How long will Entropia be around for? Are there people who have invested a lot of money?

i wish people woudl understand what they read before professing great insight, but hey, we can have everything. as billairboy has shown, sales roses only 2.3 million SEK and theres nothing in the "other income" income to account for an increase as there is clearly a ~11 m SEK drop. so the claim "You can see, in plain, straight numbers, that there is improvement of over 10 million dollars in revenue" is manifestly wrong. your subsequent follow up shows a stunning ability to cherry pick numbers to arrive a false conclusion.

looking properly through the numbers its clear that the improvment (reduction) in losses is from changes to expenses, but those expenses arent properly explained so its unclear if they where exceptional or the reduction is. (i believe they where exceptional cost in 2012, dont recall what though).

to claim that Calypso isnt Mindark's primary source of income is quite incredible when there is nothing in the numbers, notes or report to suggest where this revenue source is, i think we would have noticed. if there is another source of income buried in the net sales line, then Entropia platform is in an even worse shape, which is contrary to what you believe. MA isnt ever going to turn a profit from amortisation of the platform.

oh, and the graphs on Entropia Planets do not show what you think they show: the rising trend is % return against the average price the corresponding week. this would be mostly due to lowering CLD values, not increased weekly revenue, which is clearly trending downward.

The number was 17m. I'll go back and correct it.

And they profited 17 m sek more in 2013 than 2012, so I don't understand what you're saying.

As for Calypso's ability to produce income, why would they have tried to sell it if it was that important?
 
Last edited:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=revenue+definition

They actually aren't. Revenue is a pretty loose term, but is synonymous with profit. It is, ironically, also synonymous with sales. This is why I notated that the number was on the bottom of the page. "Net Profit" is roughly 17m better in 2013 than 2012. That's pretty much all there is to it.



No, revenue is not synonymous with profit. Profit = revenue - expenses
 
No, revenue is not synonymous with profit. Profit = revenue - expenses

here is a link that actually has the two terms "income and profit" reversed:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp

The Google link lists "profit" as a synonym of revenue, and also sales as a synonym.

and here's one that lists it as gross income:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revenue

So, everyone has them mixed up :laugh: This is why i usually Don't care about little things like this. But, for the sake of the fact that I don't care: You're right and you win. I will be more careful in the future.

Net profit is 17 something million better in 2013 than 2012. Bottom line item, page 14. We good on that part?
 
Last edited:
And they profited 17 m dollars more in 2013 than 2012, so I don't understand what you're saying.

no, they reduced their losses by 17m SEK. what im saying is you dont have a scooby doo. this is clear as day after your revenue=profit claim. if only.

the reason they are selling Calypso is a corporate action, to break up the company either to hide/move things around a blance sheet (cynical) or to tidy up their business model (stated purpose).
 
no, they reduced their losses by 17m SEK. what im saying is you dont have a scooby doo. this is clear as day after your revenue=profit claim. if only.

the reason they are selling Calypso is a corporate action, to break up the company either to hide/move things around a blance sheet (cynical) or to tidy up their business model (stated purpose).

Tomato, tomato (it's fun to write that). They reduced losses by 17 m. That is what I said in several of my other posts: they're still operating a loss, just not as big of one. The way its phrased doesn't really change that it's an improvement.

The original purpose of putting Calypso under a subsidiary was to tidy up the business model. That was noted in the 2008 annual report. Do you have proof to show that the same is true with the proposed sale to SEE?

edit: Also I changed the SEK thing. Again. I'm american and obviously can't break habits. You knew what I meant anyway :)
 
Last edited:
no, they reduced their losses by 17m SEK. what im saying is you dont have a scooby doo. this is clear as day after your revenue=profit claim. if only.

the reason they are selling Calypso is a corporate action, to break up the company either to hide/move things around a blance sheet (cynical) or to tidy up their business model (stated purpose).

I also don't know what the scooby doo reference is about. I quoted a number, and people insisted that number wasn't the number I quoted so I've been trying to be clear.

There's no scooby-doo-ing here. The problem is that when I made broad statements and provided sources to back my thoughts up, people got too lazy to read them and started correcting me with non-applicable data.

