Guild Wars 2

Is anyone else completely dumbfounded by the amount of people that kill the profit margin for items that actually have one? Is it just that people are impatient?

If there is high trading volume on item that’s listed at 3 silver up and the highest buy offer is 50 copper why on earth would someone come in and sell said item at 80 copper? I can understand wanting to undercut but people are just shooting themselves in the foot when they do it that much. Items can easily be sold at 5% – 10% below lowest list price without losing sales. If an item is not moving at all that’s a different story but surely even just a 25% or 50% reduction in price would suffice.

A lot of people wine about being poor, i wonder how many of those people are doing the above?

What’s even funnier is if an item would sell at an NPC for 30 copper, and someone is trying to buy the same item for 15 copper, it won’t let you sell it to them. Instead a message pops up that says, “Items can not be sold lower than their vendor value.” So they can’t undercut too much, or no one will be able to sell them their goods.

I see nothing wrong about it…if they want to do that for whatever reason, all the better. Just buy and list it up again. The more people doesn’t knows how to trade, the better for those that knows how to trade.

rookies. i love it.

They are selling below NPC price in hopes other morons will put theirs up. They will buy the low priced items and cancel their own low priced items when they see fit.

yuppers…. I agree colortwang.

IF they are going to have an artificial floor price, then they REALLY need to put the floor at ((vendor price) PLUS (15% vendor prive)+1c) instead of just (vendor price). This would make everyone have a reason to AH things and no stupid ‘below vendor sales’ like this…

I don’t think the item actually sells even at +1c. I’ve put up a few just to see how it goes…low level item, high level item…but all are trash loot…none sold, and the number of seller increased. If no one wants to buy it at +1c, no one will want it at 15% +1c.

I am just saying the ‘Net Floor’ should be ABOVE what the VENDOR PRICE is…
and that is the NEEDED formula for that to happen.

IF they have a floor…. I personally think there shouldn’t be one…

Grimm Liberty.4206:

I am just saying the ‘Net Floor’ should be ABOVE what the VENDOR PRICE is…
and that is the NEEDED formula for that to happen.

why?

illgot.1056:

Grimm Liberty.4206:

I am just saying the ‘Net Floor’ should be ABOVE what the VENDOR PRICE is…
and that is the NEEDED formula for that to happen.

why?

Because he’s impatient for the market to stabilize. Understandably so because it can be absurdly frustrating to go throw some trash away and realize that because 3000+ economically-innovative geniuses have decided that a 35c blue should sell for 36c on the TP, you’re either going to lose 15% on it compared to vendoring it for the convenience of ditching it in the wilderness, or not sell it for weeks (months… years…).

The way around this is obviously to sell at the loss/vendor (depending on waypoint costs) and then make up your margins with smart crafting and trading on viable items, but the inability to make a straightforward sale like that can be… grating.

That said, raising the artificial floor won’t do anything in practice, so… the idea is pointless anyway.

HAVING a floor ‘in practice’ doesn’t do anything other than protect the inept and unlucky, that’s why governments use that tool from the macro economics box in the first place. It really doesn’t work any better in real life than it does in the game…

As I said, I would prefer not to see a floor at all, but if they insist on having one, at least make it one where you could make a copper selling the junk from your bags…. otherwise WHY even have a Trading Post? Why not just make it a ‘shared vendor’ everyone can sell to and buy from? The whole motivator on a ‘market’ is profit.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say…many seems to be getting the wrong idea on the impact of floor price in that raising it will magically allow their item to sell for more. You can post it for more, but no one will buy it if the intrinsic value isn’t there.

illgot.1056:

Grimm Liberty.4206:

I am just saying the ‘Net Floor’ should be ABOVE what the VENDOR PRICE is…
and that is the NEEDED formula for that to happen.

why?

Because currently selling at vendor cost + 1c is losing you money compared to vendoring due to the 15% fee for selling an item on the TP.

What I’d like to see is a fee for posting orders to buy (as opposed to buying existing posts) the same as for posting items (thus making those putting up under-vendor value bids or bidding for account bound items start paying more attention).

I’d also like to see both items and bids for items dump out after a week or so… that’d clear a lot of the trash out after people started seriously losing money reposting bids/items that won’t sell repeatedly.

I think a two-week period would be decent enough. There should be some hard-to-find items that require a decent amount of time to sit.

I think it should just show you what vendor price would be when you’re selling something on TP.

