Guild Wars 2

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Sometimes items have such a large spread (look at precs and legendaries) because there’s too few of the items or because buyers refuse to pay more than X and sellers refuse to sell for less than Y. That wont change regardless of changes to listing methods.

I’ll provide an example of how it would work for a precursor (specifically Dusk), but some assumptions will need to be made.

Assumptions:

• A total of 10 Dusks have been sold in the last 24 hours (John Smith gave data similar to this a few months back in a different thread)
• More items were sold to Buy Orders than were purchased from Sell Listings (6 from BO / 4 from SL)
• The Buy Order price was 866g03s97c (current highest BO at the time of this post)
• The Sell Listing price was 919g98s99c (current lowest SL at the time of this post)
• Buy Order and Sell Listing prices remain constant, to the prices above, at the time of a new listing
• A fixed % of 25% will be used for the example (keep in mind this % is used on the gap between the average price of the items that actually sold and the current Sell Listing, not the gap between Buy Orders and Sell Listings)

Example:

• Running Average price = Total sales / Total number sold (during the time period of 24h)
  • (6 * 8660397 + 4 * 9199899) / 10 = 887g61s98c
• Price Gap = Current Sell Listing – Running Average Price
  • 9199899 – 8876198 = 32g37s01c
• Increment = Price Gap * 25%
  • 323701 * .25 = 8g09s25c (this calculates to 0.8% of the current Sell Listing)
• Next lowest listing price = Current Sell Listing price – Increment
  • 9199899 – 80925 = 911g89s74c

In this example, the player base has determined that the price they’re willing to sell Dusk’s at is actually closer to the Buy Order price than the current Sell Listing price, because players actually sold Dusk’s that way.

With the calculation of the new increment, undercutting by 1c isn’t a viable option anymore. So, the new seller has to determine if they are willing to lose ~8g to undercut someone, or if they’re willing to wait in line behind the seller that is currently at ~920g.

As more items are sold in one direction or another, the increment will go up or down and the price should move closer to equilibrium.

As the price moves closer to equilibrium, the difference between Buy Orders and Sell Listings closes, the prices of items sold come closer together, the price gap decreases and the increment decreases (to a minimum of 1c).

It all depends on how Buyers and Sellers actually buy items and the prices they pay for them / sell them for.

Bravo, more food for thought +1

Wanze.8410:

Mostly, yes. High velocity markets dont need a 1% rule.

What about the idea of an increment being a function of bid/ask spread instead of time?

I believe this would leave your high velocity markets alone and would encourage markets with large spreads to converge quicker to a stable price and remove the negligible undercut except when the spread is small rendering it no longer negligible. I believe it would make it very difficult to game the system as well.

Nike.2631:

The controlling factor could be Time.

Use the lowest that is true:
Item has not sold in the last 72 hours — 5% undercut required
If the item has sold in the last 72 hours — 3% undercut required
If the item has sold in the last 12 hours — 2% undercut required
If the item has sold in the last 2 hours — 1% undercut required
If the item has sold in the last 20 minutes — 1c undercut required

I find it interesting the majority of the people arguing against a simple flat ~1%, are seemingly ok with a much more complicated system with increments up to 5 times larger than 1%. Is this because you believe majority of items on the TP trade every 20 mins and the system for the most part will have 1c increments?

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Want to know something funny? I don’t want the Trading Post to change either. I think it performs its function perfectly fine the way it is. John proposed a discussion to see if there was a way to regulate pricing that wouldn’t cripple the Trading Post.

I had an idea….one that I’ve thought about quite a bit. Do I want it to actually be implemented? No!!!! Would I be ok if it were? Yes.

There are some definite benefits to the system I suggested, but there are some definite drawbacks to it as well. I placed the suggestion in this thread for discussion. That’s all.

… and it is being discussed

Charismatic Harm.9683:

I agree that the cons outweigh the pros, but I have yet to see any other ideas from other players that attempt to change the system where it doesn’t stem from a selfish point of view.

I tried to look at the Trading Post from a point of view where it would still function, add some Pros, and where the Cons weren’t so detrimental that it would lead people to discontinue use of the Trading Post.