I'm not perfect and screwed up my numbers (and some otherwise irrelevant nomenclature) but at least I have handle on which number is the important one to look at to get a perspective on the overall state of the company. And I went back and corrected my mistakes.
 
Net profit is 17 something million better in 2013 than 2012. Bottom line item, page 14. We good on that part?

Yes, we can agree the profit (or loss in this case) for the parent company is around 17 MSEK better 2013. But, that mostly because 2012 was an unusual year where they finished the settlement with SEE, that's why they had such a high amount of "Other external costs", around 41 MSEK compared to around 19MSEK 2013. It's more interesting to look at the profit for the consolidated group which also includes planet Calypso. Because of the many different things like revenues from the sells from CLD and the settlements payments to SEE I also think it better to look at the "Net sales" that are excluding this from the revenue to get a better comparison about how the core business is doing.
 
Yes, we can agree the profit (or loss in this case) for the parent company is around 17 MSEK better 2013. But, that mostly because 2012 was an unusual year where they finished the settlement with SEE, that's why they had such a high amount of "Other external costs", around 41 MSEK compared to around 19MSEK 2013. It's more interesting to look at the profit for the consolidated group which also includes planet Calypso. Because of the many different things like revenues from the sells from CLD and the settlements payments to SEE I also think it better to look at the "Net sales" that are excluding this from the revenue to get a better comparison about how the core business is doing.

There are always factors.
In 2010, net profits were -14.3 m SEK (got it this time!).
2011: -7.8 m SEK
2012: -20.9 m SEK
2013: -9.5m SEK

Interestingly the only time sales makes a jump in these years is between 2011 and 2012 - this is why I don't use sales to try and discern the health of a business as a whole. Sales basically tells us how marketing is doing, and how advertising is doing, IMO.

in 2013, one could say: oh, the company sold 46.7 m SEK!
That number just kind of hides the fact that they spent 9.5 M SEK more than they took in.

That being said, in both 2012 and 2013 MA threw a lot of money at Calypso. in 2013 the number was 17.4 m SEK. I wonder what calypso is actually making?

Anyone know? I'm going to try and dig around a little.
 
That being said, in both 2012 and 2013 MA threw a lot of money at Calypso. in 2013 the number was 17.4 m SEK. I wonder what calypso is actually making?

Anyone know? I'm going to try and dig around a little.

In 2013 the Calypso company did a profit after tax with 200 695 sek, 2012 it was a profit with 5 061 183 sek. But that is a bit misleading comparison because it's includes revenue from the sells of CLD that was around 13.7 MSEK in 2013 and around 2.4 MSEK in 2012.
 
So what you're saying is that last year, caly only profited 200k?


....and with an operating deficit as large as MA has, you guys are wondering why I assume MA wil try and sell calypso again? MA threw 17.4m at Caly in 2013. That's a big chunk of change - and it seems that they've been doing that ever since they bought it back.

Calypso will get the same amount of money from things like deposits even if they sell off it's operation to a planet partner and won't have to put in the money to operate it.

Yeah. My bet is that MindArk tries to sell Calypso again.

After all, if it was that important, they wouldn't have tried to sell it once.

And in my opinion, they should sell it - for the players sake. Caly needs a planet partner, IMO.
 
So what you're saying is that last year, caly only profited 200k?


....and with an operating deficit as large as MA has, you guys are wondering why I assume MA wil try and sell calypso again? MA threw 17.4m at Caly in 2013. That's a big chunk of change - and it seems that they've been doing that ever since they bought it back.

Yes, a 200 ksek profit. But I what you mean by "MA threw 17.4m at Caly" I don't understand?
 
the reason they are selling Calypso is a corporate action, to break up the company either to hide/move things around a blance sheet (cynical) or to tidy up their business model (stated purpose).
I don't think it'd be the least cynical to even assume the former. MA has constantly operated at the verge of liquidation. That is not speculation, as I believe everyone already should be able to know.

Really, I'm so sick and tired of walking on egg shells due to the large investors fearing losing money if the truth ever comes out, but just having been scammed out of almost 50% of my fluid PED's I really don't give a fuck about that anymore. If you want to kill me IRL for speaking up - pay up or shut up!

The "tidy up their business model" might be correct from a certain and very limited viewpoint, but it's only 1% of the truth, if even that much. Seriously, what sane company would sell off 25% of their revenue, perpetually, for a one-time payment (the CLD sale) if it wasn't in deep fiancial trouble?

