EU economy, high-end non-depositor, EU/Loot pool drains from MU, and Frustration of midlevel players

[Infinity01]

But what if it was not a profit? What if somebody deposited 30K over the years, has 10K left after sale of skills and items and wants to withdraw that when quitting? You can see the definite figures of money in / out in the MA annual reports. How come you even start those kinds of threads you do without knowing the basics?

Well, I know that MA is in the red, at least based on their financial report during the first half of 2010.



Here is the full report of anybody interested


But I don't know the amount in terms of deposit by the depositors and withdrawal by players

 

[Waldi]

Initially the game was designed to get income with advertisements of outstanding companies (like second life did) via commercials on ad screens and expositions like in new oxford or even shops with virtual clothes you can buy in reality.

Soon MA noticed, that it is easier to recruit investors out of the playerbase and that is is more profitable to milk the players than the investors.

The idea of a virtual universe was modified to the idea of a platform of virtual planets, in favor of the investors, ignoring the needs of the player.

Well, a player is generous as long as he likes the game, but as soon as you piss him off, he will spread bad publicity - it can be deadly to not care about depositing players.

I already predicted a year ago, that this game will be stagnating if there is no other change then the gfx engine.
Other games do very well without any changes in their outdated gfx - but they have to offer content, compared to entropia...

 

[dogofwar]

I am really confused here

MA take decay

MA payback 90% back, all tt

Any markup is created by players and any profit is gotten from your fellow players

MA wins, a few avatars win, majority of avatars lose. RCE at its simplest

The simplest solution is usually the correct one

The best example is hunting

MA worked out the least cost to kill a mob, probably based on the most eco setup and the mobs health = least cost to kill mob = x

MA give back x * 90% in loot

EDIT: so...
Cost to kill mob = 100 ped
MA pay back 90 ped loot
10 ped for MA
loss of 10 ped tt for avatar

Guaranteed win for MA

Rgds

Ace

EDIT: add a few random number generators in the tt back, so you have 90% +- 40 %, MA still win, avatars still lose on tt, some avatars think up some radical strange theory to explain why they lose so much ped

Same goes for skills, all they do is add to the proffessional level, but still people come up with some weird ass theories to explain them

I generally agree with this theory. The problem is it focuses all its wrath on MA and insinuates that profit is impossible by mostly ignoring markup. Markup is the key to profit. We all know MA needs to pay its bills. We also know that not everyone can profit because there's finite currency being circulated. It's impossible for any more than a handful of people to profit. We're fighting over money in a pot - economic pvp - and until you understand that it's impossible for more than a share (5-30%) of people to profit you will always be angry at MA without understanding the math.

There is more to this, though.

First of all, this theory implies that MA pays for the loot out of pocket because it was already paid for when things decayed and ammo was used in the combat process. It's about 90% (TT) of decay, as you stated. The problem with this scenario is that it assumes everything goes as planned. But what if it doesn't? What if there's a bug in the code and players are able to kill the creature with less decay than expected? Or what if the code is hacked? Bugs have happened in other games. Hacks have happened before too. If such a thing were to happen, MA risks losing big.

I'm probably imagining the threat for show. Honestly, the code probably has redundant safety checks to ensure that hunters are decaying properly when killing creatures. They've even combed through the code on an atomic level, and probably have seen the atoms that make up the current in the circuitry to make themselves confident it's all running smoothly. Capping loot totals is hard because without knowing how much player(s) have decayed it's hard to know how much to cap it. But I'm sure that there're caps in the code to prevent a complete wipeout.

Another problem is that if someone uses their gear one-time and then jets, they never end up repairing it or buying a new one. MA doesn't actually get money from decays until a player actually repairs something or refuels it or it's built-in. For tt (L) items or ammo the decay cost is built-in because total cost includes decay. With an unlimited item (needs to be repaired) it's more complicated because the total cost of the item includes the repairs. And if the repairs haven't been paid for then MA hasn't been paid in-full yet either. I'm unsure if unlimited items lose their stats/damage as they decay, but this would help to alleviate the problems if the item remains unrepaired for an extended period of time.

I think there needs to be a method that makes less assumptions. First of all, any loot that's created CANNOT be created on loan! The currency needed to create it must already exist. Second, and it follows from the first, the amount of currency available that can be used to create loot must be capped or limited in some way. Therefore, if the currency is not available then the loot is not created and "This creature did not have any loot." These are my number #1 concerns. If the system is hacked then it will have a limit already built-in and eventually the hacker would get "This creature did not have any loot." Hopefully, by that time, MA would be aware that there decay currency balance is 0.

