Has Standard Price Increased?

[IronicMaster]

You don't have to have labour camps to do inactivity cycles when your nation is small.

What you do is:

Get all the money from tech deals, do not spend any of it unless you have to send out tech.

When you are 20 days inactive, you pay your bills and spend most of the money on infra. Then you collect taxes.

Now, over 20 days, how much did you pay in bills and how much did you collect?

You paid 20 days worth of bills for the low infra you had 20 days ago. And you collected 20 days worth of taxes for the new high infra you have there.

This boost is remarkable for small nations. Anyone can buy 200 infra to get a foreign ministry and a harbour, get a trade circle and pay 6-10k bills every day. When he buys lots of infra and collects taxes, he basically doubles it's collection over these 20 days compared to buying a little infra every day.

You are counting one cycle as a tech deal? Usually people say 10 days = 1 cycle.

Also, why 8 cycles? You can get a foreign ministry really soon and get 10 cycles from day 1.

Another thing:

As I said, I don't care what benefit it is to small nations. I want the economy not to blow up because small nations want to grow faster.

I could do calculations of what it would take if small nations just received free aid and didn't have to do tech deals and you would still think it's a good idea to give small nations free money because that would just be more beneficial to your nation. I don't really care how much it can benefit YOU. It does not benefit the economy if everyone did 3 mil for 50 tech deals.

The point is that you will grow about 33% faster in the short run and in the long run (300 days) your nations are maybe 2000 infra apart from each other.

This game is like a corporation that is promoting every member every month regardless of what they have done the last month. Once you promote everyone from the low ranks, there is no-one to do the dirty jobs. What good do we have from the corporation heads that don't do anything? They basically live on the low rank workers.

(I did build up my nation. Could have been more efficient though. Wars in between killed me a bit.)

1. I will keep that inactivity cycles in mind, sounds good.

2. You said you care about economy, but, no offense, the point in economy is, to care about yourself. When I look over my last deals, the hardest deals to get where the Inter-Alliance deal, because of the coordination with specific persons.

The out-world-deals through forum did take a few hours to arrange, so the market is VERY open. You don't care about my benefit but I do.

I don't see the game as a big cooperation I see it as 25k cooperations all in the same market, some as buyers some as sellers, so it is not the economy one should care about, cause if one does, he/she will feed the sharks. The 2k infra difference will be a very nice advantage if I get into a war with someone, easy to convince that universal goals(of the big nations) should be bigger

Edited January 20, 2010 by IronicMaster

[Sande]

That's the problem with you - you think about your situation in the short run and not considering what your actions can do in the long run. When you increase the price now, the people who sell you tech will be increasing the price on you aswell. In the long run you are f***ing yourself over although it seems like a good idea in the short run. That's what caused the economic crisis in RL too.

Also, the ones who benefit from this the most are the nations that already have 10k+ tech. They are not losing their tech and they have far more money than any other possible tech buyers. They can afford high tech prices but anyone else can't. This means that eventually, we have a handful of nations who hold 75% of the tech in the game and the others don't have more than 2k. Only the top nations will be getting tech because the price is too high for the mid-NS buyer nations.

I like tech farms. It is not fair for the farmers but at least the economy and the military is getting stronger.

[DavidRossJones]

1. The market won't "implode", and to say so is at best naive and at worst scaremongering. For the market to implode, the international market that exists in CN (which consists of two things: trading technology and donations) needs something which doesn't exist in this market. It needs debt. Market implosion only happens when debt exists. It isn't physically possible for this market to implode. All that can happen is prices go up, prices go down, activity goes up, activity does down or activity ceases. This isn't an implosion.

2. Again, I am going to say something I said earlier in this thread: Tech sellers do NOT exist solely to make buyers happy and even wealthier. We're playing this game as well, and would also like to be in the position to buy tech someday. Agreed, without tech deals, the entire process would be slower but you can not blame us for wanting to get the best deal on offer. It's not my job, or anybody else's, to make sure the economy in Cyber Nations runs smoothly. That's the developer's job. I do, however, doubt that you have any real concerns for the economy of Cyber Nations and are just using this as a reason to get people to try and deal at a lower price.

This means that eventually, we have a handful of nations who hold 75% of the tech in the game and the others don't have more than 2k. Only the top nations will be getting tech because the price is too high for the mid-NS buyer nations.