Their IRL shares sell for... well, actually, last I checked they couldn't even be sold for 25 US cents each. They are so financially unstable they couldn't even get a bank loan for 6 mil USD. They are so deep in shit even the majority shareholder votes against increasing board members pay. When their prized possession Calypso failed (the pilot of all "planets") when sold, it ended up in arbitration!

MA is constantly operating on the verge of liquidation, and it's only due to the fire-sales of moon, CLD, asteriod and so on and so forth back in time they even survive. THAT is how broken their business model is with the current and insanely small customer base - and they seemingly have neither willingness or ability to increase it, since they only look at short-term-revenue!

Please observe: every LA, every "island", every "whatever" area they sell off, is long-term revenue going into the pockets of someone else, for the benefit of "quick fix" bolstering their own books (for the next review, one could venture to guess without being too bold).

Entropia as a business model is not "sustainable", meaning being able to survive (nothing more, just survive would be enough) from their customers using the system as-is, with this few participants. That's verifiable! The ONLY events keeping MA alive are those fire-sales, and "events", but eventually the finite set of customers also run out of money and patience, while all the investors want their monthly payouts.

Call me an asshole, call me a liar, say I'm spreading negativity - the ones of you with more than half a brain know better, even if you are heavily invested and stand to lose millions from admitting it. I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror after calling me those things. I'm just so fucking sick and tired of the hypocrisy.
 
ill be highfiving my friends over in the elderly home and kickin it with entropia!

Nurse bring me more redbull!!!


This was my plan, only I won't be in a nursing home, I'll be kickin' back in my Laz-i-boy at home. :D
 
As long as people with no life exist. EU will always go strong.

Wow, harsh. Do you really think there are enough people to support this game that actually "have no lives"? Hmmmm. What is your idea of "having a life"?:scratch2:
 
Yes, a 200 ksek profit. But I what you mean by "MA threw 17.4m at Caly" I don't understand?

page 5, 2013 financial statement.

I don't think it'd be the least cynical to even assume the former. MA has constantly operated at the verge of liquidation. That is not speculation, as I believe everyone already should be able to know.

Really, I'm so sick and tired of walking on egg shells due to the large investors fearing losing money if the truth ever comes out, but just having been scammed out of almost 50% of my fluid PED's I really don't give a fuck about that anymore. If you want to kill me IRL for speaking up - pay up or shut up!

The "tidy up their business model" might be correct from a certain and very limited viewpoint, but it's only 1% of the truth, if even that much. Seriously, what sane company would sell off 25% of their revenue, perpetually, for a one-time payment (the CLD sale) if it wasn't in deep fiancial trouble?

Their IRL shares sell for... well, actually, last I checked they couldn't even be sold for 25 US cents each. They are so financially unstable they couldn't even get a bank loan for 6 mil USD. They are so deep in shit even the majority shareholder votes against increasing board members pay. When their prized possession Calypso failed (the pilot of all "planets") when sold, it ended up in arbitration!

MA is constantly operating on the verge of liquidation, and it's only due to the fire-sales of moon, CLD, asteriod and so on and so forth back in time they even survive. THAT is how broken their business model is with the current and insanely small customer base - and they seemingly have neither willingness or ability to increase it, since they only look at short-term-revenue!

Please observe: every LA, every "island", every "whatever" area they sell off, is long-term revenue going into the pockets of someone else, for the benefit of "quick fix" bolstering their own books (for the next review, one could venture to guess without being too bold).

Entropia as a business model is not "sustainable", meaning being able to survive (nothing more, just survive would be enough) from their customers using the system as-is, with this few participants. That's verifiable! The ONLY events keeping MA alive are those fire-sales, and "events", but eventually the finite set of customers also run out of money and patience, while all the investors want their monthly payouts.

Call me an asshole, call me a liar, say I'm spreading negativity - the ones of you with more than half a brain know better, even if you are heavily invested and stand to lose millions from admitting it. I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror after calling me those things. I'm just so fucking sick and tired of the hypocrisy.

I'm not calling you a liar, but there are some things you should probably source.

