3 ms·

It's likely because you can make more money by holding more control over the supply. Even users of the Steam Market would scoff a bit at it - they would rather

It's likely because you can make more money by holding more control over the supply. Even users of the Steam Market would scoff a bit at it - they would rather have it be without taxes and exchangeable for real money. I wonder if there is a web3 solution already in place which could achieve that...

Ekaros 5y ago
Is there feeless web3? If there were no taxes, how would the people running it make money?
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago
  That's my mistake - indeed nothing is free, but when the protocol is open source and interchangeable the market will settle on a sustainable marketplace which users prefer the most; price will of course play a role in that. Point being I'm not sure Steam is simply compensating their database operations with their marketplace tax, and that they have no competition for market making their own items.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > that they have no competition for market making their own items. They will not have the competition. Because it's their items, and they chose to only support items sold through their marketplace.
    - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
      Yes, you can reiterate.
dmitriid 5y ago
> It's likely because you can make more money by holding more control over the supply. Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need to earn money. > they would rather have it be without taxes and exchangeable for real money. Of course users want all the perks with none of the responsibilities: let the business support all these items in perpetuity while users trade them outside of the business' purview.
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago
  > Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need to earn money. And? > Of course users want all the perks with none of the responsibilities: let the business support all these items in perpetuity while users trade them outside of the business' purview. Everyone would like all the benefits with no cost in all cases; that's not what's being suggested as its obviously impossible. The more decentralized service simply has the potential to be a better deal for users at the cost of centralized business - it does not mean costs disappear. You say yourself the business need to earn money (which is only true for sub profit margins), so you seem to understand that the money goes somewhere, why not let it go more to users willing to shoulder some cost while also giving them more freedom?

Ekaros 5y ago

Is there feeless web3? If there were no taxes, how would the people running it make money?

mattwilsonn888 5y ago
That's my mistake - indeed nothing is free, but when the protocol is open source and interchangeable the market will settle on a sustainable marketplace which users prefer the most; price will of course play a role in that. Point being I'm not sure Steam is simply compensating their database operations with their marketplace tax, and that they have no competition for market making their own items.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > that they have no competition for market making their own items. They will not have the competition. Because it's their items, and they chose to only support items sold through their marketplace.
  - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
    Yes, you can reiterate.

dmitriid 5y ago

> It's likely because you can make more money by holding more control over the supply. Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need to earn money. > they would rather have it be without taxes and exchangeable for real money. Of course users want all the perks with none of the responsibilities: let the business support all these items in perpetuity while users trade them outside of the business' purview.

mattwilsonn888 5y ago
> Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need to earn money. And? > Of course users want all the perks with none of the responsibilities: let the business support all these items in perpetuity while users trade them outside of the business' purview. Everyone would like all the benefits with no cost in all cases; that's not what's being suggested as its obviously impossible. The more decentralized service simply has the potential to be a better deal for users at the cost of centralized business - it does not mean costs disappear. You say yourself the business need to earn money (which is only true for sub profit margins), so you seem to understand that the money goes somewhere, why not let it go more to users willing to shoulder some cost while also giving them more freedom?