Question: Company Shares System - Divinity's Suggestion List

Divinity

Marauder
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Posts
5,157
Location
India
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Divinity Deth Undefined
Firstly, allow me to thank whoever @ MA HQ agreed to move ahead with this project which has been suggested by a lot of us ( especially those running funds) earlier.

However, it would have been great if MA took some advice in terms of how things need to work to make this a major success before moving ahead with the project.

Anyways hopefully am not too late and i hope some thought is given to features that need to be there to make this work on a broader scale.

***1. Feature of Reducing Costs Associated ( Events/Fertilizers/Advertising) from the tax should be available for Assets under the Company. This is unlike the CLD/AUD etc deed system but will be intrinsic if active LA's/fund managers need to use the share system. ***Critical According to Me. Without this MA might as well not waste there time with this project.


**********2. Feature of Adding Revenue ( Banks especially ) : Currently Banks are in such a decrepit state in terms of UI and functionality that I cannot even describe in words. Also the fact that there are 2-3 Banks active ingame means I cannot expect MA to put it on a priority list in terms of UI ( There are plenty more mass scale requirements and as such I would not expect Bank UI to be a priority) . Getting back to my point currently a lot of loans are done outside of the game mechanics because a flat rate for an LA loan is not possible and similarly with tiered/non tiered gear. With banks there is also the added revenue from resale of gear that is lost to the bank ( Sometimes at a loss to the bank) which needs to be factored in. All of this necessitate having a way to add revenue to the share system to make it work as intended. ********* TO BE MARKED AS IRRELEVANT FOR NOW

3. A voting system which would enable control of the asset via majority holdings needs to be in place. Things like majority control % should be user defined to prevent hijacking of the *Company*( typo) by malicious entities. Some rule sets with flexibility given as provision here would mean better control can be maintained.

Without these 3 features, I for one would be unable to use the system at all, so I am speaking from my own personal point of view here. Others could agree/disagree on the same. I understand that there is cost associated with this and I am sure everyone who creates "Company Share" using the system would not mind paying a fee for it. I certainly would not mind (subject to how much it is).

Irrespective of what you decide to include or not, I am extremely happy about the fact that this was considered as something which needs to be worked on. While trust will still remain a factor ( especially if above features are implemented) it will go a long ways in making EU into more then just a game with currency conversion possibilities.

PS : I would appreciate if others share there point of view here and we can discuss to make this more feasible for MA and helpful for EU.
 
Last edited:
3. A voting system which would enable control of the asset via majority holdings needs to be in place. Things like majority control % should be user defined to prevent hijacking of the *Company*( typo) by malicious entities. Some rule sets with flexibility given as provision here would mean better control can be maintained.

kinda disagree with this.. sure a safety net is nice but imo once you make something available in shares, the shareholders can do what they like with them. If you want to retain control for sure retain 51% and your golden. :)

I think the higest shareholder should have control. that's it. this is what creates the share value. you take away the goal at the end you take away the value.

Well maybe vote for manager be ok. But primary control should always be highest shareholder. Accurate share market history be nice too. That way dead LA's with missing owners etc vs live maintained ones with good history will be clearly visable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kinda disagree with this.. sure a safety net is nice but imo once you make something available in shares, the shareholders can do what they like with them. If you want to retain control for sure retain 51% and your golden. :)

I think the higest shareholder should have control. that's it. this is what creates the share value. you take away the goal at the end you take away the value.

Well maybe vote for manager be ok. But primary control should always be highest shareholder. Accurate share market history be nice too. That way dead LA's with missing owners etc vs live maintained ones with good history will be clearly visable.

Use Case Analysis : Person "A" creates shares and puts efforts in making the shares worth 2x of initial offering. Person "B" ( with malicious intent) starts buying shares from start and eventually gets to 51% even with last few % being bought @ 2-3x of initial offering. Then he stops managing the LA completely driving the ROI to near 0. Buys the remaining % for peanuts.