Even though MA has been operating on a deficit, they still have plenty of money in the bank. There's a lot of stuff that goes into those number in the financial report. Mind Bank's failure, MA's SEE debacle, etc. and the reality is that MA can continue to operate on a deficit for a long time, very similar to a country. So when you say that MA is operating on the verge of liquidation - do you have anything to back that up? I know I don't, but I'm curious to see how you came up with that.

Also, when you say "calypso failed when sold" do you mean that they couldn''t sell it, or that after sold it went bankrupt?
The only reality here is that MA asked far too much for Caly. Hopefully the next time they move to sell it, the number will be more realistic.

Also, the last time I checked MA stocks were private-trade only... so how did you check the stocks?
 
Lots of depression in this thread, lol.

3.) Many planet partners backed out because of the cost it takes to develop a planet on world. Most potential planet partners have been companies not entirely prepared to live up to the task of creating the content they need to create. It's a massive undertaking. The only planet that doesn't fit into that schema is SEE, who had a financial falling out with mindArk after MindArk attempted to charge SEE 6 million dollars to acquire Calypso when the planet was, at the time, only worth about 1,7 million dollars. The reality was MindArk needed 6 million to stay in operation. They ended up getting it another way - the CLDs - and now Calypso is only work about 800k. That being said, MindArk has hinted that they have another potential buyer, but this time they've learned and they're keeping their mouth shut until the transaction is complete (Source: MindArk Financial statement. Not linking it again. lol).

Why was 25% of planetary income sold to players for 6m USD if the planet was at the time only worth 1.7 Million USD? Mind Ark are geniuses!

How are you deriving the value of the planet?

Has the idea of selling the whole planet to players been considered? Let player investors form a not for profit organisation and prioritize what the planets income is spent on as its owners.
 
Why was 25% of planetary income sold to players for 6m USD if the planet was at the time only worth 1.7 Million USD? Mind Ark are geniuses!

How are you deriving the value of the planet?

Has the idea of selling the whole planet to players been considered? Let player investors form a not for profit organisation and prioritize what the planets income is spent on as its owners.
Read here: http://www.entropiaplanets.com/wiki/SEE_Digital_Studios
And here: http://entropia-universe-mmorpg.blogspot.ca/2011/06/mindark-terminates-cooperation-with-see.html
And the settlement listed in here... Somewhere: http://www.mindark.se/investor-rela...uments/Semiannual_Report_MindArkGroup2013.pdf
 
Last edited:
Why was 25% of planetary income sold to players for 6m USD if the planet was at the time only worth 1.7 Million USD? Mind Ark are geniuses!

How are you deriving the value of the planet?

Has the idea of selling the whole planet to players been considered? Let player investors form a not for profit organisation and prioritize what the planets income is spent on as its owners.

You ARE Trolling, right? :laugh:

We went over why MA attempted to sell caly for so much, like, 6 pages ago :p They just needed 6 million dollars. Caly was never worth that much, and MA was willing to kill a friendhip with SEE to get either
a.) SEE to buy the planet for 6 million or
b.) the planet back to sell CLDs for the six million

Also, as for your notation about the planet being sold to the players... CLDs....?

Like I said, I'm pretty sure you're trolling here. I just want to be sure because you are a new poster to the forum :p (not that im much older here). :wise:
 
You ARE Trolling, right? :laugh:

We went over why MA attempted to sell caly for so much, like, 6 pages ago :p They just needed 6 million dollars. Caly was never worth that much, and MA was willing to kill a friendhip with SEE to get either
a.) SEE to buy the planet for 6 million or
b.) the planet back to sell CLDs for the six million

Also, as for your notation about the planet being sold to the players... CLDs....?

Like I said, I'm pretty sure you're trolling here. I just want to be sure because you are a new poster to the forum :p (not that im much older here). :wise:

I don't even know what trolling means, I'm just trying to find out more about this game, as maybe unwisely I've invested in a few CLD's already and tempted to buy some more. But I'm finding the whole business very complicated to follow. Don't feel you have to explain though I'm going through some threads like this and hopefully picking up some info.

My point about the "attempted" sale of Calypso, was that I was impressed that MA could sell 25% of the income of a planet stated to be worth 1.7m (the whole planet) to players for 6m. Surely it should only be 25% of the planets value? Or is it worth more because its a share of income and not costs? Its not a profit share just income share? It sounded like MA were getting a very good deal.