3. This won't happen. If tech prices do go up to that stage, we'll start to see nations who are currently low-end tech buyers, become sellers, and the cycle will start again. I'll also leave out of this argument the fact nobody has mentioned that, at some stage, these nations are bound to have a war(s).

No, but I'm not buying your car here. I'm giving you money to buy a car for me. You lose nothing in the deal, you're essentially getting free money.

4. Then, following the same metaphor, which deal would you rather take: paying $3,000 yourself for a product, or paying me $300 to get the same thing, even though you know I'll be taking a huge commission? Can you not see how mind-boggling it is, when you look at it like this, to then see so many buyers complaining? This is why I said if buyers hate it so much, buy your own tech.

This game is like a corporation that is promoting every member every month regardless of what they have done the last month. Once you promote everyone from the low ranks, there is no-one to do the dirty jobs. What good do we have from the corporation heads that don't do anything? They basically live on the low rank workers.

5. You think there's a seller shortage now? Watch what would happen if this mindset ever became reality.

Edited January 20, 2010 by DavidRossJones

[IronicMaster]

That's the problem with you - you think about your situation in the short run and not considering what your actions can do in the long run. When you increase the price now, the people who sell you tech will be increasing the price on you aswell. In the long run you are f***ing yourself over although it seems like a good idea in the short run. That's what caused the economic crisis in RL too.

Also, the ones who benefit from this the most are the nations that already have 10k+ tech. They are not losing their tech and they have far more money than any other possible tech buyers. They can afford high tech prices but anyone else can't. This means that eventually, we have a handful of nations who hold 75% of the tech in the game and the others don't have more than 2k. Only the top nations will be getting tech because the price is too high for the mid-NS buyer nations.

I like tech farms. It is not fair for the farmers but at least the economy and the military is getting stronger.

You should mention the fact, that most of the sellers do this deals without ever locking at this thread or your cartel-plans. Being a 3/100 tech farm in such a time especially in outer-world deals would be like donating my enemies theire future-victory.

[Sande]

I don't consider 3 mil for 100 tech sellers tech farms.

By tech farms I mean 3 mil for 150 up to 0 mil to 50 tech dealers. Nations that are made to increase the tech level of the alliance. Yes, we're setting these nations up in GR. Wurzel is the biggest one of them and is about to only send out free tech as soon as he makes enough money every 10 days.

I do not have cartel plans. Yet.

IM:

Tech sellers are not meant to be fighters in a war. Them losing in a war is not a big surprise to me. The real fighting goes on in the high ranks where people actually HAVE tech.

Do inter alliance tech deals if you want to help your alliance. The fact that they don't send money on time isn't a very big loss. There's enough time to grow.

DRJ:

Wait are you saying that the admin has to change the game so the game would run more smoothly? That's like asking god to save the economy.

I'm not trying to make you sell at a lower price. I'm trying to make you to NOT sell for a higher price (which would mess up tech deals for everyone). And there's the difference.

Again with the argument that large nations should buy their own tech? For the love of god! Stop it already.

3 mil for 100 tech is making both sides happy. And if you all would sell at that price, you can also buy at that price later. It takes you about 1/3 longer to reach that infra level but at least from that point on, you can get tech at the same price you sold for.

We're really talking about different things here. Sellers are obviously here for personal gain without caring about the tech selling economy on planet Bob. buyers... There's different kinds. Those who don't care at all what the price is, those who go with the current price and those who want to keep the old price because there was nothing wrong with it.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Sande

[DavidRossJones]

I don't consider 3 mil for 100 tech sellers tech farms.

By tech farms I mean 3 mil for 150 up to 0 mil to 50 tech dealers. Nations that are made to increase the tech level of the alliance. Yes, we're setting these nations up in GR. Wurzel is the biggest one of them and is about to only send out free tech as soon as he makes enough money every 10 days.

I do not have cartel plans. Yet.

IM:

Tech sellers are not meant to be fighters in a war. Them losing in a war is not a big surprise to me. The real fighting goes on in the high ranks where people actually HAVE tech.

Do inter alliance tech deals if you want to help your alliance. The fact that they don't send money on time isn't a very big loss. There's enough time to grow.

DRJ:

Wait are you saying that the admin has to change the game so the game would run more smoothly? That's like asking god to save the economy.