If on the other hand Person "A" creates shares with a visibility of the fact that he retains managerial control till 60/70/80% ( arbitrary number) vote against him ( here am using vote not ownership simply) then the buyer of the share is buying the shares based on the parameter being known.

I am not saying not to keep it as you say, am saying give the option to the guy creating the company so he can micromanage and then may the best man win.

Eventually it is the buyer as well who decides whether it is worthwhile for him to invest in any "share" not the seller alone. :)
 
Use Case Analysis : Person "A" creates shares and puts efforts in making the shares worth 2x of initial offering. Person "B" ( with malicious intent) starts buying shares from start and eventually gets to 51% even with last few % being bought @ 2-3x of initial offering. Then he stops managing the LA completely driving the ROI to near 0. Buys the remaining % for peanuts.

If on the other hand Person "A" creates shares with a visibility of the fact that he retains managerial control till 60/70/80% ( arbitrary number) vote against him ( here am using vote not ownership simply) then the buyer of the share is buying the shares based on the parameter being known.

I am not saying not to keep it as you say, am saying give the option to the guy creating the company so he can micromanage and then may the best man win.

Eventually it is the buyer as well who decides whether it is worthwhile for him to invest in any "share" not the seller alone. :)

I see what your saying about driving the price down but its still the best way. Alternatively tho aside from primary owner there could be a voted in manager. but I was just thinking of diff scenarios with 2/3/4 etc total investors with 2 there be an issue if primary was MIA. So id suggest maybe a once a month max timed vote that lasts maybe couple days or a week and most votes wins management. even if its just one vote cuz everyone else was MIA. this would solve the issue of management at least so it could continue to be maintained.
 
The main one i think thats touched on is the ability to minus expenses.

Fert is easy thats on the terminal and easy to track.
Advertising and event prizes will need some form of monitoring. Some events require long algorithms to calc in excel. Needs some thought
 
Mindark sure knows thier customers , they teaser us test invite us and introduce their new camera system with a big bang and a company share system just pop out of nowere since it wasn't on anyones radar to our pleasant suprise but so much hype potential wasted.

:topic:

Uhm right

About banks :
They said owned land areas, bank buissnes is most likely not included.

I suspect all shares will be passive with no rights over the land area and most likely the distributed amount of revenue generated from land areas will be set by the owner before he relase shares, probably with fixed taxes at mining and hunting set in stone on share generation. I wouln't be suprised if its impossible to allocate 100% of the revenue towards share holders and expect more a hard cap around 70% to 80% that can be chosen.

As a share holder you need to put your trust in the land owner. Maybe we even get a fail safe system that auto buy fertilizer from auction and keep the la at least at max spawn and min maturity if the owner fail to keep it running.

The value of a LA might be determined on how much shares are out and how much percentage from the revenue is going to the rat tail of investors when selling LA's in the future.

I dont expect a fancy vote system that empower share holders to influence anything done with the LA , mindark suprise me.

I also have no idea how they wish to deal with promotional events because if you manage that LA and 80% of the revenue goes somewere else but in your pocket any event prices will burn a hole in your wallet.

Im looking forward towards this feature and how it will work out
Do i see panic CLD sales yet ? :)
 
Mindark sure knows thier customers , they teaser us test invite us and introduce their new camera system with a big bang and a company share system just pop out of nowere since it wasn't on anyones radar to our pleasant suprise but so much hype potential wasted.

:topic:

Uhm right

About banks :
They said owned land areas, bank buissnes is most likely not included.

I suspect all shares will be passive with no rights over the land area and most likely the distributed amount of revenue generated from land areas will be set by the owner before he relase shares, probably with fixed taxes at mining and hunting set in stone on share generation. I wouln't be suprised if its impossible to allocate 100% of the revenue towards share holders and expect more a hard cap around 70% to 80% that can be chosen.

As a share holder you need to put your trust in the land owner. Maybe we even get a fail safe system that auto buy fertilizer from auction and keep the la at least at max spawn and min maturity if the owner fail to keep it running.

