Coming 7.4 GTN changes on the PTS

[TrixxieTriss]

1 hour ago, Darkestmonty said:

what was the price of the player made "White and Light Gray Dye Module" one day ago? Two days ago, Three, Four, Five, a month ago?

Prices are never static. They fluctuate according the inflation and supply/demand. Seeing a player crafted "White and Light Gray Dye Module" go from 350,000 to 371,000 isn't a big shock and the price will stabilize again once people adjust to the new tactics of 7.4 GTN.

no more flooding a market with 30 of the same dyes hoping a handful sell. Smart players will post 1-3 for a short period of time undercutting when necessary increasing their profit margins nearly 8% since they don't pay GTN taxes anymore.

 

Anyone paying a 350,000 credits for any crafted dye is stupid. 

[Ominovin]

3 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Anyone paying a 350,000 credits for any crafted dye is stupid. 

I wouldn't say that:  350k is basically 'pocket change' for a lot of players who might not have the mats necessary to quickly craft it themselves.  Yes, you could buy or harvest the mats and then craft, but the playtime required might be worth more than 350k to you...

[Ominovin]

11 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Don’t forget the listing fees the seller also has to pay & may never get back. 

The listing fee tops out at a whopping one quarter of one percent of the pre-fee price and is capped for really expensive items:  This should only be a factor for very low-price items (no idea why they have the minimum listing fees) and items you post repeatedly (and I do mean repeatedly) before they sell.

Honestly, the refundable listing fee never made any sense to me as it only comes into play if you actually cancel your posting:  As it currently is, they really should have left it out and implemented a cancellation fee instead.  The non-refundable fee makes a lot more sense.

There are folks in these threads talking about how this is an impending apocalypse, but it's really just a couple of minor tweaks that will probably require little more than a slight adjustment in pricing strategies (granted, if you currently post 50+ items a day and only expect 1 or 2 to actually sell, you might want to re-think your entire business model)...

 

ADDENDUM:

The hypothetical '500MM item' used in my earlier analysis would cost 250k to post for a week, so you could post it for a month before it would cost you 1MM of the 460MM you will get when it sells, or 0.22% of the sale proceeds.  If you are willing to use the 24hr or even 12h listing options, you can reduce that even more (10k per 12 hours * 28 days = 560k or 0.12% of the sale proceeds, while 25k per day * 28 days = 700k or 0.15% of the sale proceeds).

Edited October 29, 2023 by Ominovin
Addendum

[Darkestmonty]

1 hour ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Still missing the point 🤦‍♀️

I don’t flood the market with the same colour. I list 2-3 of the same & that’s it.

But with the non refundable fees, I won’t be listing any. And I won’t be the only crafter who does this. 

and you have a possible 7 months of constantly posting without making sales until you actually start losing more credits over the current system which charges you 8% of your sale.

  

59 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Anyone paying a 350,000 credits for any crafted dye is stupid. 

when was the last time you actually played the game and sold dyes?

  

24 minutes ago, Ominovin said:

The listing fee tops out at a whopping one quarter of one percent of the pre-fee price and is capped for really expensive items:  This should only be a factor for very low-price items (no idea why they have the minimum listing fees) and items you post repeatedly (and I do mean repeatedly) before they sell.

Honestly, the refundable listing fee never made any sense to me as it only comes into play if you actually cancel your posting:  As it currently is, they really should have left it out and implemented a cancellation fee instead.  The non-refundable fee makes a lot more sense.

There are folks in these threads talking about how this is an impending apocalypse, but it's really just a couple of minor tweaks that will probably require little more than a slight adjustment in pricing strategies (granted, if you currently post 50+ items a day and only expect 1 or 2 to actually sell, you might want to re-think your entire business model)...

people worried about losing 10,000 credits to post an item for 12 hours when they no longer have to pay 240,000,000 in taxes.

You can post a 3 billion credit item 24,000 times, 12 hours at a time and only start to lose more money than selling the item with the current 8% GTN tax on the 24,001st posting. That's 33.33 years from now if you constantly repost every 12 hours.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Darkestmonty

[Ominovin]

27 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:

You can post a 3 billion credit item 24,000 times, 12 hours at a time and only start to lose more money than selling the item with the current 8% GTN tax on the 24,001st posting. That's 33.33 years from now if you constantly repost every 12 hours.

To be fair, the actual 'pre-fee' prices you post an item at will probably come down a bit to keep the final sale price close to current market prices:  A 3b item would actually cost the purchaser 3,447,780,000 credits after fees while posting for 2.76b would keep the same sale proceeds as the current version but only cost the buyer 3,169,380,000 credits.