Aion would show you right on the item what it was worth to a vendor. That way you don’t price something like a moron.

Expensive orders being undercut by 1 copper (less than 1% of the order value) makes the 5% listing fee act as a punishment for being first to list. It does not encourage cheaper prices or a healthier market.

For those saying that this is how true competition works: Your ignorance is astounding and you need to exit yourself from this conversation.

The simple fix for this is to allow sellers to lower their prices for free. This will prevent micro-cutters from exploiting the 5% listing fee as protection and it will allow other sellers to retaliate by adjusting their orders down. In fact the market will become healthier, as prices on over-valued items will be driven down quickly.

Also, there should be a minimum price difference between orders. Something little as 1% would prevent people from exploiting micro-cutting.

The game already shows you vendor value for the object in it’s tooltip.

KDragon, if you’re going to truly waltz in here with a superiority complex, then you can take your suggestions to the moon. If a seller wanted to lower his price, then he can. He has to decide whether or not it’s worth taking the hit or not.

Again, you can’t tell me that I can’t sell my objects at a price that I want simply because it costs you to re-post your materials. Removing or allowing people to change the price for free will simply allow the market to spin into a free-fall as opposed to making people have to make a tough choice. (Do I take the cut and pay the extra fee? Or do I give up and vendor it.)

Items in general on the Trading Post are cheap. Very cheap. This is because availability is so wide that there’s a problem with scarcity.

KDragon.3208:

Expensive orders being undercut by 1 copper (less than 1% of the order value) makes the 5% listing fee act as a punishment for being first to list. It does not encourage cheaper prices or a healthier market.

For those saying that this is how true competition works: Your ignorance is astounding and you need to exit yourself from this conversation.

The simple fix for this is to allow sellers to lower their prices for free. This will prevent micro-cutters from exploiting the 5% listing fee as protection and it will allow other sellers to retaliate by adjusting their orders down. In fact the market will become healthier, as prices on over-valued items will be driven down quickly.

Also, there should be a minimum price difference between orders. Something little as 1% would prevent people from exploiting micro-cutting.

Transaction fee punishes those that doesn’t set their selling price properly. If this is not how competition works, please enlighten me…it sounds like you are the ignorant one.

Wazabi.1439

Transaction fee punishes those that doesn’t set their selling price properly. If this is not how competition works, please enlighten me…it sounds like you are the ignorant one.

You can’t set your prices properly if you’re first, because the next one to put it up puts it up for 1c less regardless of how you price yours.

Then why don’t you hold on to it, or price it lower to begin with?

Is it even possible to not be the first one to post?

Freyar.3254:

Then why don’t you hold on to it, or price it lower to begin with?

And if I price it lower they will still put it 1c below me. And if I wait and do the same to others some other idiot will do it to me.

And are you not the idiot that puts it 1c below someone else?

Freyar.3254:

Then why don’t you hold on to it, or price it lower to begin with?

youre talking to big boys, and making yourself sound like a little kid. Its clear you don’t understand what kdragon is saying, though he is 100% correct.

holding onto it changes nothing. lowering the price changes nothing. someone will still undercut you because they can do so and lose only 1 copper.

Relisting costs money, its not fair to the first person who lists it. It should be fifo, and not reward the person who comes last.

The current system needs massive changes.

Omg….the amount of failure in economic education…

Answer me this oh economics expert…what’s stopping me from udder cutting you once you’ve adjusted your price for free? I dare anyone who proposes free relisting to Answer my question to justify it…don’t side step it.

Wazabi.1439:

Answer me this oh economics expert…what’s stopping me from udder cutting you once you’ve adjusted your price for free?

Nothing. That behaviour is encouraged, which is why what KDragon suggests will be achieved:

KDragon.3208:

it will allow other sellers to retaliate by adjusting their orders down. In fact the market will become healthier, as prices on over-valued items will be driven down quickly.

If there’s an actual market for the item in question, pirce on sale offers will eventually be on level with buy orders.

Do you know reducing transaction cost makes speculation easier? How do you intend to address that?

And do you know how price is determined by supply/demand and all these undercutting is just white noise fluctuations? How does that affect the price in e long run?