The value of a LA might be determined on how much shares are out and how much percentage from the revenue is going to the rat tail of investors when selling LA's in the future.

I dont expect a fancy vote system that empower share holders to influence anything done with the LA , mindark suprise me.

I also have no idea how they wish to deal with promotional events because if you manage that LA and 80% of the revenue goes somewere else but in your pocket any event prices will burn a hole in your wallet.

Im looking forward towards this feature and how it will work out
Do i see panic CLD sales yet ? :)

although I aggree with you in that faith shud be put in landowner.. we all must realize that this is a game and a lot of legal steps and precautions are generally not done. For example land owner dies in plane crash.. no will etc.. now what? everyone invested loses everything? there needs to be a way for LA to keep functioning in the event of sudden owner absence. youd still be able to trade your shares etc and vote on a manager to maintain it at least.

I don't have an LA so ill admit my knowledge is quite limited but property irl I do. There are some gamey aspects that can be over looked but some real life ones that cant be.
 
I see what your saying about driving the price down but its still the best way. Alternatively tho aside from primary owner there could be a voted in manager. but I was just thinking of diff scenarios with 2/3/4 etc total investors with 2 there be an issue if primary was MIA. So id suggest maybe a once a month max timed vote that lasts maybe couple days or a week and most votes wins management. even if its just one vote cuz everyone else was MIA. this would solve the issue of management at least so it could continue to be maintained.

Not sure how voting solves the issue if the person owns 51% of the shares and as such would hold most of the voting power and decision making power.

The main one i think thats touched on is the ability to minus expenses.

Fert is easy thats on the terminal and easy to track.
Advertising and event prizes will need some form of monitoring. Some events require long algorithms to calc in excel. Needs some thought

I don't think it is feasible for MA to take into account costs etc outside of the scope of ingame events. Even with Ingame events events where say CLD is part of the prize ( point being markup is involved) they cannot get into the intricacies of it. There is a level of trust that will need to be involved at some point.

About banks :
They said owned land areas, bank buissnes is most likely not included.

I suspect all shares will be passive with no rights over the land area and most likely the distributed amount of revenue generated from land areas will be set by the owner before he relase shares, probably with fixed taxes at mining and hunting set in stone on share generation. I wouln't be suprised if its impossible to allocate 100% of the revenue towards share holders and expect more a hard cap around 70% to 80% that can be chosen.

As a share holder you need to put your trust in the land owner. Maybe we even get a fail safe system that auto buy fertilizer from auction and keep the la at least at max spawn and min maturity if the owner fail to keep it running.

The value of a LA might be determined on how much shares are out and how much percentage from the revenue is going to the rat tail of investors when selling LA's in the future.

I dont expect a fancy vote system that empower share holders to influence anything done with the LA , mindark suprise me.

I also have no idea how they wish to deal with promotional events because if you manage that LA and 80% of the revenue goes somewere else but in your pocket any event prices will burn a hole in your wallet.

Im looking forward towards this feature and how it will work out

About Bank : You have a point there since i went in and checked and the deed too is similar to appartment/shop deed and not that of LA/Mall.

Passive Rights : Also makes sense really if passive rights are there , though i think % distribution would really screw things up from Land Management perspective considering how dynamic things are in EU.

You do make some good assumptions there and I agree that it needs to be simple for MA to implement else it will not be implemented at all.

My solution would be

1. Company Deeds give passive income rights ( as suggested by you)
2. Company Manager/CEO or whatever gets to reduce costs ( advertising/ferts/events) before monthly payout is made. ( Am assuming for now only LA's/Malls get this feature)
 
although I aggree with you in that faith shud be put in landowner.. we all must realize that this is a game and a lot of legal steps and precautions are generally not done. For example land owner dies in plane crash.. no will etc.. now what? everyone invested loses everything? there needs to be a way for LA to keep functioning in the event of sudden owner absence. youd still be able to trade your shares etc and vote on a manager to maintain it at least.