Where exactly prices will finally stabilize is unknown, but I'm guessing it generally will be below the 'current' posting values by at least a bit...

Edited October 29, 2023 by Ominovin

[Darkestmonty]

23 minutes ago, Ominovin said:

To be fair, the actual 'pre-fee' prices you post an item at will probably come down a bit to keep the final sale price close to current market prices:  A 3b item would actually cost the purchaser 3,447,780,000 credits after fees while posting for 2.76b would keep the same sale proceeds as the current version but only cost the buyer 3,169,380,000 credits.

Where exactly prices will finally stabilize is unknown, but I'm guessing it generally will be below the 'current' posting values by at least a bit...

3 billion credit items will still sell at max price. People aren't paying 3 billion for easily obtained items. With supply and demand, 477 million will be a non issue.

[Ominovin]

Okay, I've thrown together a quick chart on listing fees, including a '6 week cost' comparison for long term postings:

Listing Period		Minimum Fee		Maximum Fee		Six Week Posting Cost
Days	Rate	Credits	Listing Price	Credits	Listing Price	# of Postings	Minimum Fee	In Range	Maximum Fee
0.50	0.010%	100	1,000,000	10,000	100,000,000	84	8,400	0.840%	840,000
1.00	0.025%	125	500,000	25,000	100,000,000	42	5,250	1.050%	1,050,000
2.00	0.050%	250	500,000	50,000	100,000,000	21	5,250	1.050%	1,050,000
3.00	0.100%	500	500,000	100,000	100,000,000	14	7,000	1.400%	1,400,000
7.00	0.250%	1,000	400,000	250,000	100,000,000	6	6,000	1.500%	1,500,000

• 'Listing Price' is just the price at which you hit the 'Minimum' or 'Maximum' listing fee for that period.
• 'In Range' is the percent of the posting price you have been charged for an item listed between the Min and Max 'Listing Price' values.
• 'Six Weeks' was selected as easily divisible into half day, one day, two day, three day, and seven day periods.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Ominovin

[OlBuzzard]

1 hour ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Anyone paying a 350,000 credits for any crafted dye is stupid. 

Some dyes are considerably higher.  (I personally don't spend that on that sort of thing).  Just the same ... some people do!

IMO overall on this taxation thing ... it's gotten to the point of being ridiculous.  Fees for deposit:  flat percentage charged regardless of what the item is.  Taxation:  Flat percentage fee regardless of what the item is (or how much it cost).

1,000,000 x 10% =  (tax on the sale)
1,000,000,000 x 10% =   .... but it's the same percentage and thereby a fair and equitable charge.  (tax on the sale) 

Gifting: This was being abused by a handful (and laughing about it) ... and it cost everyone else.  Somehow, there needs to be a better solution.  The problem is that there is and always be a group of players that honestly believe the just about any system can and SHOULD be circumvented.  (They also get a bit cranky when they can't).

It should also be noted that I have (in the past) warned that this would be a royal pain in the tail feathers before it was over!

Edited October 29, 2023 by OlBuzzard

[Darcmoon]

1 hour ago, Darkestmonty said:

and you have a possible 7 months of constantly posting without making sales until you actually start losing more credits over the current system which charges you 8% of your sale.

  

when was the last time you actually played the game and sold dyes?

  

people worried about losing 10,000 credits to post an item for 12 hours when they no longer have to pay 240,000,000 in taxes.

You can post a 3 billion credit item 24,000 times, 12 hours at a time and only start to lose more money than selling the item with the current 8% GTN tax on the 24,001st posting. That's 33.33 years from now if you constantly repost every 12 hours.

And yet human nature means that fee may make them not even post the item because they could loose the money.   Humans aren’t very logical usually.  The fee is money they have that they loose verses the money they never see from the taxes.  That fee feels much more immediate and painful.  

[Darkestmonty]

29 minutes ago, Darcmoon said:

And yet human nature means that fee may make them not even post the item because they could loose the money.   Humans aren’t very logical usually.  The fee is money they have that they loose verses the money they never see from the taxes.  That fee feels much more immediate and painful.  

No it doesn't.

[Darcmoon]

4 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:

No it doesn't.

No it doesn’t what?

[TrixxieTriss]

3 hours ago, Ominovin said:

they really should have left it out and implemented a cancellation fee instead.  The non-refundable fee makes a lot more sense.