The issue here is that people are really, REALLY stupid as hell and don’t actually look at the item listing before selling it. They just go sell, see money, and click on it. Or they’re really interested in getting a quick sale and don’t care about profit margins because they didn’t buy the item in the first place – they farmed it manually, and follow the common misconception that if you farm the item yourself, you’re getting it “free” which is completely wrong and borderline kitten

Wazabi.1439:

Omg….the amount of failure in economic education…

Answer me this oh economics expert…what’s stopping me from udder cutting you once you’ve adjusted your price for free? I dare anyone who proposes free relisting to Answer my question to justify it…don’t side step it.

Nothing. This is the goal, here. Do you not have a basic understanding of how capitalism works? Whoever is willing to sell for less will get the sale, this is called a competitive market. You have to fight other sellers economically to make a profit, and this leads to the best value for the consumer. Have a look at how EvE works, that game has the best and most realistic economy of any online game ever.

I don’t 100% support this as it would cut into my profits in playing the market, but that’s just me being selfish. The ability to adjust sell orders competitively would be better for the game overall and lead to a more stable market, you wouldn’t see the huge fluctuations in pricing that we frequently get at the moment.

MrGorkajuice.8391:

Wazabi.1439:

Answer me this oh economics expert…what’s stopping me from udder cutting you once you’ve adjusted your price for free?

Nothing. That behaviour is encouraged, which is why what KDragon suggests will be achieved:

KDragon.3208:

it will allow other sellers to retaliate by adjusting their orders down. In fact the market will become healthier, as prices on over-valued items will be driven down quickly.

If there’s an actual market for the item in question, pirce on sale offers will eventually be on level with buy orders.

I don’t think you understood his point. If free relists were aloud, everything would get infinitely cheaper until they hit the vendor price +1c. Thats a fantastic buyers market sure, but thats not a fun market at all for sellers. Why would I craft a fancy exotic for someone else if I can only sell it for the cost of the mats, or worse, below mat cost? (currently this is the case with literally everything +/- a few copper, so not even fun.)

EDIT: I’d just like to point out while I love that GW2 can have a real thriving economy inside it, the main goal for a game should always be fun. I should enjoy collecting mats and crafting items and enjoy my profit. In the current economy I feel like a sweatshop worker making only a few coppers profit every now and then.

Masterpyro.4310:

EDIT: I’d just like to point out while I love that GW2 can have a real thriving economy inside it, the main goal for a game should always be fun. I should enjoy collecting mats and crafting items and enjoy my profit. In the current economy I feel like a sweatshop worker making only a few coppers profit every now and then.

Can’t be done with the gem system they have in place. That instantly makes everything to do with money extra super srs bsns. If making money is easy, gold loses it’s value. Simple principle of the more there is of something, the less it’s worth. This is how real world exchange rates work, and guild wars 2 money has to work the same way for the concept of the gem store to work.

If they made it so you could just casually make money like that in an easy and fun way, the only thing that would happen is that gold would become the new silver, silver would become the new copper, etc. The easier it is to make, the less it’s going to be worth. This effect would stack cumulatively.

Wazabi.1439:

Do you know reducing transaction cost makes speculation easier? How do you intend to address that?

And do you know how price is determined by supply/demand and all these undercutting is just white noise fluctuations? How does that affect the price in e long run?

Why exactly is it bad to make speculation easier?

Prices always stabilize in the long run. When people have learned from experience what they can realistically get for an item, there’ll be a level they’re not willing to go below, and vice versa.

Keep in mind, allowing players to drop prices free of charge still encourages players to find an appropriate starting price, since noone’s suggesting refunding the difference in listing price caused by your new reduced price.

I totally understand his point…but unfortunately he doesn’t understand economics.

What you and he says happens only under the assumption that everyone will want to undercut. Tell me, will that be true? Only reason someone wants to sell lower is because they have no confidence to sell at a higher price, or that they need the cash fast. If there are sufficient demand for an item, and insufficient demand, what you say won’t happen. There will be fluctuations, and undercutting will only help lower for a short duration. In short, equilibrium price is not affected by that.

However, making transaction cost lower makes speculation easier…which creates a larger variation on price, and increases the probability of someone cornering the market, all bad for the overall players. This is the most significant reason to not allow reporting without cost.

Best way to let a market run is without any restrictions, a true free market. Let the competition sort out the supply and demand price. Inclusive more mechanism and restrictions only impedes the efficiency of the market.