I think the system would only work BECAUSE there’s a global Trading Post. The price of an item would climb to a point where players accept buying goods at that price and sellers accept selling goods at that price. I think it’s possible for the price to reach that point more quickly than in the current system. Not every item would reach equilibrium quickly….but many would.

The biggest Con is that buyers will now have to wait for their items.

Another idea not stemmed from a selfish point of view…
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Min-1-price-difference/3873421

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Aidan Savage.2078:

An auction house doesnt work, not would it work in GW2.

The difference in the system I suggested and a true Auction House is that in an Auction House, the seller starts the auction with a low bid and buyers outbid each other. Therefore, an Auction House can have multiple of the same item being sold at the same time with various highest bids. In the system I suggested, there is only one item being bid on and sellers choose to sell to that highest bid or not.

If buyers aren’t getting their items from sellers, then obviously their price isn’t high enough. If a buyer wants an item bad enough, they will continue to outbid other buyers in order to get that item until a seller comes along and sells it to them.

The difference in the two systems is the key.

There is another major issue here. It would require sellers to be online to sell when the buying is good. Say people in California love to pay a premium for their goods and prices always go up when they are awake and listing buy orders. Those in the same time zone would get first crack follow by those in the Pacific. Anyone that goes to sleep early on the west coast of the US would be hosed. I believe this would discourage most casual gamers.

Aidan Savage.2078:

In fact, the price of ectos, since the time of my last post, have dropped to just 1c over the buy order prices. Now it’s a matter of time to see if they shift even further down, or rise back up in price.

Higher priced ectos only have a 1 copper difference when a person sells at “Meet Highest Buyer” price, but is selling more than they want to buy. Any unpurchased items will be listed at that price causing the 1 copper difference. This is usually corrected quickly by buyers because 1 copper does not matter at the price point.

Astral Projections.7320:

Is it? If you walked into a store and tried to buy something for $90 dollars and they refused and told you it had to be the $100 dollar item even though the absolutely identical $90 one was sitting on the shelf, you would walk away with the $100 one, perfectly happy?

Most people wouldn’t you know.

Following the idea of this topic a more appropriate price difference would be at most a dollar difference on a $100 product. I would argue most consumers would neither be aware of nor care about the difference between $100 vs $99.50 vs $99

Astral Projections.7320:

Behellagh.1468:

If you are buying immediately, they price isn’t a priority. You will buy an item that’s been lumped into the “cheapest” bin, a bin that is “subjectively” the same price.

I’m still seeing this:

“So how about this, you bin closely priced items and if that bin is the current best price then execute orders from that bin as a FIFO. You can even set bin size in a non linear fashion relative to price. This way you don’t directly restrict players to a minimum difference in order price but since all items within the bin amount from the best price are lumped together and then ordered FIFO wise you could have a slightly higher priced item being sold first because it staked out that price range first.”

In other words, the slightly higher price (the $100 item) is sold before the lesser priced item (the $90 item) regardless of what the customer wants. The customer is going to want to buy the $90 item but is forced to buy the $100 item because it’s in the same price bin and has been there longer.

I had this same idea and think it would be a fair solution.

John Smith.4610:

I like your thought process and it’s a smart idea to attempt to introduce n-testing into the TP to find the values. The downside is it would be a lot of work to implement without any evidence that we wouldn’t end up keeping the same system we have.

I have a simple and non intrusive idea for collecting more data or evidence, but due to the subjective nature of the research would prefer not to post it on a forum. Is there a better way to make a suggestion that is not public knowledge?

John Smith.4610:

Let’s simplify the debate a bit. We have a lot of variables in discussion, let’s say that TP Fees are still a factor, but controlling inflation and gold sinks are not.

Furthermore let’s assume that we all agree that 1c holds a virtual non-value on goods above X price. How do you determine a system that effectively chooses what an appropriate value is that doesn’t
1. Injure the market 2. Discourage use of the TP
Note: this value may be algorithmic, but you must PROVE the values are effective. You may assume you have perfect data of the TP if you need it to support a hypothesis.

I believe my following link proves the problem with a constant fee and the need for an algorithmic value as a function of the cost, no one has commented otherwise:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Min-1-price-difference/3873034

And now for the more difficult part of determining what that value should be:

Any change to system already in place will introduce risk. Any risk could, but doesn’t have to, injure the current market. Based off of the feedback from this forum I would believe any change would discourage use of the TP in the short term, people fear change, but in the long term people want to make gold and will come back. So if possible I would not change the current system in place until a new system was derived and tested.