Yes, that would make way more sense

[TrixxieTriss]

3 hours ago, Ominovin said:

I wouldn't say that:  350k is basically 'pocket change' for a lot of players who might not have the mats necessary to quickly craft it themselves.  Yes, you could buy or harvest the mats and then craft, but the playtime required might be worth more than 350k to you...

The most expensive & high demand dye 3 years ago was the Red Black dye that you have to gain rep first to buy the schematic. And it’s average price was between 100,000-120,000. Its actually a fairly easy/cheap dye to make (mat wise), once you get the schematic. 
The only reason we have prices of 350,000 on some crafted dyes now is because of too many credits in the game & hyperinflation. Realistically, there needs to be some deflation in the game.

[TrixxieTriss]

3 hours ago, Darkestmonty said:

You can post a 3 billion credit item 24,000 times, 12 hours at a time and only start to lose more money than selling the item with the current 8% GTN tax on the 24,001st posting. That's 33.33 years from now if you constantly repost every 12 hours.

You still don’t seem to understand that the 1 billion price you are mentioning in this thread, didn’t cost any credits. And just because you list an item for 1 billion, doesn’t mean it will ever sell. Why don’t we realistically discuss crafted items that are 100,000. 

[Ominovin]

1 hour ago, OlBuzzard said:

IMO overall on this taxation thing ... it's gotten to the point of being ridiculous.  Fees for deposit:  flat percentage charged regardless of what the item is.  Taxation:  Flat percentage fee regardless of what the item is (or how much it cost).

Flat fees are a really, really, really bad idea:  They are either:

1. High enough to serve as a barrier to entry for new players,
2. Too low to be any factor at all for 'rich' players, or most likely
3. Both of the above.

The point of the 'progressive rate' is to pull more money out of the economy on expensive items without excessively penalizing the 'low end' of the market:  It's a bit more complicated, the player doesn't really need to pay too close attention to the actual details if the UI tells you what the Final Sale Price and Listing Fee are (this is basically how income taxes work without the complications of deductions).

That being said, the new 'minimum listing fees' look like they will have a bad impact on the lower end of the market, so I'm not certain what they are trying to accomplish there...

[Darkestmonty]

16 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

You still don’t seem to understand that the 1 billion price you are mentioning in this thread, didn’t cost any credits. And just because you list an item for 1 billion, doesn’t mean it will ever sell. Why don’t we realistically discuss crafted items that are 100,000. 

you are fixated on "oh I won't get my deposit back!!"

It will take you 33 years of continuously posting an item at 3 billion credits for 12 hours at a time and not selling that item to equal the 8% GTN tax you lose from the same sale.

You are worrying over 10,000 credits when you are saving 240 million credits because you no longer have to pay GTN taxes in 7.4.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Darkestmonty

[OlBuzzard]

2 minutes ago, Ominovin said:

Flat fees are a really, really, really bad idea:  They are either:

1. High enough to serve as a barrier to entry for new players,
2. Too low to be any factor at all for 'rich' players, or most likely
3. Both of the above.

The point of the 'progressive rate' is to pull more money out of the economy on expensive items without excessively penalizing the 'low end' of the market:  It's a bit more complicated, the player doesn't really need to pay too close attention to the actual details if the UI tells you what the Final Sale Price and Listing Fee are (this is basically how income taxes work without the complications of deductions).

That being said, the new 'minimum listing fees' look like they will have a bad impact on the lower end of the market, so I'm not certain what they are trying to accomplish there...

Not necessarily.  In fact usually quite the opposite.  The higher end taxation will unquestionably push higher end products out of the hands of newer players!  Those taxes will (just for example) fall on items that are in greater demand.  If this unfolds the way it currently appears to ..
** There will be fewer people crafting...  since there is less interest and less profit . (almost sounds like a Ferengi!)   Prices will in turn gradually increase making the market less accessible for newer players.  
** Usually most people will also increase their prices in order to help compensate for fees or taxation.  ( I AWAYS DO ).

Frankly a lot of people think that flat fees means the same cost regardless.  It does not.  It should be based on a percentage of the value of the item.  I use 10% since it's easy to calculate.

The cost / taxation (percentage wise) is the same regardless of whether it costs 100 or 1,000,000,000 credits ... 10 PERCENT . 

[Ominovin]

15 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

You still don’t seem to understand that the 1 billion price you are mentioning in this thread, didn’t cost any credits. And just because you list an item for 1 billion, doesn’t mean it will ever sell. Why don’t we realistically discuss crafted items that are 100,000. 