You’re putting up an object to be sold at X price. It isn’t the Post’s fault someone else decides to sell it for less. If you don’t find that “equilibrium” yourself, then why are you complaining about being undercut? Leave it as it is, relist as neccesary. Average prices will adjust over time to account for the increased cost in listing.

Wazabi.1439:

I totally understand his point…but unfortunately he doesn’t understand economics.

What you and he says happens only under the assumption that everyone will want to undercut. Tell me, will that be true? Only reason someone wants to sell lower is because they have no confidence to sell at a higher price, or that they need the cash fast. If there are sufficient demand for an item, and insufficient demand, what you say won’t happen. There will be fluctuations, and undercutting will only help lower for a short duration. In short, equilibrium price is not affected by that.

However, making transaction cost lower makes speculation easier…which creates a larger variation on price, and increases the probability of someone cornering the market, all bad for the overall players. This is the most significant reason to not allow reporting without cost.

Best way to let a market run is without any restrictions, a true free market. Let the competition sort out the supply and demand price. Inclusive more mechanism and restrictions only impedes the efficiency of the market.

You’re giving too much credit to people that play this game. Most are either children or foreigners that don’t understand capitalism. They don’t understand that they need to take into account their time they spent getting items(working), leveling your crafting to the proper level(like earning a degree, you pay your doctor more because he went through more schooling), and your own profit so that you can continue to have the drive to do what you’re doing. That last part is a bit of an issue because people can get stuff just by playing the game which they enjoy, its not the same as working a job. You wouldn’t work 40/hr a week for no reward.

Kids just want to sell their stuff before someone else, they don’t care how they do it.

Dude…I’m a foreigner… Lol.

Wazabi.1439:

Dude…I’m a foreigner… Lol.

“…that doesn’t understand capitalism”? I didn’t just throw that in to be racist lol, a few euro/asian countries dont have capitalism at all so they just dont understand.

Barghaest.3061:

What I’d like to see is a fee for posting orders to buy (as opposed to buying existing posts)…

So you’d like to cut out more of the buying market competition and hurt the buyer and suppliers all together? Seems bad for business…

Let me explain something

The gold sellers aren’t making a majority of their money botting DE’s, running dungeons, or crafting. They have the currency backing to make massive profits soley off the TP. I’m talking 1,000s of gold here. They can absorb the fees (even if you create purchase order fee) and still turn out a healthy profit from sheer mass of market weight. You start adding more fee’s the only people you’re cutting out of the market game is the individual players and it will turn into a market system where prices are run almost unequivocally by gold sellers. I don’t have a corps of chinese employees under me managing all those orders and competitive bidding for a bowl of cabbage and a place to sleep. It can be time consuming and exhausting, but at least I feel like I’m doing my part to keep the market competitive and eat away at their profits.

If you’re curious how this plays out in a mature game setting take a look at EVE online’s markets.

The biggest difference is that Guild Wars 2 has a single global market while EVE’s markets are localized. In EVE someone can bring goods out into a remote location and charge what they want to get away from the 1c (in EVE’s case 1 ISK) undercutting.

Basically, Guild Wars 2’s trading system is like station trading in EVE – to be successful over the long term one has to constantly monitor their buy and sell orders and to adjust quickly when undercut by 1c.

Since there are so many people active in the market right now it is a ‘full time’ thing to keep your items at the top of the list. I can totally understand how this is frustrating for some people.

I am undecided (but open minded) about the idea of introducing minimum % adjustments to a price lower. I guess it depends how it would be done. Would the percentage be tied to the vendor price of the item (the base price) or would it be depending on the list price?

If I posted something for 10g and it’s vendor price was 1s and there was a 10% requirement in pricing, would someone have to list at 9g or at 9.9g? If the percentage (10%, 5%, 1%, whatever) is tied to the original posting point… hmm. Actually, I am partial to that now that I think about it more.

In terms of regulating the market I think it forces people to make strategic decisions when it comes to market PvP – and, yes, this is very much player versus player. Going back to EVE Online some of the most brutal and expensive forms of player versus player action was on the markets. While someone may lose a ship worth, let’s say a hundred million, on the markets people could, and would, lose billions (or make billions.)

The market is very much a player versus player framework.

The 1c pricing differential thing rewards the attentive and players who put more time into the market. Placing a straight up minimal % rewards players who are not as active in the market since the market would wind up switching to a first in first out (FIFO) system. That way anyone could just list their goods and walk away knowing that they’ll sell in an orderly manner assuming the lowest ‘reasonable’ price point was reached.

