> However, as the seller is paying that $n to himself, that hasn't cost him anything, but he still nets $x+$n from the paying customers rather than the $x it wa

> However, as the seller is paying that $n to himself, that hasn't cost him anything, but he still nets $x+$n from the paying customers rather than the $x it was presented as. I don't follow... For every $1 the seller puts in as a hater the seller always nets exactly $0 under the rule that haters always pay. $1 of hate spend by the seller goes back in the seller's pocket. Net $0. For every $1 the seller puts in as a lover the seller nets $0 under the rules that either the album sells or the lovers don't pay. Net $0. It is true the seller can artificially inflate $x + $n for $0 cost to themselves (because the $n goes back in their pockets). But they cannot inflate the money they receive through their own actions. This is essentially the illegal act of "painting the tape" in securities markets, namely making it look like meaningful economic activity is happening when none in fact is. > ...he can then "pay" the difference himself to force the sale through Sure. No self-dealing is precluded. The seller could also give the album away for free outside the auction, anytime.