Here's the chart for a 100k item in the current market:

							NEW	OLD
Sale Price:							92,000	100,000
New GTN Fees:		Rate	From	To	Portion Taxed	Fee
	Bracket I	6%	1	999,999	92,000	5,520.00
	Bracket II	8%	1,000,000	9,999,999	0	0.00
	Bracket III	10%	10,000,000	99,999,999	0	0.00
	Bracket IV	12%	100,000,000	499,999,999	0	0.00
	Bracket V	14%	500,000,000	999,999,999	0	0.00
	Bracket VI	16%	1,000,000,000	3,000,000,000	0	0.00
	Fee Total:	6.00%			92,000	5,520.00	5,520.00
Final Sale Price:		-2.480%					97,520	100,000
Old GTN Fee		8%			100,000	8,000.00		-8,000
Sale Proceeds							92,000	92,000

 

With the reduced fees for the first 1,000,000 credits, the final sales price comes in about 2,500 credits lower in the new system, which leaves you some room to possibly increase your posted price to offset your posting fees.

Using the 1 or 2 day posting options, you could post this item for 6 weeks for 5,250 credits

[TrixxieTriss]

8 minutes ago, OlBuzzard said:

Not necessarily.  In fact usually quite the opposite.  The higher end taxation will unquestionably push higher end products out of the hands of newer players!  Those taxes will (just for example) fall on items that are in greater demand.  If this unfolds the way it currently appears to ..
** There will be fewer people crafting...  since there is less interest and less profit . (almost sounds like a Ferengi!)   Prices will in turn gradually increase making the market less accessible for newer players.  
** Usually most people will also increase their prices in order to help compensate for fees or taxation.  ( I AWAYS DO ).

Frankly a lot of people think that flat fees means the same cost regardless.  It does not.  It should be based on a percentage of the value of the item.  I use 10% since it's easy to calculate.

The cost / taxation (percentage wise) is the same regardless of whether it costs 100 or 1,000,000,000 credits ... 10 PERCENT . 

A flat rate is essentially fairer. But a progressive rate specifically targets the super wealthy & lowers the burden for lower price sales that most new players can afford. 
 

[The-Kaitou-Kid]

6 hours ago, Darkestmonty said:

what was the price of the player made "White and Light Gray Dye Module" one day ago? Two days ago, Three, Four, Five, a month ago?

Prices are never static. They fluctuate according the inflation and supply/demand. Seeing a player crafted "White and Light Gray Dye Module" go from 350,000 to 371,000 isn't a big shock and the price will stabilize again once people adjust to the new tactics of 7.4 GTN.

no more flooding a market with 30 of the same dyes hoping a handful sell. Smart players will post 1-3 for a short period of time undercutting when necessary increasing their profit margins nearly 8% since they don't pay GTN taxes anymore.

 

 You completely missed my point, as evidenced by repeating the exact same mistake here:

 

4 hours ago, Darkestmonty said:

You can post a 3 billion credit item 24,000 times, 12 hours at a time and only start to lose more money than selling the item with the current 8% GTN tax on the 24,001st posting. That's 33.33 years from now if you constantly repost every 12 hours.

 

The tax. Is. Still. There.

 

The buyer does not see a tax, they see a buyout price, that's it. You can go on the PTS and look at this. The seller is the only one that sees the tax, regardless of who "pays" it. When you look up an item to list it, the prices you'll see will be including the tax, meaning you'll be pricing with the buyer's tax in mind. That means you're not pocketing the difference between the two systems, you're just changing what you put as your unit price to reflect the amount you receive instead of the amount before the tax. The effect is still the same.

 

"Smart" players listing 8% above whatever the current going rate is will get undercut, their items won't sell, they'll eat the nonrefundable fee, and then they'll lower their price to match the going rate. You can't look at the buyers in this situation as a non factor that'll buy the item at whatever the cost is, because while sure, 350,000 to 371,000 isn't that big of a jump (but it's still a jump on an item like this, a jump I don't see actually happening across the board), your 3 billion credit example exposes where this becomes a bigger issue: an item on the GTN that gives 3 billion credits to the seller would actually cost the buyer over 3.4 billion credits in the new system. That's over 400 million credits more due to the tax, which will absolutely play a part in the buyer's decision to buy that item. That's the price the buyer sees. They don't see that you only listed it for 3 billion and the rest is a tax on them, they see the 3.4 billion buyout price. The only place the tax ever gets shown to anybody is when the seller makes the listing, they see what the final buyout price will be based on their unit price + the tax (encouraging them to price accordingly, like I've said).

