Jump to content

Psweet

Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Psweet last won the day on January 8 2018

Psweet had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

206 Excellent

4 Followers

About Psweet

  • Rank
    Active Member

Profile Information

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

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Psweet

Recent Profile Visitors

802 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. They're still around, but that is a story perhaps best left for another time.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. There is an easier and (I think) more interesting way to pump demand for resources. The main problem is that resources are currently only used for war. We need a way to use them for peace. A consistent use, not a one-time or rare occurrence that gives the economy a shot in the arm and then fades. I support adding resource costs for infra. That would help a lot. I would support adding resource costs for cities, though the amounts proposed here are too small to have much impact, I think, and it certainly wouldn't work on its own. But I believe the simplest and strongest way to increase demand appropriately would be to add actual resource consumption to a nation's existence. Even without growth, a nation should be consuming more than just Uranium and Food. The way I see this being most easily implemented would be to add a tertiary resource: consumer goods. Perhaps even multiple flavors of consumer goods if you want, but I think it's best to keep things simple with a single abstracted resource. It would be a tertiary resource, meaning it is manufactured using manufactured resources as inputs. It would be consumed by running a nation with a commerce economy. Consumer goods would be a stand in for civilian economies, whereas current resources are 99% military applications. You could, for example, have each % of commerce in each city cost 1 consumer good per day. You'd only have as much commerce plumping your revenue as you had consumer goods to supply it. What good is a store without things to buy? What good is a bank without mortgages or cars to finance? ALTERNATIVELY, you could create a new improvement specifically to consume consumer goods and output tax revenue. Either way, you have just given resources a peacetime use, which will actually climb as nations become richer. Larger nations will need/want more consumer goods to consume, so as the whales grow, the lower tiers can get rich off of increased demand. Making this a tertiary resource would ensure that all the other resources get buffed as well - Steel sees demand increase because it is used for consumer goods, Iron and Coal increase because they're used for Steel. This requires no bandaid. It requires no extra behavioral shifts from whales, or lower tiers. It doesn't penalize anyone, if it's implemented sanely (that is, if incentives and costs are mostly in balance). It doesn't make growth more expensive for anyone except maybe the very most upper tier whales who will find themselves spending a ton on consumer resources, perhaps. And it makes the game a bit more interesting having those logistics to juggle and another tool to evaluate and invest in.
  7. The fun part is that the more she attacks people, the more people she can attack!
  8. This settles it. If I ever get back into the Orbis finance scene, I'm starting a credit rating bureau. Also, never trust a bank that can't be assed to publish financials. There's no reason not to - Stratton Oakmont proved this for several years while in operation. No, the amount of cash you have on hand and the amount you have loaned out isn't super secret info that can lead to the fall of your bank.
  9. Ladies, gentlemen, Fraggles, and assorted animals of Orbis. My friends, it is with both sorrow and joy that I announce the end of Stratton Oakmont. Josh Freer and I have decided that our time is best used elsewhere, and since no one has stepped up to buy us out, we are liquidating. Unlike how some other banks end their existence, our loyal shareholders will be returned a share of the bank's assets in accordance with their ownership. I would like to personally thank each of you for your trust, your patience, and your money, without all of which SO would never have been successful at all. Please message Josh Freer in-game (or wait for him to message you) to discuss how and when you wish to receive your payment. Since our humble beginnings of a mere $40 million in cash some two and a half years ago, SO has proudly provided financing to many nations and alliances in need, from all sides of the political divides, and it has been our pleasure to do so right up to the end. Many of you were incredible borrowers, a fair few of you were lacking, and a couple were incredibly terrible. Nevertheless, our lives have been richer for the experience. Shout out to Roq and NPO who were, without doubt, the best customers a bank could ever hope to have. You guys set the gold standard of credit worthiness! Warmest regards, Psweet, ex-co-CEO, Stratton Oakmont Josh freer, ex-co-CEO, Stratton Oakmont
  10. Greetings friends! Stratton Oakmont was previously in the process of liquidating, but we put that on pause due to the war. Given that the war is over, we figure we might as well have one final bout of lending to speed you all on the road to recovery (and our investors on the road to riches). We are currently sitting on roughly $6.5 billion, and we're looking to lend it out in bulk. Please submit bids for how much you'd like and what weekly interest you'd be willing to pay to me directly on Discord, or to my in-game nation, here: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=20018 Bids posted in this thread will not be honored or responded to. Also, please note that bids for amounts under $1 billion will not be considered. Things that will make us more disposed to approve your bid (other than a higher rate. That should go without saying): - A history of faithful credit with us - A history of faithful credit with another well-established bank (yes, we will ask around) - A larger amount requested (assuming your alliance can shoulder the interest) We will accept bids for a few days before settling on borrowers. We may, if we receive more good bids than we have dollars to fill, go for several rounds of lending. Best of luck!
  11. Oh noooooo my poor 1000 infra cities. Stop. Please.
  12. Psweet