How do you derive a new system with out changing the old?

Every update numerous items are magically added to the world that never existed before. These are new markets with completely new traders and no expectation. These items would make an amazing test bed for a new system without breaking the old, without introducing risk, and losing traders of the old system. I have no idea if this is actually feasible to implement, but I will continue as if it is. I would chose my initial test percentage base off of already existing healthy markets that constantly trade at prices where the difference is always 1c, e.g., Iron Ore. Iron Ore trades at about 1s the bids here increment at 1%. The Iron Ore market is not imploding, traders are making money and goods are being exchanged. I would start here at 1% expecting higher priced market to reflect the health of the iron ore market.

What if 1% is wrong?

You can adjust. 1% was close but we think we can do better. This is implemented on new item.

You can abort. Simply roll back the markets to the old system. If any of this is accepted I have some ideas on how this can be done gracefully. Opening up previously closed off gaps in the price could create major problems.

Why this might not work?
Most likely this will be overly complex and too expensive to implement.

This solution would allow for isolated test market and introduce minimal risk until tested at which point all risk would be mitigated. It allows traders to be eased into a new system with out being scared off. It provides for an exit plan in case of failure.

I encourage any comments to this suggestion.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

A variable increment of 1% (or any %) is perceived as “good” if:

• ______________________________________ (Please fill in the blank with a statement that is from the perspective of the game as a whole and not the individual)

• You are buyer waiting for a 1% less sell listing
• You are a seller waiting for a 1% more buy listing
• You are the economy and you want inflation to be kept in check by keeping gold faucets in balance with gold sinks.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

If there’s a difference in price greater than 1c or 1%, it’s a moot point. Neither system applies. The seller “created their own system”.

Are you suggesting that it should be even greater than 1%? 5%? 10%?

I am saying that a constant increment is bad whether its 1 copper or 1 gold there will always be a price point where that change in price does not make an item more likely to sell. This is fixed by making the bid increment a function of the price point. It doesn’t matter if it is 1% 5% 10% 100%. I am sure John Smith and his Team can figure out a good percentage, but 1% seems reasonable. 1% says all markets will act exactly as markets valued at 1s and less.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Equations and math….

I don’t feel that players in the market to buy goods over 100g (just so we keep to the same price point) will view the price of 99g99s99c (current 1c model) much differently than 99g (1% model). If they’re going to be spending ~100g….they’re spending 100g.

From a buyer’s perspective either system looks pretty much the same.

From a seller’s perspective, the 1c market is preferable so they can “jump ahead in line”, but in a 1% system, they’ll still do it. 1% vs 1c won’t make any difference.

From an economic and game perspective, the 1c model is preferred as well due to the fact that more gold is sunk per transaction, thus combating inflation better.

The same equation could be used to prove a buyer is more willing to make a purchase when noticing a greater difference in price.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Charismatic Harm.9683:

the 1c undercutting system actually does a better job of keeping inflation in check and as an added bonus, keeps market prices more stable and less volitile.

So volatility is caused by more items changing hands, which means more items being listed, which means more listing fees, which means more of a gold sink. Wheres your math on that?

I guess I needed to be more clear with that last statement.

What I meant by volatility was that the PRICE of an item is less volatile. As you’ve stated before, items listed with a 1c difference between them give the illusion of a stack, which means as buyers and sellers view those prices, they view them as all being the same price. With the 1% model, prices would be more volatile because they would be going up and down in greater increments.

The math I showed was in regards to the amount of gold sunk by the system at the various prices and the impact sinking less gold could / would have on the system and economy. You chose to ignore that math though and focus on a single word, or selection of words, in an attempt to discredit what I had shown a few lines above that.

The point of my post was to show that a 1c undercut is NOT insignificant to the system as a whole, whereas a 1% undercut IS significant to the amount of gold sunk. I think I was effectively able to illustrate that point. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is, of course, your prerogative.

Prices move up and down because items are better priced and consumers are buying, so the system is collecting their 10% tax instead of items sitting stale on the market.

Schizo.1375:

1% wouldn’t stop people from undercutting. From 1g to 99s still serves the same purpose as undercutting by 1c. And the larger you increase the percentage to make it not worth undercutting prices start becoming more unstable as they are now divided into larger and larger chunks.