I don't have an LA so ill admit my knowledge is quite limited but property irl I do. There are some gamey aspects that can be over looked but some real life ones that cant be.

1. If the person dies without will and with noone claiming the account, the deeds will expire into tt value ( basically 0) thereby increasing the power of the remaining deeds available. I do not see how the current game dynamics will cause an issue there.
 
Not sure how voting solves the issue if the person owns 51% of the shares and as such would hold most of the voting power and decision making power.



I don't think it is feasible for MA to take into account costs etc outside of the scope of ingame events. Even with Ingame events events where say CLD is part of the prize ( point being markup is involved) they cannot get into the intricacies of it. There is a level of trust that will need to be involved at some point.



About Bank : You have a point there since i went in and checked and the deed too is similar to appartment/shop deed and not that of LA/Mall.

Passive Rights : Also makes sense really if passive rights are there , though i think % distribution would really screw things up from Land Management perspective considering how dynamic things are in EU.

You do make some good assumptions there and I agree that it needs to be simple for MA to implement else it will not be implemented at all.

My solution would be

1. Company Deeds give passive income rights ( as suggested by you)
2. Company Manager/CEO or whatever gets to reduce costs ( advertising/ferts/events) before monthly payout is made. ( Am assuming for now only LA's/Malls get this feature)

It solves the noone currently able to manage the land problem. Obviously voting power matters and 51% trumps all other votes. But if that person were missing the highest power vote or combination of votes that actually voted take effect.

This would allow the LA etc to continue functioning and generating income for all shareholders until whatever needs to be done with the primary shareholder is taken care of or they return to the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am all for voted manager on a regular base, lets say for month or 3 month period.
Otherwise we will see the same issues with company owned LAs as we see it with actual non managed LAs.

If the LA solely can be managed by those who own most shares or by a predefined deed holder, it may happen that this manager or biggest shareholder will be absent for a longer time. LA will not be managed. Result no income generated and worthless shares.

If we have a regular voting the LA can be managed even if the one man holding 80% of shares is absent.

Its fairly simple, those that are active vote for their manager. Even if there is only 10% or even less shares in hand of active players this persons can elect their manager and keep the LA maintained.

It doesn´t hurt the one holding 80%, as he will get revenue all the time even if he stay away for several years befor he comes back. As soon he comes back he can use all the power of his 80% in next election and vote for his favorite manager (maybe himself).

It will be much saver than just having one person with power over the company LA.

About the costs subtracted from LA revenue.
That is difficult.

What MA can do is, fertilizer costs (trackable what is put in) and event creations using the official event system (including prices).
This surely will be only TT calculations as every MU can not really be tracked.
If the company has its own inventory to buy fertilizer and event prizes, it can also be tracked with MUs, but in this case this company inventory has to be a buy only inventory.
Why buy only? Protection from fraud!
I hope I dont have to explain how it could be exploited by a criminal manager if not buy only.
Use your brains and think about illegal multi accounts that definately exist, you will find the answer yourself.

Anything outside of that boundaries would open to many options for scammers, so I am against the ability to subtract any not trackable (by MA) costs (which are not really needed) from the company payouts.

Sure with events run through forums, EL or other forms of events an LA can be more successful.
But if you want to have this, buy a damn LA for your own and do it.

For a company with shares that are free for sale through auction, I want a top save thing and noone with the option claiming he spent 5000 PED advertising costs this month and keeps the total 5k PED tax this month for himself, leaving the share holders with nothing.

Hope you get my point of view.
 
They should just do away with fertilizer. This way LA's could lower their taxes, adjust settings whenever and however they want, and if a sole LA owner goes absent the LA settings just stay as they last were, instead of dead LA.
 
My solution would be

1. Company Deeds give passive income rights ( as suggested by you)
2. Company Manager/CEO or whatever gets to reduce costs ( advertising/ferts/events) before monthly payout is made. ( Am assuming for now only LA's/Malls get this feature)

This would be a simple implementation. Requires some trust and not too difficult to make. I'd support this.