I'm not trying to make you sell at a lower price. I'm trying to make you to NOT sell for a higher price (which would mess up tech deals for everyone). And there's the difference.

Again with the argument that large nations should buy their own tech? For the love of god! Stop it already.

3 mil for 100 tech is making both sides happy. And if you all would sell at that price, you can also buy at that price later. It takes you about 1/3 longer to reach that infra level but at least from that point on, you can get tech at the same price you sold for.

We're really talking about different things here. Buyers are obviously here for personal gain without caring about the tech selling economy on planet Bob. Sellers... There's different kinds. Those who don't care at all what the price is, those who go with the current price and those who want to keep the old price because there was nothing wrong with it.

1. Sande, seriously, I respect your views but please read what I say properly. I have said (twice, I believe) that buying tech for large nations is not a feasible options. I'm NOT suggesting you do that, and I'm not suggesting it should be done. I am simply saying that if buying tech for 3mil/50t is so bad, then buy your own tech.

2. I know you aren't trying to make me sell at a lower price, and I personally am very happy with doing 3mil/50t deals.

3. No, I am not saying the Admins need to change anything. The game runs smoothly enough as it is. What I am saying is, is if suddenly things went pear-shaped with regards to tech selling, and numbers of nations started declining because of it, then it would not be yours or my job to fix it.

Buyers are obviously here for personal gain without caring about the tech selling economy on planet Bob

... those who want to keep the old price because there was nothing wrong with it.

4. So, what you're saying is, whilst it's O.K. for buyers to try and get the best deal available, sellers should settle for the worst one they can and like it?

[Sande]

Whose job is it to fix things then?

edited the last part. Buyers-Sellers...

[Viluin]

1. The market won't "implode", and to say so is at best naive and at worst scaremongering. For the market to implode, the international market that exists in CN (which consists of two things: trading technology and donations) needs something which doesn't exist in this market. It needs debt. Market implosion only happens when debt exists. It isn't physically possible for this market to implode. All that can happen is prices go up, prices go down, activity goes up, activity does down or activity ceases. This isn't an implosion.

If the demand increases, which in turn causes the prices to rise and the supply to drop even further, the market will shrink over time, perhaps until there's almost nothing left. Sounds like an implosion to me. If $6m/50 tech deals become the norm you'll see people becoming tech buyers after just 2 months, after shipping 500 tech. At that point it's just hopeless, there will barely be any tech to go around, 500 is nothing, that's the bi-monthly demand for every tech buyer, and tech buyers already outnumber tech sellers. Some may even quit after shipping just 250 tech if they perform a good inactivity cycle. This means most people in CN will not be able to buy a lot of tech at all, and those with 10k tech will laugh their @#$% off because they're set for life (it'd take like 6+ months of war to destroy that tech, good luck relying on that).

2. Again, I am going to say something I said earlier in this thread: Tech sellers do NOT exist solely to make buyers happy and even wealthier. We're playing this game as well, and would also like to be in the position to buy tech someday. Agreed, without tech deals, the entire process would be slower but you can not blame us for wanting to get the best deal on offer. It's not my job, or anybody else's, to make sure the economy in Cyber Nations runs smoothly. That's the developer's job. I do, however, doubt that you have any real concerns for the economy of Cyber Nations and are just using this as a reason to get people to try and deal at a lower price.

Uhm, no, managing the economy of Cybernations is mostly our job. We set the prices, we invent the deals and perform them. The developers aren't going to save the economy by putting some kind of hard limit on tech deal prices, we have to do that.

3. This won't happen. If tech prices do go up to that stage, we'll start to see nations who are currently low-end tech buyers, become sellers, and the cycle will start again. I'll also leave out of this argument the fact nobody has mentioned that, at some stage, these nations are bound to have a war(s).

No, that won't happen. Low-end tech buyers are buyers for military reasons, you can't postpone it forever. They won't become sellers again due to a lack of supply, they'll just have to settle for a few unused aid slots like everyone else.

4. Then, following the same metaphor, which deal would you rather take: paying $3,000 yourself for a product, or paying me $300 to get the same thing, even though you know I'll be taking a huge commission? Can you not see how mind-boggling it is, when you look at it like this, to then see so many buyers complaining? This is why I said if buyers hate it so much, buy your own tech.

Just as mind boggling as you demanding a higher price even though that money is practically free to you already?