    Loans

    While I actually don't mind the crux of the rest of this idea too much (it's certainly better than the world bank idea previously floated), this in particular is a total non-starter for me. In general I feel that if you need to make a hardcoded, out-of-game solution to an in-game problem, the system doesn't work well as proposed. The reason why there isn't already insurance in the game is because it's simply not profitable to run at any scale. I've done business with no fewer than three different people/businesses who offered my bank insurance, and none of them lasted long at all. Here is why: For insurance to make a profit, it needs either one of two things. The first and simplest is for the premiums that it receives to be greater than the payout that it has to make due to losses. BUT if this is the case, it would mean that the coverage they offer is NOT WORTH BUYING because its customers are paying more than they get. Secondly, the premiums can be equal to or less than what the payout is BUT the insurance company then needs to invest their float somehow to earn additional profit. This is what insurance companies IRL do, however it's a lot harder in Orbis since we don't have a stock market you can just plunk money into and expect to receive a return on with relatively little risk (over a long time frame). There's brokering, and there's the insurance company making its own loans (at which point it's basically just a bank), and there's investing in other businesses (like... banks...), and that's about it. The upshot is that it's very hard to make a profitable insurance company in Orbis. Now, the reason why I take issue with "game-sponsored" insurance is that since insurance is not a profitable business, this will again act as an inflator. Because the insurance company will end up paying out as much as or more than it receives in insurance (if it does not, players will soon learn that it's not worth buying), it will increase the amount of money in the game. This is even BEFORE accounting for the proliferation of loans that you seek, which by itself will dramatically increase the flow of money, and therefore the rate at which more money comes into the game. There is nothing wrong with there being a risk on investing money. I don't understand why there seems to be an obsession with creating risk-free investments. Risk is the primary driver of interest rates to begin with - if you make it risk free, the interest rates on offer will plummet to the point of barely being worth having. I don't mean to sound alarmist, and I don't profess to say that this WILL happen, but it COULD spell the death of banks as a whole. Call me biased all you want, but I think the creation of a private banking industry in a game where it wasn't an actual mechanic is something to be proud of, not something to be trying to replace with risk-free mechanics.
  13. My pleasure. First of all, you'll note that far from trying to sabotage your bank, what we were concerned about was YOU possibly being a crook. Is it unethical for people to not want others to run scams, now? Second of all, as Josh noted, this conversation happened well over a year ago. Emerald was a relatively new bank. We didn't know you, we didn't know your bank. And honestly, completely private and secretive finances still rub me the wrong way, but whatever. Third of all, what do you hope to gain from posting this? Possibly to sabotage OUR banks by trying to make us look sneaky when the whole point was us being worried about you being sneaky? Instead, all you have is a conversation between two colleagues who have not (to my knowledge, at least, I cannot speak for Paul) done anything to harm you or your bank, who were instead worried about fair play in the niche they worked in. And we have you trying to stir shit up by insinuating that this amounts to sabotage. Let me know when you have something substantial to throw at us. There is a reason all of SO's transactions are open and public. We stand on our honor. Always have. I know I shat all over your idea in suggestions, but this is pathetic, Seb. This is attempted character assassination. If you can point to anything we ACTUALLY DID to sabotage you instead of just things we might have wanted to do in case you were, you'd have a point.
  14. They don't. It's a risk they'll have to take. People need to be forced to take risks, or the game will quickly become even more boring than it is. Just like how I wish SO didn't have to take a risk when lending to people, but if we want to make money then that's a risk we have to take. Risk vs reward needs to be kept in balance. If you want to minimize risk, split it up and put it in many different banks. If any one bank goes under, even if it takes your funds with it, the rest of your funds will survive and you'll only be out that one investment. Diversification is a real-life tool to manage risk as well. Again, it's never happened yet, and SO has been around for... hmm. *Counts* Ah, quite a few wars. I don't trust my memory to count accurately. Every war that's happened since before Oktoberfest. Again, if you don't trust the major banks at this point, you have trust problems. It's POSSIBLE that they'll get screwed over, but removing ALL risk from the game is not the way to go about "fixing" this very real and complex issue. I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. Could you elaborate? I don't see what the connection is to people storing money safely and having more wars. People don't eschew wars because they're scared of their savings being stolen, they eschew wars because they don't want to *spend* those savings, and/or don't want to lose the war to begin with. Do you think whales got to be whales by throwing themselves into battle with abandon whenever they got the chance? How would letting them store away money risk free at a profit encourage them to have to spend that money instead of using it to grow larger still? Bank owners actually love war. You know when we do our best business? Yeah, it's right after a war. We actually have wait lists, there's so many people wanting loans. It's great! Not to mention those of us who do brokering often manage to make out fairly well during/before the war as well.
  15. There is no guarantee, correct. This is a very realistic thing that I think is GOOD for Orbis's finances, because uncertainty creates opportunity. If there were no risk, there'd be no reason for us to charge decent interest. If there were no risk, banking would be a lot more BORING. That said, let's not overplay the risks here. To the best of my knowledge, NONE of the big banks have EVER defaulted on a liability (possibly excluding the Gringotts/Greene thing which I'm not super clear on the details and won't comment on). While that doesn't mean that there is NO risk, it does mean that if you're scared of investing in any of us, you need to get your head checked because I think you've got some serious trust problems. Peace of mind is not something we WANT everyone to have for no downsides, with great ease. That's just boring. The game NEEDS to have problems to solve and risks to take or there's no point doing anything. As I pointed out somewhere in my wall of text above, risk is an inextricable part of economics. I don't think the game would be made better AT ALL by removing that wrinkle. Why would rendering shell alliances moot be a good thing? Why is that even an argument? I don't understand. I mean, I understand thinking the concept is stupid (and I agree with you there, even!). But I don't see how removing them is an argument unto itself. It's not like they harm the game. I'd seriously like the ability to set up non-alliance entities though. That'd be rad.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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