So this means that there must be various built-in taxes in the game that channel player currency into the loot creation system. This I think this is already the case with decay. The question is: a) when loot is created, does the currency used to create it already exist? If it exists and is done in this manner then it should also be limited already as well because total decay (taxes) will have a finite limit unless there were infinite players in the game OR there was a bug in the decay system that returned absurd values when asked for the total decay currency balance.

This all happens AFTER Mindark taxes the players to pay for server upgrades/maintenance and development. So any player currency used to create loot is in addition to the currency that's taxed to pay for the game itself.

Whether Mindark succeeds or not depends on how they spend their money and gauge their balance sheet. When a player TT's all that's happening is hte item is being converted from an item to ped. MA gains/loses nothing. The only problem is that the item itself is gone, and it probably had a MU so it's probably the players loss (that money will never come back either, it's lost forever). I think a lot more can happen on the development side that screws them up than whatever happens in the in-game virtual economy.

Returning to the point I made in my first paragraph, I'd like to say that taxes or no taxes the number of people in this game that can profit is tied to the number of people who lose. Any gains come from losses. Few people profit because players are greedy by nature and when given a choice between sharing or hoarding they will probably hoard to increase their self worth. This reality is expressed in the real world. Trickle down economics is a scam. Socialism and communism will never fully work because people will never agree to redistribute their wealth unless they're forced to. And forcing citizens to do what they do not want to do is something that will never add up. That's the bottom line. I know some people don't like to hear this, but reality can be cold and I can't blame anyone for wanting to look away and get swept away be delusions of grandeur.

If you want the truth, the truth is that the balance of what profits and what doesn't is an agreed upon mechanism that both players and MA struggle to maintain and advance further. Ubber in-game skills and ubber investments and ubber time-investment and ubber RL skills/talents will always give players an edge in the fight to profit because these things distinguish you from the herd. Making yourself distinct is the key. I personally feel that MA should work on the game side of things to keep things more interesting for the losers. Since we know for a fact that there will be many losers, and this can even be calculated. I'd love it if vehicles had better physics. I wnat my car to slide on turns and I want to feel like a racecar driver on the circuits and speedways. Give me cool physics and losing will at least be fun as hell that way. I'll go to hell in a racecar.

Delusions of grandeur? Well, ehe, f***, give me my racecar and good physics and I'm jesus fu***** christ.

 

[aridash]

Initially the game was designed to get income with advertisements of outstanding companies (like second life did) via commercials on ad screens and expositions like in new oxford or even shops with virtual clothes you can buy in reality.

you must have been playing some other game, it has always been the stated business model that revenue comes from decay and the adverts appeard quite late in the game (5, 6 years old?) as a side line source of revenue.

 

[Ace Flyster]

you must have been playing some other game, it has always been the stated business model that revenue comes from decay and the adverts appeard quite late in the game (5, 6 years old?) as a side line source of revenue.

Didnt last long either

 

[Ace Flyster]

First of all, this theory implies that MA pays for the loot out of pocket because it was already paid for when things decayed and ammo was used in the combat process. It's about 90% (TT) of decay, as you stated. The problem with this scenario is that it assumes everything goes as planned. But what if it doesn't? What if there's a bug in the code and players are able to kill the creature with less decay than expected? Or what if the code is hacked? Bugs have happened in other games. Hacks have happened before too. If such a thing were to happen, MA risks losing big.

Everything does not always go to plan, there was a bug after a VU were every bomb on cnd produced a Tower. Needless to say they shut it down quick.

You also use to be able to tell when the big hofs were going to happen, it was pretty simple, certain time certain mob. (which suggests to me that MA keep a little aside for the biggies), but they changed that when people started to sell the info on the net

So yes things do go wrong and can be very expensive to MA, mob trapping etc

But MA are quite good at sorting things out that costs them money fairly quickly, not quick in helping out what costs players though lol

And MA did go bankrupt at the beginning, i believe, so not all was rosy at the beginning

Rgds

Ace

 

[Waldi]

you must have been playing some other game, it has always been the stated business model that revenue comes from decay and the adverts appeard quite late in the game (5, 6 years old?) as a side line source of revenue.

Only side line or concept doesn´t realy matters - fact is, it was distributed to the loot pool and MA´s income and the reason for a more balanced game.