For a good / agile company to constantly deliver great results, we have to accept that there is a level of trust required. Expensing event/prize costs is definitely one of those things. Having too many systems in place or too many blockages with decisions will affect ROI, and typically for the worse.
 
This would be a simple implementation. Requires some trust and not too difficult to make. I'd support this.

For a good / agile company to constantly deliver great results, we have to accept that there is a level of trust required. Expensing event/prize costs is definitely one of those things. Having too many systems in place or too many blockages with decisions will affect ROI, and typically for the worse.

Exactly!

Some promotions and events running on LA's are kinda complex and it is beyond my imagination to tackle tracking
those activities with an ingame system. I'd say thats impossible and if such a system were in place it would certainly limit the creativity and vision of some Land holders to run good and competetive events.

Of course easy to track expenses like fertilizer and event creation costs should be deducted from the taxes before pay out. I dont know how much time mindark is willing to invest in that feature but it would be awesome if LA's could get a integrated storage (Deposit only) and connection to auction (buy only) along with a log that track all interactions. I dont want mindark to compete with EL but they could ramp up the event system and generate the ability to make long lasting ingame events with counting hofs and giving out a event currency to redeem items in the depot. That would make life easyer for some entry level Managers but not limit the ability from experts to create multi layer promotional content outside the event system. And on top it would make some coin for mindark because more people use the ingame event system.


I am very interested to invest in active running LA's that generate revenue with zero future effort from my side.
I really hope that feature will be well made and open a new and exciting way to invest into entropia universe!
 
It solves the noone currently able to manage the land problem. Obviously voting power matters and 51% trumps all other votes. But if that person were missing the highest power vote or combination of votes that actually voted take effect.

I am all for voted manager on a regular base, lets say for month or 3 month period.
Otherwise we will see the same issues with company owned LAs as we see it with actual non managed LAs.

2 Things I See Being Focussed Here out of which 1 seems to be common

1. Absentee LA Owner : Gets solved with voting a manager every 3 months (where if the majority share holder is not present will take control over the LA). This however will not solve
a. Current status with some LA's where the owner purposefully will not activate his LA.
b. If the majority owner of shares decides to go rogue.

2. Cost being adjusted by Manager/Owner : This will be a deal breaker for most if not all LA owners. Unless the Ingame Event system changes dramatically I do not see this going well with any well managed LA. A huge overhaul of the Event system needs to be then done if this is to be even considered optional else most funds/LA's will stay out of this and the whole system will remain a namesake.
 
They should just do away with fertilizer. This way LA's could lower their taxes, adjust settings whenever and however they want, and if a sole LA owner goes absent the LA settings just stay as they last were, instead of dead LA.

That would be awesome. 1% tax for all LAs and still producing more ROI than ever before.
 
I am all for voted manager on a regular base, lets say for month or 3 month period.
Otherwise we will see the same issues with company owned LAs as we see it with actual non managed LAs.

If the LA solely can be managed by those who own most shares or by a predefined deed holder, it may happen that this manager or biggest shareholder will be absent for a longer time. LA will not be managed. Result no income generated and worthless shares.

If we have a regular voting the LA can be managed even if the one man holding 80% of shares is absent.

Its fairly simple, those that are active vote for their manager. Even if there is only 10% or even less shares in hand of active players this persons can elect their manager and keep the LA maintained.

It doesn´t hurt the one holding 80%, as he will get revenue all the time even if he stay away for several years befor he comes back. As soon he comes back he can use all the power of his 80% in next election and vote for his favorite manager (maybe himself).

It will be much saver than just having one person with power over the company LA.

About the costs subtracted from LA revenue.
That is difficult.

What MA can do is, fertilizer costs (trackable what is put in) and event creations using the official event system (including prices).
This surely will be only TT calculations as every MU can not really be tracked.
If the company has its own inventory to buy fertilizer and event prizes, it can also be tracked with MUs, but in this case this company inventory has to be a buy only inventory.
Why buy only? Protection from fraud!
I hope I dont have to explain how it could be exploited by a criminal manager if not buy only.
Use your brains and think about illegal multi accounts that definately exist, you will find the answer yourself.

