Post by maumau on Aug 18, 2020 22:52:33 GMT
In my previous thread I suggested changes in how tax can be calculated and collected. If this can be achieved, it will rearrange our strategy or perspective in how we treat cash. Namely, it will be closer to what we understand about cash. When this could be done, we will have more diversified strategy in investments of different kinds. To accommodate with that, we will also need to adjust the system in GO and bonds.
Motivation:
My aims for the following changes are to make GO and bonds more approachable than they used to be.
GO:
The current GO are aimed for large companies. The high volume required by each GO can strongly enhance the flow of goods in the market. I think this concept is doing great. However, the notation "big" here introduces concerns of mine. As recently it happened to have a GO for 1000 breeding research, which triggered concerns that big companies can manipulate the GO by providing bids which are non-profitable solely for the achievement purpose. In that sense. I think we may add extra criteria in the GO design.
1. Size of GO vs. size of company
Depending on the GO order, the system can determine how much it normally worth in the market. Then it can set a maximum CV size a company can bid -- similar to lightweight class, medium class and open class in some sport. My suggestion is that the upper limit should be around a few times of the GO order. Companies with a too small size can still participate but in their own risks. Companies with a too large size cannot participate so that smaller companies can also contribute to these GO. However, it might limit the number of GO available for one company of a fixed size. So we will need to increase the number of GO per weeks, let's say 6 per week.
Caveat:
Allowing more companies to join the GO may weaken their intention to join other activities, such as the recent brick donation campaign. So it will be important to allow smaller size companies to compete in their own fairly, while not attracting too many companies swarming for the orders.
Bonds:
One concern about bond in game is that it is really a game. Unlike real life bond, the bond in SC can receive a much higher chance to default if players leave the game or simply reset for other reasons. Also, the bond we hold has no maturity but depends only on the call back by the bond issuer. Holding bond becomes much more risky than it is supposed to be. For example, one can also benefit by holding inventories. This has been very conflicting with the original concept of bond as a safe harbor of capital. My suggestions will aim at improving these aspects.
1. Second-hand Bond Market
Just like the new bond can be sold, I suggest that we can extend the new row for second hand bond. This provides opportunities for users to resell their bond in case if they have other investment with a higher yield. Since in the market place, all items are labels with the seller, price, I think implementing this does not lead to extensive remodeling of the code. To avoid complication, the resold bond will bear the same interest rate as it is given directly from the original bond issuer. To help the user to determine how much price they should sell, I think in the owned bond it can contain how much interest the player has already received from the bond issuer. With these, the risky part of the bond being indefinitely fixed by the bond issuer can be relieved. Also, it can really act as a cash harbour to enhance cash flow in the whole system. I believe it will encourage more users to invest in bond market.
2. Mature Date
The concept is similar to the mature date in real life bonds.
To realize my aim, we can choose actually (1) or (2) to implement, not necessarily both. The mature date may provide extra joy for bond issuer to enjoy the company management process. The investors at the same time can have a better control in the expected growth of their cash. Both of these may motivate more users to invest in bonds.
Caveat:
Setting up too strict rules for bonds can reduce the joy for this part of the game. It may suppress users in benefiting from this system for their company growth. The design in the interest rate for bonds may need to be readjusted, otherwise no shop or all shops will want to issue bonds for nothing.
Motivation:
My aims for the following changes are to make GO and bonds more approachable than they used to be.
GO:
The current GO are aimed for large companies. The high volume required by each GO can strongly enhance the flow of goods in the market. I think this concept is doing great. However, the notation "big" here introduces concerns of mine. As recently it happened to have a GO for 1000 breeding research, which triggered concerns that big companies can manipulate the GO by providing bids which are non-profitable solely for the achievement purpose. In that sense. I think we may add extra criteria in the GO design.
1. Size of GO vs. size of company
Depending on the GO order, the system can determine how much it normally worth in the market. Then it can set a maximum CV size a company can bid -- similar to lightweight class, medium class and open class in some sport. My suggestion is that the upper limit should be around a few times of the GO order. Companies with a too small size can still participate but in their own risks. Companies with a too large size cannot participate so that smaller companies can also contribute to these GO. However, it might limit the number of GO available for one company of a fixed size. So we will need to increase the number of GO per weeks, let's say 6 per week.
Caveat:
Allowing more companies to join the GO may weaken their intention to join other activities, such as the recent brick donation campaign. So it will be important to allow smaller size companies to compete in their own fairly, while not attracting too many companies swarming for the orders.
Bonds:
One concern about bond in game is that it is really a game. Unlike real life bond, the bond in SC can receive a much higher chance to default if players leave the game or simply reset for other reasons. Also, the bond we hold has no maturity but depends only on the call back by the bond issuer. Holding bond becomes much more risky than it is supposed to be. For example, one can also benefit by holding inventories. This has been very conflicting with the original concept of bond as a safe harbor of capital. My suggestions will aim at improving these aspects.
1. Second-hand Bond Market
Just like the new bond can be sold, I suggest that we can extend the new row for second hand bond. This provides opportunities for users to resell their bond in case if they have other investment with a higher yield. Since in the market place, all items are labels with the seller, price, I think implementing this does not lead to extensive remodeling of the code. To avoid complication, the resold bond will bear the same interest rate as it is given directly from the original bond issuer. To help the user to determine how much price they should sell, I think in the owned bond it can contain how much interest the player has already received from the bond issuer. With these, the risky part of the bond being indefinitely fixed by the bond issuer can be relieved. Also, it can really act as a cash harbour to enhance cash flow in the whole system. I believe it will encourage more users to invest in bond market.
2. Mature Date
The concept is similar to the mature date in real life bonds.
To realize my aim, we can choose actually (1) or (2) to implement, not necessarily both. The mature date may provide extra joy for bond issuer to enjoy the company management process. The investors at the same time can have a better control in the expected growth of their cash. Both of these may motivate more users to invest in bonds.
Caveat:
Setting up too strict rules for bonds can reduce the joy for this part of the game. It may suppress users in benefiting from this system for their company growth. The design in the interest rate for bonds may need to be readjusted, otherwise no shop or all shops will want to issue bonds for nothing.