True is, it didn´t last long, because of the reason i stated above...

 

[dogofwar]

Everything does not always go to plan, there was a bug after a VU were every bomb on cnd produced a Tower. Needless to say they shut it down quick.

You also use to be able to tell when the big hofs were going to happen, it was pretty simple, certain time certain mob. (which suggests to me that MA keep a little aside for the biggies), but they changed that when people started to sell the info on the net

So yes things do go wrong and can be very expensive to MA, mob trapping etc

But MA are quite good at sorting things out that costs them money fairly quickly, not quick in helping out what costs players though lol

And MA did go bankrupt at the beginning, i believe, so not all was rosy at the beginning

Rgds

Ace

I wasn't saying MA doesn't pay it, I was saying that they need to make less assumptions. I'm ofcourse assuming they're making these assumptions. I already know they're probably decaying things (a tax) to pay for loot. My point later in the post was that they should never pay for it on loan so any currency used to create loot should already exist. This means that it's bothed capped already and that if a hacker exploits he'll exploit to a limit.

As for your point about them not worrying about what costs the player money, you should really starting looking at your fellow player. They're the ones setting the markup. Look at the people at the top. I know MA is involved because nothing exists in isolation, but I don't blame MA specifically. They probably do change drop rates and sh** like that. But I know they have bills to pay and that what we're doing here in EU is not free. I don't want to live a lie and blame any single entity and treat things as a simple fix. I blame everyone equally. None of this is simple to say. None of this is simple. Not everyone can be happy.

I just want my racecar and cool physics. I wnat fun. It's not all rainbows and butterflies, I know.

 

[Ace Flyster]

I wasn't saying MA doesn't pay it, I was saying that they need to make less assumptions. I'm ofcourse assuming they're making these assumptions. I already know they're probably decaying things (a tax) to pay for loot. My point later in the post was that they should never pay for it on loan so any currency used to create loot should already exist. This means that it's bothed capped already and that if a hacker exploits he'll exploit to a limit.

As for your point about them not worrying about what costs the player money, you should really starting looking at your fellow player. They're the ones setting the markup. Look at the people at the top. I know MA is involved because nothing exists in isolation, but I don't blame MA specifically. I know they have bills to pay and that what we're doing here in EU is not free. I don't want to live a lie. I blame everyone equally.

I just want my racecar and cool physics. I wnat fun. It's not all rainbows and butterflies, I know.

I agree they make assumptions, and to be fair they have to, to a degree. But the programming is only as good as the programmers

As for what costs players and MA i was talking about tt returns not markup. Otherwise yes i agree

Rgds

Ace

 

[Franklon]

MA has always been ambitious with no proper follow thru...

Lets see:

1. Clothes: Where happened to them? Ninja Hood? Where?
2. Adverts: No serious external ads... All I ever saw was some chic talking about art school? Cant remember.
3. Magazine: Flop from the start
4. Cashcard: Same... flop from the start
5. China market: Flop too

Now their eyes are set on "new planets" and base on their track record, we can assume that it will be a flop too.

 

[Zorander]

MA has always been ambitious with no proper follow thru...

Lets see:

1. Clothes: Where happened to them? Ninja Hood? Where?
2. Adverts: No serious external ads... All I ever saw was some chic talking about art school? Cant remember.
3. Magazine: Flop from the start
4. Cashcard: Same... flop from the start
5. China market: Flop too

Now their eyes are set on "new planets" and base on their track record, we can assume that it will be a flop too.

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs ;p

Honestly though, it usually takes many tries to get something right. Many failed ideas before you hit the one that works.

Simply because MA's ideas (some of them, we are still playing EU right?) have failed doesn't mean that all of them will. We now have 3 planets online with 2 more to come this year. Those planet owners will want to see a return on their investments and I expect to see some advertising from them. They can't all live off the few people they can manage to pull away from Calypso.

And before you go on about the planets not being released on schedule, remember, it's NOT MA that's developing them. It's other companies, companies that want their money and will have to compete with other planets to get it. More planets and the competition between the planet parters that comes with them will be a good thing overall for the common player. Gone are the days of the FPC monopoly on the EU player base.

 

[valentin]

Everything does not always go to plan, there was a bug after a VU were every bomb on cnd produced a Tower. Needless to say they shut it down quick.