So the question is, how much player involvement in terms of time investment should be rewarded?

WatchTheShow.7203:

What’s even funnier is if an item would sell at an NPC for 30 copper, and someone is trying to buy the same item for 15 copper, it won’t let you sell it to them.

Even funnier than THAT is when said item is something like tin, which only a complete idiot (or someone quitting crafting) would buy from a vendor to sell at a loss ;)

Wazabi.1439:

Do you know reducing transaction cost makes speculation easier? How do you intend to address that?

And do you know how price is determined by supply/demand and all these undercutting is just white noise fluctuations? How does that affect the price in e long run?

Truth is, that current system encourages speculants and punishes crafters. So of course, speculants are happy, and not wanting to change that. Adding EvE trading system, with small fixed fee for lowing price, and 5 min timer on change(or 10 min) will help crafters. And, rises buy orders price, because it will be easier to sell without 5% loss on price change.

Maxster.4521:

Wazabi.1439:

Do you know reducing transaction cost makes speculation easier? How do you intend to address that?

And do you know how price is determined by supply/demand and all these undercutting is just white noise fluctuations? How does that affect the price in e long run?

Truth is, that current system encourages speculants and punishes crafters. So of course, speculants are happy, and not wanting to change that. Adding EvE trading system, with small fixed fee for lowing price, and 5 min timer on change(or 10 min) will help crafters. And, rises buy orders price, because it will be easier to sell without 5% loss on price change.

only because crafting does not really create superior items compared to drops. That is an itemization issue, not a TP issue.

illgot.1056:

Maxster.4521:

Wazabi.1439:

Do you know reducing transaction cost makes speculation easier? How do you intend to address that?

And do you know how price is determined by supply/demand and all these undercutting is just white noise fluctuations? How does that affect the price in e long run?

Truth is, that current system encourages speculants and punishes crafters. So of course, speculants are happy, and not wanting to change that. Adding EvE trading system, with small fixed fee for lowing price, and 5 min timer on change(or 10 min) will help crafters. And, rises buy orders price, because it will be easier to sell without 5% loss on price change.

only because crafting does not really create superior items compared to drops. That is an itemization issue, not a TP issue.

I agree, TP is only a part of a problem. But it adds to uselessness of crafting.

Wazabi.1439:

I see nothing wrong about it…if they want to do that for whatever reason, all the better. Just buy and list it up again. The more people doesn’t knows how to trade, the better for those that knows how to trade.

In theory, maybe. In practice, it just leads to one giant mess.

@Maxster.4521
Any investments or speculation involves 2 factor: expected return, and risk (standard deviation). Most of us work it out intuitively, but professional investors quantify these things. Inclusion of a fee reduces the expected return, requiring a larger upward movement of price in order to break even or make profits, while incurring an automatic lost upon purchasing.

Removing fees makes it easier to make profit from upward price movements…hence less risk involved. Now put this into the context of cornering the market to artificially raise the price. With the fee, the speculator needs to raise the price by x% (transaction fee) more…is that harder or easier? Then we have a market of 2 million participants (rather than 20000) to move the price back to it’s “fair” value (equilibrium or whatever you want to call it). This is a reason that there were cries to increase a higher transaction cost on forex to reduce speculative activity.

Any market that is not perfectly efficient encourages speculation. Speculators spends time to extracts/knows information that is not available to the public, or create the opportunity…or just simply taking risk. These action generate a possibility of greater reward to those who knows how to do it…off course they are encouraged to do so..not just here, but in any game. Warren Buffet admitted that if the market were efficient, he wouldn’t have been what he is today.

Unfortunately, a perfectly efficient market is just a theoretical concept…it doesn’t exist in the real world. Anyone that can design such a market is worthy of a nobel prize.

Wazabi.1439

Any investments or speculation involves 2 factor: expected return, and risk (standard deviation). Most of us work it out intuitively, but professional investors quantify these things. Inclusion of a fee reduces the expected return, requiring a larger upward movement of price in order to break even or make profits, while incurring an automatic lost upon purchasing.

Removing fees makes it easier to make profit from upward price movements…hence less risk involved. Now put this into the context of cornering the market to artificially raise the price. With the fee, the speculator needs to raise the price by x% (transaction fee) more…is that harder or easier? Then we have a market of 2 million participants (rather than 20000) to move the price back to it’s “fair” value (equilibrium or whatever you want to call it). This is a reason that there were cries to increase a higher transaction cost on forex to reduce speculative activity.

