Jump to content

Psweet

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Psweet last won the day on June 23 2020

Psweet had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
    Psweet
  • Nation Name
    Order of the Tree
  • Nation ID
    20018
  • Alliance Name
    Silenzio

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Psweet

Recent Profile Visitors

1234 profile views

Psweet's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (4/8)

280

Reputation

  1. After a tempestuous election, the people have spoken. And they have spoken, I am afraid, unwisely. Despite my repeated pleas to let me retire after my service and long history with the game, I was elected, against my wishes, as leader of CC. This has been certified by Adrienne: As promised, my first order of business is to ban Allend from ever joining CC. I am extremely grateful and humbled by the trust that I have been shown, and I can only hope to repay it someday. However, I am too run-down and listless to accept the burden of this responsibility. As such, I have no choice but to abdicate in favor of Lossi and Menny, who I hereby appoint co-rulers, with absolute authority over the alliance, in perpetuity. Long may they reign!
  2. Friends, Alliancemen, Chocolatiers, lend me your ears! For too long have we suffered under the restrictive and repressive tactics of the chocolate elite! For too long has leadership not spared thought or pain for those too poor to afford premium Swiss chocolate and had to make do with cheap and heretical Hershey's. This must end now! I, formerly Princess Psweet, hereby proclaim the founding of the First Chocolate Republic, beholden to the people, founded in the belief in the inalienable rights of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of chocolate. I appoint @Adrienne the position of chairwoman of the Interim Assembly, to hold power no longer than is necessary to conclude a just, fair, and free election in which all chocolate loving castle denizens may vote for their leaders. I implore patriotic citizens everywhere to do their duty. Vote early! Vote often! And vote Psweet!
  3. You have freed me from econ, this is basically retirement for me. I am content.
  4. Oh wow, this means I can retire even earlier than I was planning. Thank you Luna! Best gift I've ever been given ❤️
  5. I am here to eat chocolate and throw cake. And Menny stole all my chocolate :<
  6. Best you can get is prolly about tree fiddy.
  7. Because their leadership was them. They followed their leaders. If they had largely elected to remain in the game, that'd be one thing. There'd be a cloud over them, but they could eventually work out from under it. But most of them didn't. They left, in either obedience to, or solidarity of, a leadership that had blatantly cheated and been about as unfriendly to the spirit of the game as they possibly could be, in an effort to "win" an unwinnable game. Their leadership was disgusting. Anyone who follows them deserves zero respect. BK had even less reason to mass-leave the game. They weren't caught cheating. None of them were banned. But they did so... in defense of their allies who were caught blatantly cheating...? That's just pathetic, in addition to their part in a war meant to win an unwinnable game. Good riddance. Regarding Curu, he was/is just a terrible human. And I say that as someone who once counted myself among his friends.
  8. If I may introduce you to Stratton Oakmont, which liquidated and returned its shares' value directly to its investors: Now, to address the OP... 1) Shares: If you buy shares in a bank then you must demand 2% weekly interest of the cost of those shares, so if you purchased 100m in value of shares you want 2m a week return on that investment of shares. Any bank that offers you a return in cash of 2/3 or half of what they make in gross revenue is either a very risky investment or a ponzi scheme. Investors gain wealth when their share value increases too, and their share values ain't gonna increase much if the bank is paying out everything it earns in dividends. Plus, it leaves the bank less flexibility in times of low loan demand, or when sudden problems happen, like customers deleting/defaulting on their loans. Banks are not magical printing presses. 2a) Savings account, make it clear they can not loan your cash out or make a profit from your saving account, make sure you give them no more than 24 hours to send your full saving account if they fail then they are using your money to support loans, making money off your hard work and you get nothing. What incentive is there for the bank to hold someone's money if they cannot use it? For precisely this reason, none of the banks I've been part of have ever operated savings accounts as part of normal business. And when we did, we were the ones charging the account owner for our responsibility in holding and guaranteeing it. if they default the likely hood is you will lose out not the bank who has no skin in the game. What I think you mean is that the BANKER has no skin in the game. Obviously if the bank loses money, the bank loses money. It IS the skin that is in the game. You also seem to be laboring under the assumption that specific deposit accounts are used to fund specific loans. Now, I can't speak for other banks, but no bank I've ever been a part of did this - investors (not depositors - see above) are pooled into a general cash fund, and from that fund out go the loans. This actually reduces risk in the same way that buying an index fund on the stock market reduces risk - you have inbuilt diversification. If other banks wanna do fiddley bits with the accounts, that's their doing, but I would like to take this moment to remind people that complexity is almost never the friend of an honest man - it exists to obfuscate and create loopholes and opportunities. Now many people such as micro who cares about the name sold 12 billion in shares, however, loaned out 6 billion and the other 6 billion did a harry potter and disappeared. If that bank closed its doors today, all investors and shareholders lose out those running the bank do not care they made more in the last however months than they have in the time they joined us all. But it is not just small micro banks you have