Anything outside of that boundaries would open to many options for scammers, so I am against the ability to subtract any not trackable (by MA) costs (which are not really needed) from the company payouts.

Sure with events run through forums, EL or other forms of events an LA can be more successful.
But if you want to have this, buy a damn LA for your own and do it.

For a company with shares that are free for sale through auction, I want a top save thing and noone with the option claiming he spent 5000 PED advertising costs this month and keeps the total 5k PED tax this month for himself, leaving the share holders with nothing.

Hope you get my point of view.

im thinkin 1month cycle on the votes. the reason is to minimize the potential dmg from being unattended but to keep it long enough so that it doesn't feel spammy and far too often than needed or for those 1%'ers wanting a re-vote all the time =p

id like to say 1%'rs cant vote but that's heading back down the same path of only 51% gets control.

voting could be points based.. 100%=100pts. highest point total on vote wins.. 33 40 16 for example if the 40% owner voted one way and the 33+16 voted on someone else they win cuz total would be 49% or points. if they all voted on individual separate people than obviously the 40% would win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That would be awesome. 1% tax for all LAs and still producing more ROI than ever before.

I like that idea but the effect on the economy plus more importantly.. pirates will be overrun with dung!!! that's not good =p
 
kinda disagree with this.. sure a safety net is nice but imo once you make something available in shares, the shareholders can do what they like with them. If you want to retain control for sure retain 51% and your golden. :).
i agree on this, whoever holds 51% controls the whole, like in Real Life, thats the only way.
i would focus also on something else, assets, if the company holds more than one assets, like 2 or 3 lands, thats apply the same. Regarding the voting system, thats upon the company creator to choose those things, and up to investor to select the kind of investment they expect. I would go on a dynamic system where the company creator upon creation is able to set this kind of things.
I would also extend the company system to shops and banks and space services. Seems fair, those are business as much as an LA owner, a little dynamic on creation settings will allow more different companyes with different purposes, but it has to be as similar to real life as it can.

otherwise we can do this way.

The one who creates the company can buy 3 lands, create 1 tousand shares and sell it to all the newbie players for 5times the price he payed. Sell all company assets to his friend for 1ped each. create another company.
 
Use Case Analysis : Person "A" creates shares and puts efforts in making the shares worth 2x of initial offering. Person "B" ( with malicious intent) starts buying shares from start and eventually gets to 51% even with last few % being bought @ 2-3x of initial offering. Then he stops managing the LA completely driving the ROI to near 0. Buys the remaining % for peanuts.

If on the other hand Person "A" creates shares with a visibility of the fact that he retains managerial control till 60/70/80% ( arbitrary number) vote against him ( here am using vote not ownership simply) then the buyer of the share is buying the shares based on the parameter being known.

Well i think both cases shall happen and the user should have avaiability to set them up upon creation of companies. Just like if ur creating a Limited company or a one listed on Stock Exchange. But anyway, the first solution is better. Person A creates Shares and sell only 49% if he wants to be 100% safe, or he works with trustable people and he keep control owning 1% of the shares, because hes just good.
If someone drives the roi of a LA to 0 to buy the rest at the end he will have a land with lower value than he payed for a single share of it.
 
Exactly!

Some promotions and events running on LA's are kinda complex and it is beyond my imagination to tackle tracking
those activities with an ingame system. I'd say thats impossible and if such a system were in place it would certainly limit the creativity and vision of some Land holders to run good and competetive events.

The kind of events currently running on LA's and the variety that usually does on active LA's would need programmable Event Creation system which to be honest is beyond MA's reach at this point of time.


im thinkin 1month cycle on the votes. the reason is to minimize the potential dmg from being unattended but to keep it long enough so that it doesn't feel spammy and far too often than needed or for those 1%'ers wanting a re-vote all the time =p

id like to say 1%'rs cant vote but that's heading back down the same path of only 51% gets control.

voting could be points based.. 100%=100pts. highest point total on vote wins.. 33 40 16 for example if the 40% owner voted one way and the 33+16 voted on someone else they win cuz total would be 49% or points. if they all voted on individual separate people than obviously the 40% would win.