You also use to be able to tell when the big hofs were going to happen, it was pretty simple, certain time certain mob. (which suggests to me that MA keep a little aside for the biggies), but they changed that when people started to sell the info on the net

So yes things do go wrong and can be very expensive to MA, mob trapping etc

But MA are quite good at sorting things out that costs them money fairly quickly, not quick in helping out what costs players though lol

And MA did go bankrupt at the beginning, i believe, so not all was rosy at the beginning

Rgds

Ace

(And MA did go bankrupt at the beginning, i believe, so not all was rosy at the beginning)

No they did not it was a other company who had invented this good game but and they did go bankrupt the new company MA did buy this game later and as you know is MA only capable to do better graphics and nerfs.

And later become FPC as a new owner because of tax planning and as you all know FPC are working at the same place as MA and they are MA:s old staff and now this game has a new owner and he works also in the same place like MA and FPC and this new owner now is probably a new way of tax planning.

So i think that MA still makes the rules here and they are the real owners of the game but not on the paper.

 

[Ace Flyster]

(And MA did go bankrupt at the beginning, i believe, so not all was rosy at the beginning)

No they did not it was a other company who had invented this good game but and they did go bankrupt the new company MA did buy this game later and as you know is MA only capable to do better graphics and nerfs.

And later become FPC as a new owner because of tax planning and as you all know FPC are working at the same place as MA and they are MA:s old staff and now this game has a new owner and he works also in the same place like MA and FPC and this new owner now is probably a new way of tax planning.

So i think that MA still makes the rules here and they are the real owners of the game but not on the paper.

Ahh my apologies, the company that started it, went bankrupt, close enough

Rgds

Ace

 

[Superhal]

I didn't read through all the posts, but there's a couple of bad assumptions in the OP's original post:

How the loot pool works: sorry, not buying it. In the numbers I've been tracking, MA appears to be taking at least 50% or more of all hunting costs (the 90% appears to be solely based on ammo spent.) Don't forget they take a % of deposits before you get to use any of it, you pay an auction fee to sell any loot, and in many cases, you pay a transportation fee to get to nearly all spots. Kits, cats, sacks, and wives, you don't get 90% back on everything you spend.

MU = Profit to the selling player: In my experience, if you are getting 70% return with an average 130% MU, that allows you to squeak through to the 90% return. That 130% is *not* profit, it is part of the 90% returned to players. Sometimes, if you get an uber item like say xeremite or molisk teeth, you might break 100%. But in most cases, the tt value of the loot returned is 80% or less of the ammo spent, and the MU helps you make up part of the difference.

 

[UnaAlconbury]

I didn't read through all the posts, but there's a couple of bad assumptions in the OP's original post:

How the loot pool works: sorry, not buying it. In the numbers I've been tracking, MA appears to be taking at least 50% or more of all hunting costs (the 90% appears to be solely based on ammo spent.) Don't forget they take a % of deposits before you get to use any of it, you pay an auction fee to sell any loot, and in many cases, you pay a transportation fee to get to nearly all spots. Kits, cats, sacks, and wives, you don't get 90% back on everything you spend.

MU = Profit to the selling player: In my experience, if you are getting 70% return with an average 130% MU, that allows you to squeak through to the 90% return. That 130% is *not* profit, it is part of the 90% returned to players. Sometimes, if you get an uber item like say xeremite or molisk teeth, you might break 100%. But in most cases, the tt value of the loot returned is 80% or less of the ammo spent, and the MU helps you make up part of the difference.

The return talked about is tt loot compared to tt active costs (ammo+weapondecay+ampdecay). All markup, transport and defense costs are passive/extra costs that you want to keep as low as possible of course, to be able to profit from the markup you loot as you also mention yourself.

May I also ask what you have been hunting and for how much turnover (active costs)? Nowadays it really takes a lot of turnover to even out the return, due to way higher ups and lower downs in loot compared to a few years ago. Matter of fact I have yet to see a loot tracking with a fair amount of turnover that go any significant amount below 90% tt return. People often refer to noiseless' log when trying to disprove the theory, blinded by his negative numbers, but actually his tt return is almost 93% and he had an uber right before starting the log.

I promised myself to not go into these discussions anymore but oh well, just couldn't resist. There are so many misconceptions around.