Edited January 20, 2010 by Viluin

[DavidRossJones]

If the demand increases, which in turn causes the prices to rise and the supply to drop even further, the market will shrink over time, perhaps until there's almost nothing left. Sounds like an implosion to me. If $6m/50 tech deals become the norm you'll see people becoming tech buyers after just 2 months, after shipping 500 tech. At that point it's just hopeless, there will barely be any tech to go around, 500 is nothing, that's the bi-monthly demand for every tech buyer, and tech buyers already outnumber tech sellers. Some may even quit after shipping just 250 tech if they perform a good inactivity cycle. This means most people in CN will not be able to buy a lot of tech at all, and those with 10k tech will laugh their @#$% off because they're set for life (it'd take like 6+ months of war to destroy that tech, good luck relying on that.

I didn't say I'd "rely" on it, but it is something to be taken into consideration. But an implosion is when the market can not cope with a certain amount of debt, confidence collapses and everything else with it. Implosions mean people actually lose money. Basically, it's a crash. People not buying or selling is just...well, it's nothing. It just means nations will grow slower than they do now. It's hardly the end of the game.

Uhm, no, managing the economy of Cybernations is mostly our job. We set the prices, we invent the deals and perform them. The developers aren't going to save the economy by putting some kind of hard limit on tech deal prices, we have to do that.

No, but then, if people do leave the game because of lack of tech deals, then it becomes the developer's problem.

No, that won't happen. Low-end tech buyers are buyers for military reasons, you can't postpone it forever. They won't become sellers again due to a lack of supply, they'll just have to settle for a few unused aid slots like everyone else.

Perhaps. However, if the price is high enough, they may sell for longer. But then, this is all just speculation. Nobody can say what would happen for certain.

Just as mind boggling as you demanding a higher price even though that money is practically free to you already?

Sorry, where did I demand more? Clearly you are reading what you want to read in my posts, as I've already said I'm more than happy with the money I'm making now. However, if the market price goes up, I will go with it. Unlike the buyers here, I understand that the market adapts AND, I know that when I get to buying tech, I will be paying the same price as I sell for now, if not higher. I'm completely fine with this, and it just makes the game more challenging and therefore more fun for me.

Edited January 20, 2010 by DavidRossJones

[Viluin]

I didn't say I'd "rely" on it, but it is something to be taken into consideration. But an implosion is when the market can not cope with a certain amount of debt, confidence collapses and everything else with it. Implosions mean people actually lose money. Basically, it's a crash. People not buying or selling is just...well, it's nothing. It just means nations will grow slower than they do now. It's hardly the end of the game.

Meh, technical terms. When something causes itself to shrink to nothing, that's what I'd call an implosion. Natiosn growing slower than they do now IS the end of the game, because many nations grew at an accelerated pace for years, other people will never be able to catch up with them, or even get in range to attack them.

Sorry, where did I demand more? Clearly you are reading what you want to read in my posts, as I've already said I'm more than happy with the money I'm making now. However, if the market price goes up, I will go with it. Unlike the buyers here, I understand that the market adapts AND, I know that when I get to buying tech, I will be paying the same price as I sell for now, if not higher. I'm completely fine with this, and it just makes the game more challenging and therefore more fun for me.

There might not be any tech for you when you become a buyer, or very little tech. The vast majority of all alliances have a major tech seller deficit. The average nation in this game has almost 20k NS, that's well into tech buyer territory. Most nations bringing down the average NS are actually inactive and don't sell tech, so you can see there's already a shortage of sellers. Higher prices are only making it worse.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Viluin

[Sande]

The economy in CN is not the same it is in RL. Stop trying to put them two together as if they were. The words you use to describe RL economy have a bit different meanings in CN.

If people leave the game for the lack of tech deals, it is the sellers's fault. And the buyers's who agree to buy tech for such high prices. So, we as the buyers and sellers should agree to have a maximum tech price to keep the game somewhat more balanced. Game developers can't do much to balance the game when the players mess it up. They can't just delete every nation that has 10000+ tech. It would be really unfair for these nations.

The alliance blocs have always been more or less balanced to make the game interesting for everyone.

Now we have the problem with the lack of small nations and to balance it, we should not increase the price for a tech deal.

[DavidRossJones]

Or, more effort could be put into getting more nations to join the game. There's almost always more than one answer to a problem.