Considering that a lot of people go on 1 month vacations irl , I think 2-3 months is a fair enough time :)

otherwise we can do this way.

The one who creates the company can buy 3 lands, create 1 tousand shares and sell it to all the newbie players for 5times the price he payed. Sell all company assets to his friend for 1ped each. create another company.

This does not make much sense to me. Once the Land has been converted to multiple deeds, there is no way really to sell the Land Area as that deed I presume will be removed in the conversion.


PS : IF any of the Current Active Land Owners Feel That they Would use the System to create Deeds Without The Flexibility to Remove Costs Associated with Marketing/Events , please feel free to voice your opinion here. Since this is my personal belief that this will not float with most, I would like to see if others disagree. This is assuming the current Ingame Event system does not undergo a major overhaul.
 
Last edited:
This does not make much sense to me. Once the Land has been converted to multiple deeds, there is no way really to sell the Land Area as that deed I presume will be removed in the conversion.

they stated a company share system not a land area deed system, company can be see as a socety, just for business purposes, and it can hold many assets at same time.
 
I am probably wrong here, but won't they operate just like CLD's?

Share holders get a % of revenue off the land, that's it. Not rights , no land management. The land deed holder manages the land as before?

Or am I off base?

Rgds

Ace
 
I am probably wrong here, but won't they operate just like CLD's?

Share holders get a % of revenue off the land, that's it. Not rights , no land management. The land deed holder manages the land as before?

Or am I off base?

Rgds

Ace

Yeah i can see something like this. Maybe this is getting in place for CP sales and DRAGON kingdom on RT.
 
they stated a company share system not a land area deed system, company can be see as a socety, just for business purposes, and it can hold many assets at same time.

I agree that many assets can be held by the company and that shares would be created on behalf of the company and sold. There is also a reason they have chosen Land Areas i think and that is to make sure the deed payouts will be directly done from the revenue with no scope of adjustments. This i believe is a fatal flaw in the perceived dynamics of the system.

The company once created within the Company Creation Interface can

1. Create new shares.
2. Add assets. I presume Remove too but not sure how or what they will do to manage that.
3. Hopefully have a feature to remove costs etc from revenue ( I don't think it is there in the current design plans)


I am probably wrong here, but won't they operate just like CLD's?

Share holders get a % of revenue off the land, that's it. Not rights , no land management. The land deed holder manages the land as before?

Or am I off base?

Rgds

Ace

As Corwin said, I too believe that it will be similar to a corporate entity and shares will be issued for the entity. The more i think of voting the more i feel this system will not be in place but i do feel it would help tremendously to have it in there in some basic form.

Yeah i can see something like this. Maybe this is getting in place for CP sales and DRAGON kingdom on RT.

This as per my current thoughts will not be about individual LA sales but really the creation of new Company Entity under which shares will be allotted

Introduced a new Company Shares System where players will be able to buy, sell, and manage shares of companies which control land areas in the future.
 
I agree that many assets can be held by the company and that shares would be created on behalf of the company and sold. There is also a reason they have chosen Land Areas i think and that is to make sure the deed payouts will be directly done from the revenue with no scope of adjustments. This i believe is a fatal flaw in the perceived dynamics of the system.

The company once created within the Company Creation Interface can

1. Create new shares.
2. Add assets. I presume Remove too but not sure how or what they will do to manage that.
3. Hopefully have a feature to remove costs etc from revenue ( I don't think it is there in the current design plans)




As Corwin said, I too believe that it will be similar to a corporate entity and shares will be issued for the entity. The more i think of voting the more i feel this system will not be in place but i do feel it would help tremendously to have it in there in some basic form.