 

[mike jones]

Don't forget they take a % of deposits before you get to use any of it,

they don't take any % of deposits the banks do

 

[Xavier Target]

they don't take any % of deposits the banks do

Well, that may or may not be true, since the total credit card fee is different depending on which credit card is presented. A credit card fee is made up of a transaction fee, processor fee, and an card issuer fee. The transaction fee and processor fee is the same for each transaction, but the issuer fee varies. If you have a card which gives a lot of benefits like cash back or airlines miles, the issuer fee charged to the vendor is higher than someone using a credit card that does not have those benefits. A debit card transaction fee is very small compared to a credit card fee even when the debit card is used as a credit card(this is due to the fact they are low risk, because there is almost no collections loss). Theoretically, they are averaging the credit card cost and just charging a flat % to everyone. That amount may be equal or higher than their average cost.

 

[Superhal]

May I also ask what you have been hunting and for how much turnover (active costs)?

I've cycled around 500k ped in this game (tracker record = 400k, 80k depo'd, ). I've hunted (at least 100 ped runs) exas up to prots. I've dropped, on average, 800 bombs or probes on CND daily for about 12 months total. The first time I chipped out, I had 140 hps, currently I'm up to 115 hps.

 

[Captain Jack]

This has to be the first time I've ever seen someone beg to loot more TT food.

 

[SamNinja]

MA doesn't actually get money from decays until a player actually repairs something or refuels it or it's built-in.

Although it may seem that way, MA doesn't get any money until someone makes a deposit. Making a repair will obviously take away from your PED card balance which may lead to someone depositing sooner, but it's a misconception to say that MA gets money from repairs. Let's not forget about non-depositors -- they make repairs too.

 

[Zorander]

Although it may seem that way, MA doesn't get any money until someone makes a deposit. Making a repair will obviously take away from your PED card balance which may lead to someone depositing sooner, but it's a misconception to say that MA gets money from repairs. Let's not forget about non-depositors -- they make repairs too.

And MA gets money when they make those repairs.

It's true that if no one deposited then MA wouldn't make any money, but they don't exactly take your deposit and run away with it either. It's what's known as a 'contingent liability' for MA. Basically, a debt, to you the depositor, that could be called due if you chose to withdraw. The ped spent on repairs of UL items and the decay from L items becomes MA's money and is no longer a liability, they'll never have to give it back.

If you still believe this to be a misconception then I'd suggest you look up posts by Marco as he clearly states that this is how MA makes their money. If you figure he's lying then I reccomend that you cash out soon since MA cannot be trusted with your money.

 

[rhogenbe]

And MA gets money when they make those repairs.

It's true that if no one deposited then MA wouldn't make any money, but they don't exactly take your deposit and run away with it either. It's what's known as a 'contingent liability' for MA. Basically, a debt, to you the depositor, that could be called due if you chose to withdraw. The ped spent on repairs of UL items and the decay from L items becomes MA's money and is no longer a liability, they'll never have to give it back.

If you still believe this to be a misconception then I'd suggest you look up posts by Marco as he clearly states that this is how MA makes their money. If you figure he's lying then I reccomend that you cash out soon since MA cannot be trusted with your money.

Just to enhance on you a bit:

The liability is only booked for money deposited in the last 6 months. (See somewhere in EULA. There is a statement about only people that deposited in the last 6 months can claim as a maximum the amount deposited in those 6 months or something like that.)

They only take out a % of the decay. This since melee and ammo weapons are treated equal. Which means ammo is seen as decay (also confirmed by an old bug telling you that your ammo stack decayed to much and that you must go repair it)

They do make a bit of money from both the deposit and the withdrawal since they act as our bank so to speak (the % is a handling fee). They also control when we get the withdrawal probably speculating on short term differences in exchange rates.

Most likely they try to invest the money that flows to their bank account and is not used directly although it seems they made at least one bad choice in that with buying and renovating a small castle. Since this part is not really apparent in their year statements it is hard to say much about it. Although the wish to also be a RL bank certainly declares a bit on that side since then they could officially loan the money getting interest payments.

Cheers
Siam

 

[SamNinja]

...

I'm on the same page as you; I was just going to post the section in the EULA describing the aforementioned but you stated it first. Here it is:

6. MINDARK'S LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

MindArk reserves the right to interrupt the services available via Entropia Universe and/or the operation of the Entropia Universe System with or without prior notice and for any reason. You agree that MindArk will not be liable for any loss or damage caused by interruption of the Entropia Universe, delay or failure to perform.