[NoLaurelTree000]

Or, more effort could be put into getting more nations to join the game. There's almost always more than one answer to a problem.

youre arguing in-charecter politics with out-of-charecter suggestions. its like suggesting that poor ethiopians look for farmers on venus to supply them with enough corn to feed their families.

i dont really get why all the sellers would want to have 3mill/50tech become the norm. sure, you make more money now and grow faster now, but you are only shooting yourself in the foot for later. once it comes time for you to start purchasing tech yourself, it will take you 25% longer (only in terms of aid slots, not taking into account fiscal numbers) to build tech than what it took nations older than yourself. so once your alliance goes to war, you are at a significant disadvantage to any nation older than yourself on the basis that you'll statistically always have less tech. in addition, the increased cost of tech will slow how much infra your nation is able to buy. therefore it is greedy for the sellers to want 3mill/50tech deals because they want more money now at the expense of their nations later.

[DavidRossJones]

youre arguing in-charecter politics with out-of-charecter suggestions. its like suggesting that poor ethiopians look for farmers on venus to supply them with enough corn to feed their families.

i dont really get why all the sellers would want to have 3mill/50tech become the norm. sure, you make more money now and grow faster now, but you are only shooting yourself in the foot for later. once it comes time for you to start purchasing tech yourself, it will take you 25% longer (only in terms of aid slots, not taking into account fiscal numbers) to build tech than what it took nations older than yourself. so once your alliance goes to war, you are at a significant disadvantage to any nation older than yourself on the basis that you'll statistically always have less tech. in addition, the increased cost of tech will slow how much infra your nation is able to buy. therefore it is greedy for the sellers to want 3mill/50tech deals because they want more money now at the expense of their nations later.

1. Oh come on, please be real. It's nothing like that. How is suggesting that we solve this "problem" (since it isn't really a problem) by increasing supply, like suggesting we do something physically impossible?

2. Right, and this catching up game wouldn't have happened anyway? Of course it would. It's insane to suggest a newer nation could ever catch up an older nation, who buys tech at the same rate as the newer nation does. I'm fully comfortable with the fact I probably won't get into even the top 20%, let alone the top 5%.

[Sande]

1. The amount of new tech sellers we should get every time a tech seller becomes a buyer will grow exponentially over time. It IS something physically impossible. At the moment we would need a minimum of 20 tech sellers in GR. We have 100 members. CN has about 25k nations. SO, the minimum to get everyone hooked with tech deals is 5k new sellers. And I'm pretty sure there will still be buyers who don't get enough tech deals to fill their slots.

2. meh?

[USOFAA]

youre arguing in-charecter politics with out-of-charecter suggestions. its like suggesting that poor ethiopians look for farmers on venus to supply them with enough corn to feed their families.

i dont really get why all the sellers would want to have 3mill/50tech become the norm. sure, you make more money now and grow faster now, but you are only shooting yourself in the foot for later. once it comes time for you to start purchasing tech yourself, it will take you 25% longer (only in terms of aid slots, not taking into account fiscal numbers) to build tech than what it took nations older than yourself. so once your alliance goes to war, you are at a significant disadvantage to any nation older than yourself on the basis that you'll statistically always have less tech. in addition, the increased cost of tech will slow how much infra your nation is able to buy. therefore it is greedy for the sellers to want 3mill/50tech deals because they want more money now at the expense of their nations later.

I am a Tech seller and do both 3M/100T 3M/50T I like the 3M/50T better just becuse of aid spots. Far as shooting my self in the foot perhaps, But i donate thats why i have tons of Tech on hand but i bet you can guess no aid spots, As a matter of fact i think i am only going to do 3M/50T from this point on. I really wish they would increases the aid spots for everyone.

[Sande]

You could organise your aid slots better.

1) When you sell donations, you only ask money for yourself.

2) When selling tech, keep max 50 on your nation.

3) Donation buying nation sends 3 mil to another tech seller. Someone who is buyign tech from you sends you 3 mil. The other tech seller sends him 50 tech. You only collect money.

Saves a lot of aid slots for you and you don't even have to send any aid out.

[USOFAA]

You could organise your aid slots better.

1) When you sell donations, you only ask money for yourself.

2) When selling tech, keep max 50 on your nation.

3) Donation buying nation sends 3 mil to another tech seller. Someone who is buyign tech from you sends you 3 mil. The other tech seller sends him 50 tech. You only collect money.

