Website & Forums An clarification at IRL trading rules in a post 2.1.3 economy.

Intro
This post seeks to address two major problems that have plagued whaling in Wynncraft ever since the 2.1.3 update, also known as the Wardrobe Wonders update.

I want to give feedback, focusing on a clarification on trading between store purchases and in-game items, and on a more minor point, more consistency in Silverbull pricing.

It is my view that there is no meaning to excessive restrictions and constraints for consumers trying to utilise the existing purchase options.


Background Information
Important information that I'll be referencing later.

Spoiler: Rule & Pricing as of 25-12-12

IRL Trading Regulations

Silverbull Pricing (US)

1.
It would be good for clarification on the direct exchange between items in-game and items purchased from the store. This rule is confusing in its logic, and a total liberalisation would have a positive effect relative to the inconvenient half-measure currently taken.

Spoiler: Paradoxical logic in the rules

As the copied section of the IRL Trading rules earlier showed, they had named an explicit exception in Silverbull shares, with the logic for the exception explained to me as exchanges with Silverbull are

and thus another way of trading with LE.

However, this logic can be applied to far more things.

Since the release of Wardrobe Wonders, Silverbull Shares can be exchanged in-game for store items like Bombs, Crates, and Ranks.
It can be thus interpreted that exchanges with other store items such as Bombs, Crates, and Ranks are in effect just a more direct way of trading, skipping the step of currency exchange.

Utilising the exchange of mythics for a rank as an example, we can show similarities in a traditional exchange and a store-purchase exchange.

In this case, we will use Hero Rank and a hypothetical expensive Shiny as an example.

It leads to the same result, with the benefit of increased simplification, yet it is arbitrarily forbidden by the rules.

Spoiler: Benefits of a liberalisation of store-to-game trading

First, and most clearly expressed, is simplification. The exchange of different units of currency is much more significant than just simple number conversion. While Liquid Emeralds have stayed relatively stable due to the hard work of the CT in preventing inflation, Silverbull shares can fluctuate drastically, varying with updates, festivals, or just someone dumping a particularly large amount into the market, as would happen for large exchanges. There is also the important consideration that payment cannot be rendered immediately when LE exchanges are done with Silverbull as a substitute, as Silverbull needs time to liquidate in the market, or a buy order needs time to fill. Players with those specific goals in mind are able to achieve them far more conveniently than a LE & Silverbull-only trading system would allow.

Other than preventing losses to arbitrage for the playerbase, this will not have a major impact on Wynncraft's income, for the ultimate expense is comparable. In all scenarios listed above, approximately $60 is spent by one party, whether it be the Silverbull bought in the market, or directly spent by the buyer for the seller.

It's hypothesised that this will also reduce moderation workload. The implementation of Wardrobe Wonders' Silverbull-to-store-items system had a notable and known effect on curbing IRL trading amidst active players. No one would risk a ban when a legal option is available.
However, if the legal option was especially inconvenient, some would still use the logically reasonable but legally forbidden option. While I cannot name anyone, I am aware of LE-to-rank exchanges that have occurred since Wardrobe Wonders. With a liberalisation of these rules, it legalises several kinds of IRL trading previously forbidden, reducing IRL trading (that does not benefit Wynncraft) even further, perhaps even increasing income to Wynncraft.

2.
The second point I would like to bring up is an increased standardisation of Silverbull shares to consolidate it's position as an exchange unit.

Spoiler: Standardisation of Silverbull shares

Ever since the release of Wardrobe Wonders, Silverbull shares have received increased purpose as an in-game currency to exchange for once paid-exclusive benefits.

This point has been reiterated with the recent inclusion of Silverbull as an exception in the IRL-trading rules. They are now an alternative currency to LE for both items in-game and to USD for items in store, in-game.

However, Silverbull is remarkably arbitrary in it's coverage and pricing.

As just mentioned, Silverbull can only be exchanged for items in-game. There is no opportunity for a player to exchange Silverbull for store benefits just from wynncraft.com/store; they have to be in-game. In another point of arbitrariness, Silverbull pricing is remarkable uneven.

In the in-game store, they are valued at a set price of 1 share = $1 in store value. This is carefully created by Wardrobe Wonders weakening the value of 1 Silverbull, and all players in the past who paid $5/share had their shares multiplied by 5.

Store purchases, however, peg Silverbull at $1.2 to $1.13 per share, depending on package size. This means that excepting genuinely consuming Silverbull for a subscription / listed in trade market, there is no situation (assuming a player is purchasing silverbull to exchange for other store items) where trading with Silverbull is meaningful, due to the huge losses incurred by the large tax.

The price gap can be far higher for different regions in the world. This is different and justified for regional pricing, but combining the 20% and the regional pricing can lead to dramatic losses for the buyer/seller.

Of course, it can be considered that the gap exists to benefit Wynncraft. Lacking data, I can only express my concerns and reservations about keeping the gap.

Spoiler: Reasonable Concerns

The gap can be tied to the earlier mention of players choosing to violate the rules and IRL trade even when there is a legal option available, because the legal option has a deeply black-hearted tax of 20% extra, which is a huge loss for the buyer.

I recently tried to offer #1 Lament, and my offer particularly struggled because of the 20% tax. Without the tax, it would have been a highly competitive offer; with the tax, it was only mediocre.

It can also be reasonably assumed that the price gap on Silverbull has hurt consumption, as people choose to buy bombs/crates as they need it, not investing a large quantity in Silverbull to buy as they need.
There is no reasoning against consumption. The addition of the deals in Wardrobe Wonders has heavily suggested that Wynncraft wants to encourage bursts of consumerism, not discourage it.

End
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read it all (or not). I would greatly appreciate any candid explanation or counterargument against my idea, and I will do my best to respond with logical refutations.

 

No tldr? I really need one

 

they should allow directly trading items for shares i think

 

________________________________

That is what the current rules allow, I hope for more liberalisation allowing trading any store purchase to be exchanged for items

 

/j