to be careful of its the whale banks also, let's look at Seb and Sphinx two of the biggest names in banking. Seb has had what three failed banks and every time it has always been someone else's fault, he did no wrong. Still, every time a bank failed, he got a new city, how did that happen, guess Harry potter returned for Seb. However, little old man Seb is not the only one who seems to be on the winning side of failed banks; Sphinx also seems to find a pot of gold at the end of every failed bank. When Rado left this world, it was reported he stole billions, and no one would get any interest from the bank, however a pot of gold and a new city for our boy Sphinx. And I would like to take this opportunity to remind people, once again... NEVER INVEST IN A BANK THAT IS NOT OPEN AND CLEAR ABOUT ITS FINANCES AND IS FINE WITH DISCUSSING THEM IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND. Just don't do it. There is no reason from the bank's point of view to be secretive about anything (other than occasional customers who wish their names to be hidden) unless they have something to hide. Stratton Oakmont kept 100% free and open books the entirety of its existence down to the general journal in which every. Single. Transaction. Was recorded. Amazingly, nothing bad ever resulted from doing so. So take it from someone who has been in the mud, who has been part of and owned many banks, unless you are running the bank you do nothing but make someone else rich off your money. SO DEMAND YOUR MONEY BACK, SELL THE DEAD SHARES. Unfortunately, this is largely true. Ever since a certain very large and influential bank drove interest rates down to the 3 - 4% region, banking has not been terribly lucrative given the amount of work it takes to run one honestly. That's not to say there is no profit to be made, but I fear many peoples' expectations are far too high when they invest. I own a bank with over 10 billion out in loans, I had 15 billion out, but as I am closing my bank down, I am building cities. As I have seen the light and the error of my ways, BANKS are just taking from you to make themselves rich nothing more. Look at the more prominent names of banking Sphinx, Seb and even myself, 40 plus cities, how many cities you on? Dishonest banks don't return on their investments, honest ones do. Most nations in mid tier are better off investing in themselves than in banks, even just strictly from a return perspective even assuming the bank doesn't collapse or suffer from defaults. However, the implication that the bankers should not be profiting from running banks is absurd. Running one well is a fair amount of work. Bankers are not charities. If you're not getting paid for the effort of record keeping, safeguarding, networking, finding investors, dealing with complaints, and working with customers, why the heck would you even do it? Speaking as one of the first successful private bankers in Orbis, it's a load of work and it's not that fun after the first year of novelty wears off. You bet I made a healthy profit from the bank I ran. But so did my investors. Side note, if you need a loan refuse to pay more than 2%, if everyone did this, the banks will have no choice but to drop interest rates, unlike my bank where all the cash is mine, all other banks have to keep investors and shareholders happy and for the most part, have to pay them weekly. THIS gives you the power to demand better interest rates. So go forth now, and any new loans refuse to pay more than 2%, watch how the micro banks fail and the whale banks dry up. Stop making other people rich and only think of yourself. This is facile. Banks have expenses. People default. Resource brokering occasionally goes bad. And as I said above, a reasonable profit is expected from all the work being put into the bank. If you demand rates that low, banks will just close. I would estimate almost all the banks will close, because even if the banker owns 100% of the bank (and he might, since there would be no point in getting investors since you claim investors should be paid 2% of their investment back every week.... even though the loans being made apparently would be getting 2% for the bank?), 2% return on their capital, less expenses (which can be very substantial) is not worth it. So, good job killing a mechanic that has deepened the game's appeal and accelerated the growth of alliances and nations from the ready flow of capital. I'm starting to wonder how good your bank could possibly have been if this is the extent of your understanding of how banks operate.
  9. I am torn. This is a situation that absolutely could have, should have, been avoided in its entirety. But it wasn't, and here we are. Alex, it's true that you laid some stiff penalties on NPO. But that didn't force them to disband. They did that to themselves. Same for BK. If NPO lacked enough leadership to suffer the loss of a single person, that is NPO's problem, not yours or anyone else's. If BK lacked the maturity to accept this with grace and integrity, that too is their problem, not yours or anyone else's. I appreciate that you are trying to cater to your players with this decision, that you likely feel a bit of guilt in what has happened. But you shouldn't. I believe that, if anything, your verdict against NPO was too light. And I believe that everything that followed it was a dramatic overreaction from people who can't handle that they might not, despite their best efforts (and best cheating), win. To reiterate: you did not force them to dissolve. That was their choice. I do not say this lightly. Many of you know that I was a banker - until extremely recently, in fact. It has been less than a week since I formally turned over my latest bank (which did also get shafted by BK, and I hear that you have given the same half-refund to it, so I'm not calling favoritism on this) to someone else. I am torn precisely because I recognize that as a banker I would appreciate the gesture. But I'm not sure it's good for the game as a whole. Maybe it's the old man in me talking, but I rather think that bankers should simply live with their losses as best they can. Such is life. Such is banking. I will admit to being a bit disappointed that you offered the deal to Emerald without making the deal public, or offering it to anyone else, rather making them go to you and persuade you. THAT stinks of arbitrary favoritism. I am pleased you saw fit to amend that error. In the future perhaps you will remember to make such offers to the community as a whole instead of selected members of it.