Again undercutting is not the issue, it’s the constant differentials between listing prices

John Smith.4610:

Let’s simmer down a bit, this is getting necessarily heated. I believe the issue in question is, does a minimum increment of of 1c effectively represent a different willingness to pay or willingness to buy from the original price being compared against, and does that answer change relative to the end price of the item.

Obviously, in some cases 1c is just fine, but is that true in all cases? Why or Why not?
It’s much harder to prove that it is the same price because “technically” it’s a different price, so the origin lies on those who believe that it’s not an effective difference. I think an argument can be made somewhere, but lets do it as academically as possible. have to run, but I’ll be back to check on this shortly.

Here is my best approach at an academic explanation taken from a consumer point of view. Sorry for the horrible formatting of the equations.

My assumptions:
The value to a consumer is directly related to his willingness to buy
consumer perceived value(V) = willingness to buy

Value is a function of Benefit/Cost
V = consumer perceived benefit(B)/consumer perceived cost ( C )

There are two of the exact same product X and Y

Those two items are listed on the trading post 1c apart

To derive the change in willingness to buy/pay for an item with 1c difference:
Since the items are the same the consumer benefit is the same
Bx = By = B

Since 1 copper difference
Cy – Cx = 1

To find delta V
Vx = B/Cx
Vy = B/Cy

Vx-Vy = (B/Cx)-(B/Cy)

delta V = (BCy/CxCy) – (BCx/CxCy)

delta V = (BCy – BCx)/CxCy

delta V = B(Cy-Cx)/CxCy

delta V = B(1)/CxCy

delta V = B/CxCy

The change in willingness to buy is equal to a constant benefit divided by the product of the costs given all of the above assumptions. This proves as cost increases to a very large number the difference in willingness to buy will approach zero.

Hopefully my math is correct here as it has been a while.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

the 1c undercutting system actually does a better job of keeping inflation in check and as an added bonus, keeps market prices more stable and less volitile.

So volatility is caused by more items changing hands, which means more items being listed, which means more listing fees, which means more of a gold sink. Wheres your math on that?

Brother Grimm.5176:

(Am I having deja vu or has this poor equine been roughed up in here previously?)

Not unless you provide some links

Obtena.7952:

That’s not answering my question: What is the benefit of your proposal? Simply to adhere to your idea of design intent? This is why we should lose margin?

Currently, when you post a listing at 1 copper less than 100 gold item, what do you lose (Money, A quick sale, Nothing)? The answer is you gain a quick sale time at the cost of 1c. This is a great steal of a bargain. So, there is no reason to ever jump on an already existing queue. You should be able to buy a quick sale, but it should come at the cost of margin. Currently the price is effectively free. Since none of the queues are being used why do they exist at all? Why not allow infinite precision at the cheaper values so we could do the same hack there? e.g. I want to sell at 10 copper, dang someone just undercut me at 9.99999 copper. Ah, the joke is on them someone else just bid 9.99998. (seems silly right?)

This all comes back to the same problem of the trading post operating differently at high values than it does at low values because the bid increment is insignificant at high values.

Obtena.7952:

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

Because the stack is against the intent of the design as already documented via fixes in the queue structure

Obtena.7952:

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yes! All users of the trading post should pay a significant amount to begin a new queue. This would remove the 10 queues of 1 items each within 1 copper of each other effectively creating a stack because the last person to list will be the first to sell.

Obtena.7952:

I’m still waiting for two things:

1. Why this should be done (because the 1c increment isn’t a problem)
2. Why sellers should lose more margin than they do now under the proposed change to get the same opportunity they get now to be first in Queue

1. 1c increments at large amounts is a problem as outlined previously
2. They only get to be first in the Stack if they sell last

FenrirSlakt.3692:

I find this thread amusing and somewhat educational.

Keep it up, guys.