With regards to selling the planet to the players, this was just an idea while reading through this thread.
If they are infact actually looking to sell the planet, which doesn't seem clear to me after reading this thread, there seem to be a lot of players who want to invest, i'e in CLD's, maybe I don't understand but I view ownership of the planet as something different to CLD's. The planet owner, that I understand to be referred to as a partner is responsible for developing the planet, could a group of players form and organisation to take responsibility for this was my thought.
Maybe this way the planet could be developed the way the players want it to, and thus improving it for all.
 
I don't even know what trolling means, I'm just trying to find out more about this game, as maybe unwisely I've invested in a few CLD's already and tempted to buy some more. But I'm finding the whole business very complicated to follow. Don't feel you have to explain though I'm going through some threads like this and hopefully picking up some info.

My point about the "attempted" sale of Calypso, was that I was impressed that MA could sell 25% of the income of a planet stated to be worth 1.7m (the whole planet) to players for 6m. Surely it should only be 25% of the planets value? Or is it worth more because its a share of income and not costs? Its not a profit share just income share? It sounded like MA were getting a very good deal.

With regards to selling the planet to the players, this was just an idea while reading through this thread.
If they are infact actually looking to sell the planet, which doesn't seem clear to me after reading this thread, there seem to be a lot of players who want to invest, i'e in CLD's, maybe I don't understand but I view ownership of the planet as something different to CLD's. The planet owner, that I understand to be referred to as a partner is responsible for developing the planet, could a group of players form and organisation to take responsibility for this was my thought.
Maybe this way the planet could be developed the way the players want it to, and thus improving it for all.

Hey man, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come off condescending. I've just had so many people hit me with silly things, it's hard to sort out the legitimate questions sometimes :p

Let me try and answer your questions. The Calypso Land Deeds ARE essentially MindArk "selling the planet to the players". They created a total of six million dollars worth of land deeds and only intend to give out 25% of the overall value of the planet each year.

This, although strange sounding, is actually a win-win for everyone. Since the cost of the six million is distributed among many people, almost everyone here profits. A person buys a CLD, and then after a finite period of time (though I have no idea what that time is) they eventually hit a positive ROI, while MA banks a huge profit from the sale. But yes, you're right - MA did get a good deal on it.

That being said, there isnt ACTUALLY any proof that MA is trying to sell the planet. A lot of us *speculate* that they will, because they've already tried to offload it once to SEE (interestingly, also for six million, which ruined the friendship between SEE and MA). From this we can infer that MA just needed six million dollars for something, but for what is kind of unclear. A lot of this discussion has revolved around trying to discern exactly what they needed it for :p

If you're going to invest in CLD's, the best thing you can do is follow the CLD market and the news on it.

CLDs were designed to do three things:
-Provide players with a share of Caly profits
-Provide players with a voting system that allows shareholder to get involved in Caly decisions
-Provide players with a small home to reside in.

Of these, only the first is implemented. The rest are slated for early 2015.


Again, sorry for being an ass about that. I should have taken your question more seriously. But, I encourage you o through and read some parts of this post. Theres a lot of numbers and a lot of corrections on my behalf, but it does have some good info. And, if you have any other questions, please ask. Everyone here is in this together, after all - as much as we all bicker over things like figuring out the net worth of the planet we live on :wtg:
 
Another one of these threads.

More players saying the company is failing.

More players with lots of 'very serious' unanswered questions that 'deserve' to be addressed.

Look back to 2004, 2005, 2006.

Same threads exist.

The company isnt going anywhere. Your unanswered questions arent that serious. Either take the risk or dont. It's that simple.
 
Another one of these threads.

More players saying the company is failing.

More players with lots of 'very serious' unanswered questions that 'deserve' to be addressed.

Look back to 2004, 2005, 2006.

Same threads exist.

The company isnt going anywhere. Your unanswered questions arent that serious. Either take the risk or dont. It's that simple.

This thread was actually a lot more of "People poking around with numbers and making sense of some things in a financial statement". I don't think there was much "I deserve for this to be answered!" here at all.

