Official Middlemanning Accounts

Closed FireZ told me Sin is wrong.

 

I'd probably say FireZ is right. Whatever you 'virtually' hold, is what you have handled.

 

Exactly, but what I am saying is....

If $50 paypal for an account counts as $50, and you handled the account only.

Why does 100M for an account, when you handle 100m cash + an account, only count as $50?

 

I agree that the first way is wrong, but I disagree with the second view. It should be counted as:

Seller Giving --- Account
Buyer Giving --- 100M Rsgp
What the MM Handles --- 100M Rsgp + Account
Counted as ---- $50
It should be counted as: 100m RSGP + Acc that was worth 100m at the time.

 

I guess it all depends on methods. I believe that what you're suggesting means that you have held both of them, correct?

I think they base it on the fact that the generally accepted consensus is that

A gives MM RSGP
B gives Buyer details
Buyer confirms.
MM gives B RSGP.

Not on the fact that you've either done a recovery test etc.
I think if you could prove that you handled both, it would count as a 100$ trade.

 

Yes, what I'm saying is if I handle both sides of the trade, why should it only be counted as me handling 1 side?

If I'm trusted with TWICE as much, why shouldn't it count towards me?

 

You know, it doesn't really matter which side exactly you handle.
They're both equals. If someone buys an account for 100M, the account is worth 100M. So if you only hold the account, you've handled 100M. Which, in MM rules, is $50.
Why would you be handling both anyways?

 

Well what Sin666 told me is that if I handle both the account and the 100m cash, it will only count as $50.

I posted this because I think it should be worth $100 as I am handling both sides.

 

In the first example it should count as how ever much the guy is buying the account as that's how much its worth.

In the second example, it should only count as one side as Sin666 said...

 

Well if you make it that way, you never completed your OMM app.

It says you have 4/2 trades for $200+, when it was only 1 of those 4 that was $200+

 

I'd say that if you handle both sides of the trade, then you have handled 2x the original RSGP, or the RSGP + general consensus of the account's worth.

 

Wat?

Mils were worth $1 each back then, I held 2 500m MMs and 208m MM. So it counted as $200+

 

Okay you really annoyed me on the irc...

But here's what I think it should be - the trade for the account is only worth $50 (100m) to each party and thus it should be counted as $50. You are taking the trade value from each person, they're both not trading 200m so the trade isn't known as a 200m trade.

And to you calling me a hypocrite about doing it with rares, I held 550m, which actually valued at $1.2 per mil (before free trading), it doesn't count as a $25 trade because the highest value in the trade was $660 if he took the time to sell the shield and sell the mills individually...

 

That's true. It's basically all about the current RSGP market.

OT: I'd say that whatever you are given / told is equal to what you have handled as long as you can prove it.

 

Well if an account is 100m, and I also held the gp.

If I were to scam, I could sell a 100m account + have 100m GP. Totalling to 200m.

Just like you were being trusted with 500m spirit shield, I'm being trusted with 100m account AND 100m cash. Therefore it should not count as only a $50 trade.

 

I used to review the applications, I know what the requirements are, and were intended to be when they were drafted -.-

If accounts are now worth double, that's a recent rule. But, it doesn't really make sense to me.

 

Your quote, exactly.
If the MM handles the account as well, and the account ends up getting recovered sameday/later, then the MM is also at fault. As the MM now holds the information as well as the person who originally sold it, so who would be to blame?
Which is why Sin said the trade only counted as 50$, since the account can be recovered within 5minutes now, while gp cannot be recovered.

 

Actually, that wasn't my point at all XD

I'll rephrase.

Suppose a scammer had a choice: they can either steal an account 'worth' 100m, or they can steal 20m pure RSGP. The GP is guaranteed: once they walk away, neither side can get it back. With the account, however, there's a 95% chance that the account seller will recover it, and the scammer will be left with nothing.

Allowing for preferences between different risk and return tradeoffs, the vast majority of rational people would choose the RSGP, since the expected value (EV = .05 x 100m) of scamming the account is only 5m.

This implies that the account is actually worth less than 20m RSGP to a scammer. Hence, to say that a user is being trusted with 200m when they MM an account being sold for 100m is false; in this simplified and therefore thoroughly inaccurate model, the total trade value would be under 120m from the perspective of an MM deciding whether to scam.

Even with that issue aside, I'd add that the application is supposed to be a long and difficult process. It's not just about the applicant proving they can be trusted with a given amount, or we wouldn't require 10 trades in the same value brackets. Thus, if account trades are to suddenly be counted as double, the requirements would likely have to be increased accordingly.

 

Yea, we were on totally 2 different pages haha

Both, your logic, and mine, are true though.
When I was working on logging all my MM's, I only put them under what the GP/$ was, I never included the other part of the trade (If trade was 100m for 50$, the trade was worth 50$, and I put 50$ down, not 100$)

 

But when the MM rules were created, one could not just walk away with the GP (no free trade)