Please, feel free to add some input to our friendly discussion

Schizo.1375:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

100g and 99g99s99c are discrete numbers, but not discrete perceived values

Well the thing about perception is that it depends on your perception (yay tautologies). For me your statement is true. To me 100g and 99g99s99c are are close enough that I don’t care. It’s only value to me is that it helps move my product faster. However, I was raised by a mother who’s Sunday morning routine was to cut out all the coupons in the paper, regardless if she regularly shopped at that store or not, in order to save a few pennies here and there with the belief that they add up. And they do whether that sum is large enough to be worth anything to you is based on your perception. And if we are going to take various perceptions into account the best way to do that is let people set the price at whatever they want. And if it results in slower moving of goods for people who get undercut, than its an unfortunate side affect for the seller but is better for the economy over all.

I will chalk you up to agreeing to the foundation of what I consider to be a problem, but that you disagree with the statement “a 1c undercut is a negligible way to buy yourself to the front of the queue” being a problem.

To reiterate “the Problem”:
If the perceived value of 100g, 100g1c, 100g2c, and 100g3c is the same and there is 1 item list at each amount, then the resulting structure is priority queue behaving exactly as a LIFO stack and not a FIFO queue. I has already been documented a LIFO stack is not the intent of the trading post design.

100g and 99g99s99c are discrete numbers, but not discrete perceived values

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

False, he had it correct: C -> B -> A

Schizo.1375:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Undercutting by negligible amounts imitates a stack

Okay so then I would counter this by saying that cutting by 1c (we’ve already covered what is and is not negligible) doesn’t imitate a stack.

Lets look at an an example…

Person A puts an item up for 10g
Person B puts an item up for 10g thinking the first one will sell quickly
Person C would rather not wait and puts in an item for 99s 99c

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a priority queue, as the TP works now the sell order would be
C-> A -> B

So we can’t call it a stack as this is not accurate. Instead the lowest item is sold first.
The advantages of this are….
*Lower prices for the consumer as orders keep getting undercut
*Prevents sellers from manipulating the market by posting at ridiculously high prices as it is easy for others to come in and sell their more reasonably priced goods
*The undercutter is able to sell his products faster for reduced profit if he is impatient

Disadvantages
*People that post first at higher values have to wait a bit longer to sell their item for what they think it’s worth.

Since anywhere else in game 100g == 99s99c, it should sell

A -> B -> C

mtpelion.4562:

That’s news to me. Care to elaborate?
Last I checked, there was only one cancel button and only one post button. I haven’t found the one that lets me choose why I’m relisting.

Implementation does not always reflect intent

Edit: A 1 copper vs 1% undercut does reflect intent

Undercutting by negligible amounts imitates a stack

Wanze.8410:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

mtpelion.4562:

Let’s not also forget that the entire economy benefits when people relist their items.

There is no difference between relisting to set a new value and relisting to get to the front of the stack post the lowest listing, because either way, a relist functions as a gold sink.

Fixed it for you.

Please don’t adjust my posts

There is a difference between relisting to set a new value and relisting to get to the front of the stack.

Schizo.1375:

Obviously the TP got some things wrong. Once it was acting like a stack, as you quoted earlier. They recognized this was a bug and fixed it. If the devs saw its current state as a problem then you can bet they would fix it right away. Because a broken economy is a broken game. But its not broken, it has done nothing but show it is quite capable of taking care of itself.

This is not to say that the TP can’t be changed. Any suggestions for improvements are actually accepted in this forum besides popular belief. But it has been shown that your fix isn’t a fix but instead hurts what is already working. And rather then going back to the drawing board to come up with something new that addresses the flaws brought forward you cling tighter to your argument and ignore our responses.

Perhaps this topic should have been started expressing a problem and not a solution. I am not 100% attached to the “1% min bid” idea, but I 100% believe the current queue system is broken at high value items.

Wanze.8410:

so whats the score?

so far 2-2 with explicit responses.

I have counted you and MeatWagon with disagreeing with the foundation of the problem

mtpelion.4562:

Let’s not also forget that the entire economy benefits when people relist their items.

There is a difference between relisting to set a new value and relisting to get to the front of the stack.

Schizo.1375:

I will grant you that this is a possibility. Designs don’t always work out like we think they will when put into practice.

However there is no way that they haven’t noticed how the TP behaves by now. If they haven’t said anything or made any changes to this within the game’s first year, let alone approaching it’s second year, then the system is working as intended.

Also, priority queue.

And some how the entire game is getting an overhaul April 15, but the trading post got everything brilliantly correct the first go at it <sarcasm>. If all devs always noticed all problem then they wouldn’t have a forum. Maybe they realize its a problem, but believe that no one cares.