This as per my current thoughts will not be about individual LA sales but really the creation of new Company Entity under which shares will be allotted

Introduced a new Company Shares System where players will be able to buy, sell, and manage shares of companies which control land areas in the future.

Yea i think
I would also suggest to extend this system to malls and shop in general, to privateer and motherships, as long as they can be runned by small groups of player with same profession that can somehow team up and reduce competition.
Game have around 600 new player every month of these 600 new player at least the 30%/40% stay ingame who more who less who only log in to check his own aud/cld/investment. At this rate of growning in a couple of year when these player level up and get into system we are goin to have the problem of placing those people in a place in which they can actively contribute to the system and economy. This company system may be a solution, either to place these persons either to force the ones that at the moment own the monopoly of something to actively work theyre business to be competitive and stay afloat.

If i learned something from this game is that in orther to retrieve profit u have to put skills effort and time, and even working a single profession business can be very time consuming and effort requiring. Often people dont have time to even run a single business and party teaming up with other similar bysiness oriented people within a structured company system could be theyre only way to achieve some side money to cover theyre first profession losses or to retrieve some profit from theyre time.
 
Yea i think
I would also suggest to extend this system to malls and shop in general, to privateer and motherships, as long as they can be runned by small groups of player with same profession that can somehow team up and reduce competition.
Game have around 600 new player every month of these 600 new player at least the 30%/40% stay ingame who more who less who only log in to check his own aud/cld/investment. At this rate of growning in a couple of year when these player level up and get into system we are goin to have the problem of placing those people in a place in which they can actively contribute to the system and economy. This company system may be a solution, either to place these persons either to force the ones that at the moment own the monopoly of something to actively work theyre business to be competitive and stay afloat.

If i learned something from this game is that in orther to retrieve profit u have to put skills effort and time, and even working a single profession business can be very time consuming and effort requiring. Often people dont have time to even run a single business and party teaming up with other similar bysiness oriented people within a structured company system could be theyre only way to achieve some side money to cover theyre first profession losses or to retrieve some profit from theyre time.

one thing I like about this share system idea is it does open up possibilities for newer players and smaller ped investments for those that don't have 150k+ for an entire LA. I guess there are the private investment funds but this system might be clearer, safer and much more seamless if done properly.
 
one thing I like about this share system idea is it does open up possibilities for newer players and smaller ped investments for those that don't have 150k+ for an entire LA. I guess there are the private investment funds but this system might be clearer, safer and much more seamless if done properly.

Is it not what CLD/AUD/moon deeds/CP deeds etc are for ? From 2k peds a deed to 10 peds( once CP deeds are released) were created for the same reason.

The reason private investment funds work or dont work is because of the ROI they provide. This will make it safer yes but it will only work if all the provisions are met in terms of how a fund works, else it will be an expensive footnote at best.

PS : Some information/thoughts/plans from Mindark's side would add some direction to this discussion as currently we are shooting arrows in the dark. They have given very little information of how things will work and if i am to believe MA Team's AMA then this is already very much close to implementation for them to have released the one liner.
 
Share Center Implementation
===================


entropia_2019-04-26_18.32.35.jpg



ON CLICKING BUY IT OPENS

entropia_2019-04-26_18.32.26.jpg
 
one thing I like about this share system idea is it does open up possibilities for newer players and smaller ped investments for those that don't have 150k+ for an entire LA. I guess there are the private investment funds but this system might be clearer, safer and much more seamless if done properly.

also but not last, lets assume that a couple old player with good names and reputation find themself one having lvl 50 texturing one coloring and one tailoring, and they decide to put themself in business but find out that they dont have enought avaiability to buy 1 shop per planet and a ship to carry items/materials around the universe to work it out. Here come the shares system by allowing them to be funded by whealty/veteran players who knows theyre reputation and can reduce theyre loss incase of failure by having those assets on company name than rather on player name. Safety for both part and finally u can get a proper hair cut anywhere in the universe with delivery service.
 
Back
Top