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending >>> because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without >>> warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of >>> a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted, >>> the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance >>> payments. >>> >>> 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent >>> money (to limit our measures of activity to things the >>> Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the >>> Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can >>> change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for >>> Agora with notice. >>> >>> Let the debates begin. >>> >>> -Aris >> >> >> Honestly, my experience is that economies that don't allow accumulation tend >> to not work well. There have been two variations on this that I've seen. >> Expiring currency (like AP, but as an economic driver) doesn't work because >> there's little incentive to gain any more than you need. Fixed-supply >> currency (like shinies) run into the opposite problem, where there is even >> stronger advantage to accumulate it because the supply can deplete, meaning >> you need to hoard in case we hit a supply crunch and you want to do things. >> >> Beyond that, the economies that I've seen work the best are ones where there >> is a) an incentive to accumulate b) interesting gameplay and c) useful >> things to do with money. Right now, we have plenty of a) due to supply >> limitations, and there's a lot of focus on the supply, but we don't have b) >> or c). The most interesting gameplay is Estates, of which there are two more >> to be auctioned, period, and as G. (I believe) pointed out, are never worth >> spending for one extra vote on one proposal. Comestibles could be the start >> of interesting gameplay, maybe, but are blocked behind Estates and other >> timing restrictions, and nobody's actually used them. >> >> We're also missing c). The only things you can do with shinies, apart from >> aforementioned Estates and Comestibles, which ultimately lead to voting >> power, are do normal gameplay things (CFJs and Proposals and soon, possibly, >> contracts) and getting Stamps. But the latter are certainly not interesting, >> and getting more currency isn't inherently useful either for all the >> existing reasons. >> >> Voting power itself is less of a useful incentive, I've found, than you >> might think. Voting power mechanics are more successful when they operate on >> an ongoing basis, than one-offs. The only time it's really *useful* to have >> increased voting power is if you're trying to force something through: it's >> basically *never* useful to defeat a proposal with it since it can be >> reproposed once your resources are exhausted. And even proposals you >> generally want passed are probably not worth spending it on when you could >> safe for a forcethrough instead later. So one-off voting power is not a >> great mechanic; it's just a proxy for a win. Ongoing voting power is more >> useful, and we might even have enough active players right now to make it >> useful (with a small number of actives, it's very dangerous to make it too >> easily manipulated). It should still expire (or be reducible by other >> players) of course, but if a power increase lasts for, say, a month, it's >> easier to manage and healthier, I think, for the economy. >> >> CFJs, Proposals, and other key gameplay are risky to associate with the >> economy. the more valuable currency is, the harder it is to justify spending >> it on proposals and CFJs. Slowing these down too much is very, very bad for >> the game. We don't want to discourage minor fix proposals, or prevent new >> players from proposing (this has been an issue before), or just overly >> bottleneck the proposal system on the economy. >> >> In my experience, economy for the sake of an economy has never really worked >> in Agora. We need an economic game, that has complexities to it. >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
