actually, no, most participants simply think its an MA revenue stream. those that acknowledge and trust the statements that the fee goes back to the loot, probably realise the purpose is to prevent a thousand small value bundle clogging up the auction.
You did not understand what was posted.
Bolded is only a secondary outcome of the implementation, in a free market, you do not limit the service by saying no, your bundle is too small to sell. That detracts from the service offering and places emphasis on the expense required to build up large stock-piles of goods to sell at low percentages;
Placing the cost of being involved out of reach for many average day folk.
Blue your on the right track, this is what the post is about
Green, correct, people do not go into investigating the workings of a service offering (modeling the blackboxed technology), they just see things at face value and see it as a direct cost, which is what is intended.
I refer to those who model the system from an investigative/observation/experimentation/piecing hints given by MA staff members (in the real world media & on forums over time) perspective to find out what is really going on. (Or as close as possible with a working model)
To put things in a better light for you, relating to the post you quoted.
Let us say there are 2 service offerings which are as equally good as each other in the context of an operating RCE environment (Remember hypothetical)
In the simplest form:
Service 1 charges you nothing to list and charges you a set fee only if a sale is made.
Service 2 charges you a fee just to list, wether you sell or don't. And then tells you, hey don't worry the fees come back in loot. But keep in mind this is also a system we make money on too.
Think about it
Which one would you choose when working in the context of an economy involving real life money?;
Keeping in mind that this is the central system that the majority of participants use as their main method of trade in a system (Entropia) where 80%+ of the loot acquired in active participation has very little necessary dependancy attached to furthering their own or others active participation.
Granted there are many suckers in this world, yet really it is a no brainer.
MindArk/FPC has little history to work with to provide a foundation for trust to be issued by the participant
at this point in time.
Other than that, go through every post in this thread:
So far I have record in my own due diligence,
72% think the service is too expensive,
57% think it is a casino or reflects casino like properities,
79% think the distribution mechanisms are way off as far as providing an environment to generate & distribute wealth in a healthy manner to bolster the strength of the economy and participation within.
Addition: and a mere 19 posts out of 460 counted have not mentioned the above
or equally damning frustrations, only small aesthetical/interface/logistical improvements.
Staying as objective as one possibly can under the circumstances,
I actually do feel for Marco atm, honestly !
He has a HUGE task ahead of him.
Marco has balls I will give him that,
as this is exactly what he did, and on the day of a full moon too.
...Wow, you want to open this can of worms on a Friday, Marco??