Any market that is not perfectly efficient encourages speculation. Speculators spends time to extracts/knows information that is not available to the public, or create the opportunity…or just simply taking risk. These action generate a possibility of greater reward to those who knows how to do it…off course they are encouraged to do so..not just here, but in any game. Warren Buffet admitted that if the market were efficient, he wouldn’t have been what he is today.

Unfortunately, a perfectly efficient market is just a theoretical concept…it doesn’t exist in the real world. Anyone that can design such a market is worthy of a nobel prize.

Don’t forget, gw2 is a game, and market there is artifcial. Also, items like armor and weapons, have a diminishing demand, that could go up only if there is more players joining(or alts). Supply could be lowered by more people giving up on crafting(except for leveling alts).
Also, speculations is part of any market in mmo games(and in real world), and for gw2.
For expample, EvE. Here you can lost everything, from ship to implants, so there is neverending demand for ships, ship modules, implants(not crafted). Also there is many ways to generate income for playes, mining, crafting, explorations(valuable drops from npc), trading(buying from hubs, and selling in other systems), missions(quests) etc. And, of course, speculations. Some of those lowrisk(only npc as enemies), some highrisk(lowsec space).
So, market in EvE is less artificial, and there is many ways to increase purchase power for players.
As for GW2, there is much lower and diminishing demand. And a lot less ways to increase purchase power. And, current system on sell orders, benefits those with greater purchase power, hence speculants. Crafters, for obvious reasons, having a less purchase power than non-crafters(who sells all gathered resources).
Speculant, with a much greater purchase power, can trade in many different positions, compensating loss of relisting one or two. Crafter – can’t, having a lot less purchase power. So, money put in crafted items is on hold; or crafter can just relist order, for a much less profit, and nothing to compensate.
Speculation on margin between buy and sell orders – very profitable.
Lik copper ore, buy order for 17, sell order for 21.
For 100 units – 2100-1700-105-210=85c.
Or platinum ore, buy order for 9, sell order for 12.
For 100 units – 1200-900-60-120=120c.
Not much, but very fast.

At the very least the listing AND ordering floor should be raised to account for all the fees involved.

Honestly, not even to protect those too impatient to actually check the math, but just because I think the current system is messing with perceived value on both ends. Consumers placing orders should understand immediately that the item they’re looking for has a minimum value. Frankly there’s no functionality to people being able to order a 1S vending item at 10C anyway.

For craftables I wouldn’t mind being able to see/be reminded of the market value of the materials at a glance, either. Maybe a “More Information” link on items, listing different costs, how many units are on the market, histories, etcetera.

It’s also possible that one solution to the plummeting prices could be to just plain stop people from putting things on the TP while they’re not in a town. It wouldn’t be a pretty solution, sure, but people just throwing crap up there like it’s free storage/a portable vendor, just hitting the ‘match lowest price’ thing is an issue.

Unless ANet wants prices to be this low; I really don’t mind the concept of the impatient selling things on the cheap and consumers saving money on drops, but it’s a shame how it disadvantages crafters.

Did none of you even read what the original post in this topic was about? You all started talking about how dumb it was that people could put in buy orders that couldn’t be fulfilled and items that wouldn’t sell at any price.

The OP was talking about items that sell well (say you know that they sell quickly because you have sold them in the past). Then suddenly you see when you go to sell the item that someone has undercut the current selling price (a price that people are definitely willing to pay) by 5s or more. Except it wasn’t just someone who sold the item at 5s less, it was someone that listed 107 of the item.

I have seen this happen before, where an item that was selling well at 55s was suddenly reduced to 50s and stayed there. The profit margin was cut (it was a craftable item) by 50% if you were willing to make conservative offers that wouldn’t necessarily be filled right away, and they were completely ruined for anyone using the “buy it now” feature. The 15% that is taken out of your profits makes buying and relisting his incredibly undercut items end up costing you 3.25s per item, so you can’t really do that either.

The worst part is that 10% of the TP fee is not mentioned, and the other 5% isn’t exactly shouted at you. So you don’t even know if the person that undercut everyone else by such a large amount even made the decision realizing what he was doing, because he might not have even known to calculate the TP operating costs when he was looking at what price he could profitably sell the item.