Wanze.8410:

2 items posted at 100g is a stack of offers.
1 item each posted at 100g and 99g99s99c, is not a stack as they are not at the same value.

Again you have already been chalked up to disagreeing with the foundation of the problem.

Wanze.8410:

If you read the whole topic, you will also see, that only the OP complained about being undercut. All other posters said its working as intended and working well.

I did not post the topic as related, but only John Smiths comment. My complaint, again, is not with undercutting.

here is another post stating the same thing.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Undercutting-any-solution/2636921

It is possible they did not realize how the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential and how it creates an effective LIFO stack at high values.

John Smith.4610:

Is the argument that undercutting is negative because it’s inconvenient and the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential?

Or is the argument that undercutting is a side effect of some other issue?

Or both or neither?

Notice, he left the question open encouraging discussion and the possibility of a better design. Also notice, his comment on the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential.

This topic is related to the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential and how it creates an effective LIFO stack at high values.

Schizo.1375:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

This forum is based on the following statement:

100g outside the trading post is effectively equal to 99g99s99c.

If you do not agree with this statement, please make that disagreement known and move on. If you would like to make any other statement please acknowledge your agreement with the above statement.

This is a public forum. We are entitled to share our opinions just the same as you are. You are entitled to defend your opinion, not ask others who don’t, and can refut your claims, to leave so that you can speak only with those who agree with you. Which you have yet to find some one who will.

It is a public forum, but any other posts are really considered off topic. There is really no point expressing opinions if you don’t agree with the foundation of the problem.

… another relevant John Smith post

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Undercutting-any-solution/2635255

Wanze.8410:

But this is a forum about the trading post, where 100g is effectively unequal to 99g99s99c.

I will chalk this up to you disagree, thanks for your post.

This forum is based on the following statement:

100g outside the trading post is effectively equal to 99g99s99c.

If you do not agree with this statement, please make that disagreement known and move on. If you would like to make any other statement please acknowledge your agreement with the above statement.

Assuming no taxes or fees….

If I sell 1000 items at 1s for a total 10g
… I am rightfully undercut
they sell 1000 items at 99c for a total of 9g90s

Notice a 1c undercut at low levels will cause a 10s undercut in bulk. This differential should remain the same regardless of whether I sell 1000 items at 1s or 1 item at 10g.

Wanze.8410:

Whats wrong with inflation? Its hyperinflation, you have to look out for.
Do you think we have hyperinflation in GW2? I dont.

My only reference to inflation is the relationship between inflation and flat rates , i.e., over time inflation will cause a flat rate to become negligible. This is why the taxes and fees are percentages and why flat rates are causing the current trading post to degrade to an effective LIFO stack.

mtpelion.4562:

Wait… did you honestly just admit to not knowing what you suggested?

I haven’t had my coffee yet, so I want to be sure that you just said that you didn’t say you said what you said.

I honestly said that and your coffee is still off topic. Please show how dealing with percentages removes the copper completely and causes inflation.

Schizo.1375:

This is not off topic. This is a valid result of your proposed change whether you intend it or not.

Really? Copper increments still exists at values of 1s and less, so how have they been removed.

The proposed solutions does not cause inflation, but provides an answer to inflation.

mtpelion.4562:

You do realize that if you remove the lowest denomination of currency, you will simply have a new lowest denomination of currency (this time a percent instead of finite point)?

Given time, this same argument will crop up about why the minimum bid is 1% when it should be 2% to prevent all those people from undercutting by 1% which is an insignificant amount. You start down this road and you wind up like those many African nations that have to pass laws that simply drop zeros off of their currency because the lowest bill is for 1,000,000,000,000.

Please read the forum in its entirety if you would like to participate. This post is off topic. No one said to remove the lowest denomination of currency.

Wanze.8410:

Price spreads between sell and buy listings usually arent close together because of the fees and taxes. So its usually at least 15%. If its over 15%, flippers will eventually correct that profit margin, if its under 15%, its a declining market.

False, in a healthy market buy listing will meet sell listing. And the 15% tax/fees just mean no gap will be more than 15%, which actually isn’t true also. A margin greater than 15% happens when the market is really slow.