 

So, if you were to list an item so that you would receive 3 billion credits if it sold in the new system, you couldn't compare it to a situation in today's system because the buyout price ends up higher than the current system allows. If you price it lower to account for the tax, you lose credits immediately, because the tax is actually higher on this kind of item than in the current system and you end up with a fee every time you list it that isn't there in the current system. You still have to account for the tax, especially if you're not the only one listing the item.

 

There is no functional difference between taxing the seller and taxing the buyer if the buyer never sees the untaxed price. In the current system, you can price items 8% higher to account for the seller tax. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, the game just doesn't give you the numbers in the UI to make it easy. Nobody would do that, though, because people will list the item at what it's worth and undercut you, and then you'd never sell it. Why do you think this is going to change in the new system and buyers are going to be okay with paying 8%+ higher prices across board?

Edited October 29, 2023 by The-Kaitou-Kid

[OlBuzzard]

10 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

A flat rate is essentially fairer. But a progressive rate specifically targets the super wealthy & lowers the burden for lower price sales that most new players can afford. 
 

And who do you think will be paying those taxes?  Before you answer that ... let me kind of help you with MY answer:

If I'm selling something (particularly several stacks of crafted items or mats) ... I will know the market well enough to make sure I'm getting my cut.  Period!  Someone else will pick up the tab!  That may sound harsh ... but that's life!

Otherwise ... this old man stands pat with what he has.  I'll take my time and cherry pick away until I have what I'm after.  And I'll do it without too many people noticing it until I'm done!

[OlBuzzard]

4 minutes ago, The-Kaitou-Kid said:

 You completely missed my point, as evidenced by repeating the exact same mistake here:

 

 

The tax. Is. Still. There.

 

The buyer does not see a tax, they see a buyout price, that's it. You can go on the PTS and look at this. The seller is the only one that sees the tax, regardless of who "pays" it. When you look up an item to list it, the prices you'll see will be including the tax, meaning you'll be pricing with the buyer's tax in mind. That means you're not pocketing the difference between the two systems, you're just changing what you put as your unit price to reflect the amount you receive instead of the amount before the tax. The effect is still the same.

 

"Smart" players listing 8% above whatever the current going rate is will get undercut, their items won't sell, they'll eat the nonrefundable fee, and then they'll lower their price to match the going rate. You can't look at the buyers in this situation as a non factor that'll buy the item at whatever the cost is, because while sure, 350,000 to 371,000 isn't that big of a jump (but it's still a jump on an item like this, a jump I don't see actually happening across the board), your 3 billion credit example exposes where this becomes a bigger issue: an item on the GTN that gives 3 billion credits to the seller would actually cost the buyer over 3.4 billion credits in the new system. That's over 400 million credits more due to the tax, which will absolutely play a part in the buyer's decision to buy that item. That's the price the buyer sees. They don't see that you only listed it for 3 billion and the rest is a tax on them, they see the 3.4 billion buyout price. The only place the tax ever gets shown to anybody is when the seller makes the listing, they see what the final buyout price will be based on their unit price + the tax (encouraging them to price accordingly, like I've said).

 

So, if you were to list an item so that you would receive 3 billion credits if it sold in the new system, you couldn't compare it to a situation in today's system because the buyout price ends up higher than the current system allows. If you price it lower to account for the tax, you lose credits immediately, because the tax is actually higher on this kind of item than in the current system and you end up with a fee every time you list it that isn't there in the current system. You still have to account for the tax, especially if you're not the only one listing the item.

 

There is no functional difference between taxing the seller and taxing the buyer if the buyer never sees the untaxed price. In the current system, you can price items 8% higher to account for the seller tax. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, the game just doesn't give you the numbers in the UI to make it easy. Nobody would do that, though, because people will list the item at what it's worth and undercut you, and then you'd never sell it. Why do you think this is going to change in the new system and buyers are going to be okay with paying 8%+ higher prices across board?

I wish I were not out of those reaction thingies (we need that increased please).

[/two thumbs up]  I may not agree with all of it ... but well written!

[Ominovin]

34 minutes ago, The-Kaitou-Kid said:

The tax. Is. Still. There.