We're allowed to toss around thoughts. Thats what forums are for :p there's no harm in a group of people discussing how the game is doing. And even if they weren't, they're allowed to discuss risk before jumping into it :)
 
Everyone here is in this together, after all - as much as we all bicker over things like figuring out the net worth of the planet we live on :wtg:

This is so correct. Thanks for your response, I think I understand the concepts and player ownership is probably the only thing that keeps me interested in this game.

Your blog is very good also, bookmarked that.

What I'm also looking for is a place where players can put forward ideas for changes. For me there are a lot of things in this game which I think could be improved for the better of players and drive more revenue for MA and CLD owners.
The new player experience is terrible and would be one of my top issues with this game. I almost quit after week 1.
That and understanding how to play without losing all your money, which would make 99% of people quit.

After 5 weeks of playing the game I feel I have a fair understanding of how to hunt, and how to not lose all my money, however I still don't know everything and feel I shouldn't hunt at all until I do, which may not be possible. Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm still turning over ped, I can't get enough of those Kerb's.
 
Why was 25% of planetary income sold to players for 6m USD if the planet was at the time only worth 1.7 Million USD? Mind Ark are geniuses!

How are you deriving the value of the planet?

Has the idea of selling the whole planet to players been considered? Let player investors form a not for profit organisation and prioritize what the planets income is spent on as its owners.

this is a jolly good couple of questions. as far as i can tell, and stand to be corrected by an authority on the report details, MA book the asset value of Planet calypso at 1.7M SEK, or about $271k. (i assume is FauconIoji's source, mixing up $ and SEK again, due to the similar number). its not unusual for something to be valued at more than its asset value as any stock market will show. but here we seem to get a multiple of 88 times, which seems rich to me. normally the valuation would be based off earnings or revenue by most metrics, so you'd have to look around that more, and work out the revenue derived directly from Calypso only. i leave that as an exercise for others (CLDs income x4 right?).

to add to this though is some history: SEE brought the planet for $6m, that went pear shaped and then MA needed to still find $6m for its future budget (or can whatever projects it had planned, or find an alternative funding). so they sold half the planets revenue share (25% of total) for $6m to the players. so yes frankly they are genius on this count. so the value of Calypso, in CLD terms, if they where shares (just for fun) would be $24m. for a company that has ordinary revenue of $7.2m and losses of $1.3m thats pretty incredible.

as to the question of selling the whole planet, well thats not the model. the idea is to share revenue 50/50 with the planet operator, and you do need an operator. you cant seriously expect players to run a game where they have financial interest (hell you cant expect them to run it well when they dont, thousands of voices wanting something tweaked), so we end up where we are with a subsidary company running the planet. we do have effectivly two player investors running planets (for no profit...:D:ahh:) in Neverdie and the Arkadia group.
 
page 5, 2013 financial statement.

Okey it was the revenue sharing you meant. Well, with the CLD in place I don't think anybody want's to buy the planet and with the history of a lot of weak planet partners I prefer they at least keep control of the core planet and don't risk that one too.
 
About the discussion about the value of Planet Calypso I want to clarify something about 1.7 msek talked about here. That value is not a valuation of the planet, it's a value based on the costs that MA have had to create the planet, it's more if a book-keeping thing than a true valuation.

I will give you an example.
Lets say you year 1-3 are developing a software for a total cost of 2 000 000 SEK. But in the bookkeeping you add the same value as an asset, you get an "Intangible asset" (Planet Calypso) with the value of 2 000 000 SEK and the cost in the income statement is 0. At the end of year three the software is ready, and in year four you start to use it. When you start to use the software/asset you also start to amortization the asset value, normaly you do that with 20 % each year, that is in this example 400 000 SEK. So in year four you will have a value of 1 600 000 SEK on your software and a cost of 400 000 SEK in the income statement. You do this for five year after which the software, or in this case the Planet Calypso have a value of 0 in the balance sheet.

So, the value in the balance sheet don't necessary have any direct connection to the true value. If we look at the Planet Calypso company they "only" did a 313 kSEK profit before tax, but that is after revenue sharing with CLD owners. If we remove the revenue sharing, around 6,8msek and also remove the revenue from selling CLDs, was around 2,4MSEK, the profit would have been 313 ksek+6800 ksek-2400ksek=4713 KSEK or a profit around 4,7MSEK before tax, after tax it would be around 3,7MSEK. Let's say you value the planet to ration of 10xprofit, that would give a value of around 37 MSEK for the planet and the revenue rights connected to it if they had not issued the CLDs and profit sharing.
 