  10. Greetings shareholders, business partners, customers, and friends. As many of you may know, we in Silenzio have been strongly considering leaving PW for some time now. Indeed, the only reason we've stayed so long was the existence of Moonlight bank, and our duty to those who had invested their money and trust into us. Sadly, over the 9 months Moonlight has existed, 7 of those were during a catastrophically destructive war. But now peace is coming, and Moonlight Bank has found a new Director. @Gobi will be taking control of the bank henceforth, in possession of all shares that were owned by any Silenzio member; of all powers that Strum, Joel, and I wielded; and of all debts formerly payable to us. Gobi and I have been discussing this move for quite some time, and he has my full confidence in his ability to maintain Moonlight's tradition of transparency and innovation. I hope you all enjoy working with him as much as I have during this period. Speaking personally, it has been my pleasure to serve the community, even for so limited a time as I was given, and I wish you all the best. May your futures be prosperous!
  11. I mean, I have no love for BK, but.... Vassalage was almost always mutually beneficial. A vassal depended on his lord for protection from bigger fish. The vassal in return pledged to fight for his lord and pay taxes. That actually kind of sounds like a protectorate where the protector recruits them into wars... The synonyms section in the dictionary is not for perfectly synonymous words. This should be obvious by the inclusion of "man", and "liege", and "liegeman", none of which are synonymous with "slave", which is not synonymous with "serf", which is not synonymous with "subject". Come on, dude. The idea that a KNIGHT alliance would use medieval power structures to theme their treaties/partners/ties is apparently lost on you I'm sure you meant this as a shitpost, but the end makes you sound serious and you're being a bit ridiculous here. No, excuse me, you're being very ridiculous here.
  12. They're still around, but that is a story perhaps best left for another time.
  13. Greetings, friends! Today I come before you to announce the founding of Moonlight Bank. We are hereby open for investing and financing opportunities! Most importantly, Moonlight is selling shares of ownership! For the first week, to celebrate our opening and to reward early investors, shares will be sold at book price without any premium over asset value. Sale price is $1 per share. This pricing ends at the end of Sunday Eastern US time, 5/26/19. After the first week, shares are still available, but will be for sale starting at 5 times book value. Simply put, investors after the first week will pay $5 for every $1 in asset represented by the shares they buy. We reserve the right to increase share prices should the market require it. A share carries a percentage of ownership equal to 1/(number of shares currently outstanding). At first glance, this may seem to imply that ownership will decrease as more shares are sold. As a percentage of the bank, this is correct. However, as the bank grows, the price of shares sold will increase, meaning that the absolute value of shares will grow, even assuming no profits being made by the bank. There is no practical limit on number of shares issued by Moonlight. Several quintillion shares have been listed as “for sale” at last count. It took a while. Dividends are not required of the bank to shareholders. They may be declared at the discretion of the operators of the bank; however, growth takes priority over dividends. Public trading of shares is permitted and encouraged. Any shareholder may sell their shares to any person or entity they like. For a sale to be valid, the seller must contact a manager of Moonlight and notify them of the sale, including the price per share, and the identity and nation link of the buyer. Any omission in this information makes a sale invalid in the eyes of the bank, and official ownership will not change. Prospective buyers can check in with us or look at the publicly available shareholder list at any time. Our full policies, including information on loans and credit card accounts, can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u-vXqwFbtMHQBJKfxSLjaHgV5NDKQGo8-jl1gNkG2uU/edit?usp=sharing Our discord server is here: https://discord.gg/yCW9RQ4 We will be happy to answer any questions people may have. May we all grow prosperous together! Psweet - CCEO, founder of now-defunct Stratton Oakmont LordStrum - CCEO, co-founder and former emperor of BK Joel James - CCEO, technocrat and number cruncher extraordinaire
  14. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this for people to listen, but I'm clearly not there yet, so here we go again. NEVER TRUST A BANK THAT ISN'T OPEN ABOUT THEIR FINANCES. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT PROVIDING PERIODIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND ANY BANK THAT DOES NOT DO THIS AT THE LEAST SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED WITH SIGNIFICANT MONEY. If only people followed this advice, Rado would not have been able to pull what he did to the extent he did. This happened not only because Rado was a crook, but also because everyone who invested in him was lazy about doing their homework.
  15. It's less about the fact that banks, specifically, should continue to exist as they have, and more that there is a meta game that you should be taking into account instead of riding roughshod over. That said, I don't see why this change would harm the banking system to begin with... But that doesn't excuse your mindset on this particular issue, imo. There are methods of helping resource valuations that are less of a bandaid fix and hit the underlying problem of low resource demand. I'm honestly puzzled why this discussion is even happening. Fix the underlying issue, or don't do anything.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.