Saves a lot of aid slots for you and you don't even have to send any aid out.

I have some that just give money. And some that give money and Tech, How is saveing aid spots to not send tech when one aid spots reads like this 3Mil and 50 Tech?

[Sande]

I have some that just give money. And some that give money and Tech, How is saveing aid spots to not send tech when one aid spots reads like this 3Mil and 50 Tech?

You said you were doing tech deals...

You can have someone else send 50 tech for you so your nation could get more money in aid. Faster growth for yourself.

[IronicMaster]

i dont really get why all the sellers would want to have 3mill/50tech become the norm. sure, you make more money now and grow faster now, but you are only shooting yourself in the foot for later. once it comes time for you to start purchasing tech yourself, it will take you 25% longer (only in terms of aid slots, not taking into account fiscal numbers) to build tech than what it took nations older than yourself. so once your alliance goes to war, you are at a significant disadvantage to any nation older than yourself on the basis that you'll statistically always have less tech. in addition, the increased cost of tech will slow how much infra your nation is able to buy. therefore it is greedy for the sellers to want 3mill/50tech deals because they want more money now at the expense of their nations later.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I am a Tech seller and do both 3M/100T 3M/50T I like the 3M/50T better just becuse of aid spots. Far as shooting my self in the foot perhaps, But i donate thats why i have tons of Tech on hand but i bet you can guess no aid spots, As a matter of fact i think i am only going to do 3M/50T from this point on. I really wish they would increases the aid spots for everyone.

I don't wish the 3m/50 deal to be the norm. My opinion is that it's ok for BOTH participants, and that this deals should be determined by the persons doing this deals.

They ARE determined by the persons doing this deals, whatever the angry or the polite Buyers in this thread might say.

I don't wish to persuade the buyers to pay 3/100 or the sellers to take 3/50. But i oppose the position that all deals HAVE TO BE 3/100 and that CN would collapse otherwise. This position is simply pointless. As some people said, CN-Economy is not consistent to real economy so a prediction for CN-Economy can't be made without a sufficient database and so are just speculative. If on the other hand CN-Economy would be consistent to real-world-economy, the increasing price would encourage other sellers and so the price would balance at the actual worth of Tech.

And I oppose the position that sellers taking 3/50 are greedy. This position is not objective.

Edited January 25, 2010 by IronicMaster

[Sande]

The point of this topic was wether the general price is 50 or 100 tech.

Let's take another RL situation then.

Extremely generalised but makes it's point.

We have really thankless jobs that no-one would do when they could do something better. Cleaning the streets for instance. Or putting together children's toys (Most of these toys are made in China by some really cheap laborers).

In CN these peopel are the tech sellers.

Now, if these workers could leave their jobs for better ones and the company making the toys doesn't get any new workers, what will happen? We do not get any cheap toys. We have to pay a lot for the workers at some point, making the price of the toys climb just as fast if not even faster. Ironically, lucky for us, China uses "labour camps", making the toys cheap at the expense of their citizens.

And the economy doesn't collapse because we always have these toymakers. And you can get a wii for Christmas. Or not, because there are times when everyone wants toys and the toy makers can't make toys for everyone. The more toymakers there are the more toys you can buy for the children.

In CN, we can't force people into "labour camps" to sell tech. And inevitably a nation grows out of tech selling stage really fast. (Unless someone nukes him a couple of times (And it should be done, occasionally, IMHO ))

When the 3 mil for 50 tech deals started, they were meant to be given to the more active tech sellers. It should have been that way. The trend should be 3 mil for 100 tech deals. Since it keeps the balance longer.

[Lord Brendan]

Selling tech isn't exactly what I consider hard labor. It's not more difficult than buying tech, and you receive a fair price for it.

[Sande]

It isn't hard labour but the point is, if we lose the people who sell us tech, we have to pay a lot more for it.

And the price is not fair if you have to buy it yourself...

[Lord Brendan]

If CN gets to the point where we have no tech sellers, there will be much bigger problems than the tech market.

Not sure what you mean by the second part. The sellers are paid for the tech they buy..?

[Viluin]

Selling tech isn't exactly what I consider hard labor. It's not more difficult than buying tech, and you receive a fair price for it.

Buyers will come to you.. sellers don't. I'd say buying tech is harder.