This thread was actually a lot more of "People poking around with numbers and making sense of some things in a financial statement". I don't think there was much "I deserve for this to be answered!" here at all.

We're allowed to toss around thoughts. Thats what forums are for :p there's no harm in a group of people discussing how the game is doing. And even if they weren't, they're allowed to discuss risk before jumping into it :)

I understand what you're allowed to do. I'm allowed to roll my eyes publicly at yet another one of these 'suspicious' threads. They're nonsense. Lecturing me on your rights and trying to dismiss my statements as not relevant or somehow impinging on those rights is a hypocrisy. I have a right to express my disdain for opinions expressed as much as those expressing those opinions have a right to express them.

People have poked around with MA's financial statements attempting to find holes since the product began. There's nothing new here except the faces. Well. Some of the faces.
 
Thats the point, i have nothing read in this thread that offer me to not invest in Entropia. I see every day ingame a lot of people buying DLC´s or Deposit a lot of Money, lose a lot of Money. Some people for fun, some for invest....
 
First of all, I'm sorry about my previous post - just having been scammed I was not in a good mood to put it mildly. I went off-topic, even that the statements were to the best of my knowledge all 100% correct.

Now on to current issues instead:
CLDs were designed to do three things:
-Provide players with a share of Caly profits
-Provide players with a voting system that allows shareholder to get involved in Caly decisions
-Provide players with a small home to reside in.
I guess I have to disagree again, as this seems like an attempt to rewrite history.

CLD's were sold to make up for the book loss of 6 million USD SEE were to pay MA, 2 mil/year IIRC.

I suspect it went something like this:
"Crap! We're gonna go bankrupt unless we get these money we have already accounted for! This arbitration can take forever, and chances are we'll lose!" (I believe they did - see annual statement).

"We need these money FAST, and no one sane would loan us the money. I know! We can fleece our customers again! Let them carry it. But, we need to provide them with an incentive to give us this much money, with this little time. We can't just create another area-server and sell it, that has proven to fail. Just look at the sale of the Medusa's Island - that didn't exactly go to plan, did it!" (it sold for probably a tenth of what MA/Kim had expected, and rightfully so since that was what "the market" was willing to pay for it!

So they came up with the plan to sell half of Calypso's perpetual revenue (a rather... unique approach), to get 6 million USD. This is "interesting"; MA needed the money, but Calypso brought it in. Can anyone honestly say there even is a PP relationship/barrier between Calypso (Kim) and MA (his dad, JWT)?

But they felt they needed to provide greater deception, a "background story", to sell the CLD's, so they dreamed up this fantastic (and 100% unrealistic) story about "Buy nine, and get the potential option of sometimes in the future, maybe, build a house there!".

Only after you got a (potential) house could you "get a chance to vote on Calypso-important issues" (my guess is it'd be something like 'should we reduce loot on argo, or should we make them ignore Evade?' or anything else forcing you to chose between the plague or cholera).

Really, does anyone still believe in the bullshit MA & Co spews? It was all just a deception to get the required 6 mil USD. Required, else they would be in... difficulties (I'd spell it "liquidated", but I might be wrong) - they had already accounted for and used up that (future, promised) money!

When you look at their balance sheets, keep in mind that those sheets include sales of a moon (recently) and other expensive areas (earlier), or a bank, or a <whatever> bullshit thing, not to mention the 6 million USD that never emerged.

To get the actual revenue (not profit, just revenue) of MA you have to subtract such "flash sales", such as a moon sold for 2 mil USD. Only after doing that do you truly see how Entropia is able to survivie. It's not because it's sustainable (it is not - even with 10% tax pressure), it is only due to those sales (and the addition of occasional "events" when big-spenders log in and spend a ton of money in hope of looting an item with high MU).

Knowing this, how sustainable is really Entropia (with current direction and leadership)?
 
Should this thread not be in the economic section by now? Most, if not everything, discussed here is not very relevant to a newbie trying to learn how to play. Most, if not everything, is about money, PL statements, CLD and other economic topics...
 
Back
Top