How do you evaluate whether a tech dealer is reliable and won't run off with your money/tech or send payments really late?

So far I've done deals where the other person sends money first and I send tech afterwards, so it hasn't been much of a problem, but I'm soon going to do a $3M/50 tech deal where I send the tech first. Also, once I switch from selling tech to buying tech, I'll have to evaluate tech sellers.

I usually send 50 tech and 1 mil. If they are not late sending the tech back they keep the 1 mil. If there late then i know he is an unreliable seller.

Word of mouth, their in-game aid history, their alliance, how long they've been playing the game, and how much effort they appear to have put into their nation.

This is pretty much what you can do. If they have any ongoing tech deals, you might PM the other buyers to get an idea of how reliable they are.

Technology buyers generally won't run off with your tech, they have too much to risk. I've personally ever found a seller that stole my money either, just people who went inactive. But you'll have to take risks if you want to fill up your slots, there aren't enough perfect sellers for everyone.



I don't get it.

By far the biggest problem as a buyer is people quitting on their nations. And to be honest, it's a risk you take every time; you can never be sure when somebody's going to get some OOC stuff that makes them stop logging in.

Most sellers are pretty reliable though.

Buyers want that tech. They should send the money first. Sending the tech first sounds like a ripoff waiting to happen.

I send 50 tech and 1 mil to the seller. Then they send back the 50 tech but keep the 1 mil. If their late sending the tech back, there considered unreliable.

Isn't that a bit of a waste of time? Who does that benefit? Not the buyer - he loses out on a slot of tech for a round (assuming he sends the 50 back). And the small nation would actually be better off with the $3M up-front in most cases.

I have to agree with my fellow member. I really don't see the benefit, especially not for the buyer who also risk losing 50 tech, which for most big nations is a far greater loss than 3M.

This.

However some alliances insure thier sellers and or enter into selling agreements on an alliance to alliance level. One of the things I always do is look at who is selling tech to my alliance mates, if he/she is delivering timely to them chances are high they will do the same for me.

That seems like a waste of an aid slot more than anything...

To the original question, I would look at their past history and contact their other buyers and make sure they are reliable.

One of the advantages of my stock deals is that they provide a way to "tip" reliable tech buyers and sellers.

See http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65480

I find the $3 million for 100 tech standard price a bit tiresome, even though that is mostly what people are doing. The profitability limit on tech levels is a big constraint, and if you had enough nations get past 100 tech long term, the market would simply dry up. Bottom line - fixed rates in the tech market really make no sense at all. There should be more price competition as well as risk assessment.

Personally, I prefer smaller arrangements that can be concluded in 20 days, but in a longer relationship you can offer other incentives. The main thing, from the sellers end, is to keep enough cash out and secure so you can service all your deals in a timely manner and not get caught in a liquidity squeeze. I'm using a spreadsheet to project my income and payouts forward and make sure there is enough money in the till.

WF