 

The buyer does not see a tax, they see a buyout price, that's it. You can go on the PTS and look at this. The seller is the only one that sees the tax, regardless of who "pays" it. When you look up an item to list it, the prices you'll see will be including the tax, meaning you'll be pricing with the buyer's tax in mind. That means you're not pocketing the difference between the two systems, you're just changing what you put as your unit price to reflect the amount you receive instead of the amount before the tax. The effect is still the same.

...

The poster you are quoting clarified in a later post that he/she was talking about items that are rare enough that they will always sell for the max price:  Something that someone will be just as willing to pay the new 3.448b max purchase price for as they were the old 3b max purchase price.

For these items, the 840k to 1.5m listing fee per 6 weeks is tiny in comparison to the extra 240mm of sales proceeds you will get when it does sell.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Ominovin

[Darkestmonty]

39 minutes ago, The-Kaitou-Kid said:

 You completely missed my point, as evidenced by repeating the exact same mistake here:

 

 

The tax. Is. Still. There.

 

The buyer does not see a tax, they see a buyout price, that's it. You can go on the PTS and look at this. The seller is the only one that sees the tax, regardless of who "pays" it. When you look up an item to list it, the prices you'll see will be including the tax, meaning you'll be pricing with the buyer's tax in mind. That means you're not pocketing the difference between the two systems, you're just changing what you put as your unit price to reflect the amount you receive instead of the amount before the tax. The effect is still the same.

 

"Smart" players listing 8% above whatever the current going rate is will get undercut, their items won't sell, they'll eat the nonrefundable fee, and then they'll lower their price to match the going rate. You can't look at the buyers in this situation as a non factor that'll buy the item at whatever the cost is, because while sure, 350,000 to 371,000 isn't that big of a jump (but it's still a jump on an item like this, a jump I don't see actually happening across the board), your 3 billion credit example exposes where this becomes a bigger issue: an item on the GTN that gives 3 billion credits to the seller would actually cost the buyer over 3.4 billion credits in the new system. That's over 400 million credits more due to the tax, which will absolutely play a part in the buyer's decision to buy that item. That's the price the buyer sees. They don't see that you only listed it for 3 billion and the rest is a tax on them, they see the 3.4 billion buyout price. The only place the tax ever gets shown to anybody is when the seller makes the listing, they see what the final buyout price will be based on their unit price + the tax (encouraging them to price accordingly, like I've said).

 

So, if you were to list an item so that you would receive 3 billion credits if it sold in the new system, you couldn't compare it to a situation in today's system because the buyout price ends up higher than the current system allows. If you price it lower to account for the tax, you lose credits immediately, because the tax is actually higher on this kind of item than in the current system and you end up with a fee every time you list it that isn't there in the current system. You still have to account for the tax, especially if you're not the only one listing the item.

 

There is no functional difference between taxing the seller and taxing the buyer if the buyer never sees the untaxed price. In the current system, you can price items 8% higher to account for the seller tax. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, the game just doesn't give you the numbers in the UI to make it easy. Nobody would do that, though, because people will list the item at what it's worth and undercut you, and then you'd never sell it. Why do you think this is going to change in the new system and buyers are going to be okay with paying 8%+ higher prices across board?

It's 7.4, I post a boxed up Sand People Pillager set for 3 billion credits. Listed price on the GTN is now 3.44 billion with taxes.

It costs me 10,000 credits to post it for 12 hours.

The set still isn't being sold on the Cartel Market and there are no others listed. Are you going to wait until you find a set at exactly 3 billion credits on the GTN or buy the 3.44 billion credit set that is actively listed?

Most buyers are not going to look at a price from the past and wait until prices return to those levels. Some players will, but unless inflation drops or there is a sudden surge of supply and loss in demand, prices will continue to rise.

Yes, the taxes are still being paid, but it is not by the sellers.

This whole thread was started by someone worried that the cost of posting an auction not being refundable will make it impossible to sell items on the GTN. That fear has no solid ground because sellers no longer pay the GTN tax.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Darkestmonty

[TrixxieTriss]

1 hour ago, Darkestmonty said:

you are fixated on "oh I won't get my deposit back!!"

It will take you 33 years of continuously posting an item at 3 billion credits for 12 hours at a time and not selling that item to equal the 8% GTN tax you lose from the same sale.

You are worrying over 10,000 credits when you are saving 240 million credits because you no longer have to pay GTN taxes in 7.4.

And now you’ve gone from a 1 billion item to a 3 billion item so that you can make the gap bigger. Talk about gas lighting 🤦‍♀️

Now I remember why I had your account on block. Guess I’ll go back to that seeing as you can’t have an honest discussion.