MINDARK'S LIABILITY TOWARDS ANY PARTICIPANT SHALL, IF ACKNOWLEDGED, IN EACH INCIDENCE BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT TRANSFERRED INTO THE INVOLVED ACCOUNT BY SAID PARTICIPANT UNDER THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT.

• Notice where it says: "if acknowledged", and also that MindArk isn't held liable for any loss or damage caused by the Entropia Universe failing to perform. Failing to perform could mean bankrupcy.

If you still believe this to be a misconception then I'd suggest you look up posts by Marco as he clearly states that this is how MA makes their money. If you figure he's lying then I reccomend that you cash out soon since MA cannot be trusted with your money.

Let's not start a "Marco Said" thread; if it's not in the EULA, then I'm not going to search for posts from prior years for something Marco said about how the in-game economy mechanisms work.

 

[Leona]

The limitation of liability clause in the EULA has nothing to do with regular withdrawals. I wish people would stop to claim that. The clause is aimed at indemnity claims.

It is a common clause that you will find in any service provider contract, even your internet provider has one. Yes, it has more importance in an RCE game / plattform, especially for LA owners in example.

To make an example: Should you have an taxed landarea and MA messes something up so you can't earn taxes for some time and then demand compensation, thats where the clause kicks in.

This is compareable to the situation where an internet provider limits liability to the amount of fees payd in the last 6 months (or whatever period) in case the service fails and you, as customer having a office in example, demand compensation for loss of bussiness.

It has not much to do with withdrawals of peds you already have on your account. Neitherless it has to be considered by anyone who bases a serious business on EU. You have the same situation with any service provider / company though.

And why people keep pulling out that clause with the scenario of bankruptcy i don't get anyway. Is not like the ordinary player and depositer would see anything in that case anyway.

 

[Xavier Target]

types of accounting

This is basically a discussion on what type of accounting is used. Accrual or cash basis. Almost all companies use accrual accounting, most individuals use cash basis. In cash basis, revenue is recorded when payment is recieved. In accrual accounting, revenue is recorded in the period it is earned. Revenues can occur before a payment(you are billed after the sale), or after the payment(the value of your prepaid card is reduced). A deposit is not earned revenue to a company using accrual accounting. It is a liability(No different than a deposit on an apartment). The revenue here occurs when the value of your account decreases in some way other than a transfer to another player(player trading). This is similar to when an apartment deposit is charged for damages.

It is also important to recognize that revenue and cash flow are two different things. Just because they keep a deposit liability doesn't mean they sit on your deposit until it is converted into revenue. In managing cash flow, when you get extra cash in you pay bills, invest, payout bonuses, pay dividends, or reduce debt. When cash balances are low, you borrow money, delay payments, and increase efforts improve cash in flows.

 

[FrostBlaze]

And why people keep pulling out that clause with the scenario of bankruptcy i don't get anyway. Is not like the ordinary player and depositer would see anything in that case anyway.

because imho it means that if MA goes belly up then you can demand money equal to the sum of your deposits in the last six months.

Now if you actually get the money is another question...

 

[Zorander]

because imho it means that if MA goes belly up then you can demand money equal to the sum of your deposits in the last six months.

Now if you actually get the money is another question...

If you read the rest of the post you quoted... or the rest of the EULA, you'll see that this is not the case. As Leona stated above that limitation of liablity is for indemnity claims (google it) and has nothing to do with MA's business as usual. That clause is simply a limitation on what you can sue MA for should they do something wrong that costs you money.

 

[FrostBlaze]

If you read the rest of the post you quoted... or the rest of the EULA, you'll see that this is not the case. As Leona stated above that limitation of liablity is for indemnity claims (google it) and has nothing to do with MA's business as usual. That clause is simply a limitation on what you can sue MA for should they do something wrong that costs you money.

k, misunderstood in that case

 

[Leona]

because imho it means that if MA goes belly up then you can demand money equal to the sum of your deposits in the last six months.

Now if you actually get the money is another question...

Like said, a LoL clause tries to limit liability per incident and per account for the case of breach of contract.

In case of bankruptcy it doesn't matter much because all creditors can demand all liabilities to pe paid. What they then get is a different thing of course.

That clause is simply a limitation on what you can sue MA for should they do something wrong that costs you money.

Well yes and no, in case a player would sue MA he can sue for any amount. It is then up to the court if the LoL clause even matters in that case. Certainly different from country to country, but usually in minor cases the LoL cause kicks in. In case of malice or wanton negligence the judge might ignore it.