Mikal Brinner

I'm a high end seller. Certainly not 10K per unit but 2K per unit and for me, we do pretty well..for us. A rate is an income tax. A fee is a transaction fee. The transaction cost of utilizing any vendor service is impacted by the arbirtrary process of setting a price. You're right about volume and in the end perhaps there is balance but that is not a principled argument. If we are talking about transaction costs, those using a service more frequently than others cost more to the owner of the system than those who use the system less frequently. Those with lower volume, pay the same but yes, less than those with higher transaction volumes. When rates are applied as a means of LL recouping or paying for expenses, those rates become income taxes calculated on the arbitrary process of a vendor setting a price. For customers, will added transaction costs increase what you pay. Maybe. Unlike RL where commodities and items people need can be priced to include fluctuations in costs, SL has not worked that way very well. For me, I'll end up eating the cost but then again, I have seen some vendors in SL who are were fairly mercenary with pricing. Again, my position is that LL should consult with all vendor types (high end price/lower volume and low end price/high volume) and find where there is common ground if LL choose to collect some form of transaction income. Allow vendors and LL to come to terms and find a solution which is fair. There are other vendor systems and certainly other ways to transact business in and out of world though as a vendor, CV is easier for customers to access and for vendors to place products on the market. A solution is transaction pricing scales for Premium Plus, Premium and "nonmember" avatars. LL has already eliminated transaction fees for uploads for Premium Plus as an incentive to pay more. It can be an incentive to increase membership level. Final point, LL has not opened the door to transaction pricing. In a year, they may. I just hope LL has the presence of mind to engage community members (specifically vendors) when discussing pricing.

Why is 10% the magic number? 10% looks a lot different to creators who sell shoes for 250L versus those who sell vehicles at 2000L or buildings at 5000L. The cost to LL isn't any different but some are carrying a greater burden than others, per transaction. I'm not arguing with you about rates necessarily but it is about being fair per transaction rather than income tax. For premium users, perhaps a differential or scaled LL fee or no fee/rate at all. Make it an enticement for people to pay in to a higher level of membership. I'm not saying that LL should not get a return on their investment but if transactions fee Casper, along comes LL charging a fee is similar to making a toll road out of a road users already paid to use. This is not the only issue and I agree, people are stoking worries which are not apparent. Still, a cost of doing business impacts business. My position, to be clear, is for current Casper users to have a seat at the table when discussing policies going forward and while LL is focused on a smooth integration, that is not the only topic of consideration for the future. When bringing people to the table, people who sell low cost items and those who sell higher cost items should be heard .

Having read many of the comments, there aren't a lot of answers from LL about what they will be doing other than something was done and nothing will change "for now". The rest is user speculation or at worst blind agreements that yes, we'll pay more by transaction. Then there is an undercurrent of a lack of trust of LL and I'm not sure why that is other than people may have an inherent lack of trust of corporations, which LL is one. The value add of Casper is that it worked most of the time, there was good customer services, there weren't transaction fees but essentially a set up fee and that too was fairly reasonable. I do have concerns which went unanswered and then were deleted and then restored by LL regarding content moderation/control of casper product listings. It isn't that I distrust LL in this arena or think that LL should not moderate content which can get them sued, I just want to know what the process is if an accuasation is being made. It matters going forward and I will conced that LL has not set policy on this issue. I don't use brands on my products but I know those who do. If they will be policed, how will product listings be examined? The usage fee, folks do not give up your business to an added fee pretending that LL is poor. They aren't poor. They are running a business, that's true but so am I and so are a lot of people. Adding costs can lose customers, however nominal the cost. If there is a discussion of a usage or transaction fee, current users of Casper should have a seat at the table. A nominal fee of 2% for your 100L weekly rental isn't a big deal but I sell products which cost 20 times that amount, it can be a big deal that either I pass on to my customers or just eat. We're not talking about a lot of money, it is pocket change, i agree. Still, it is the principle and if there is a fee, what more are we getting from use of Casper and how will LL seek the counsel of users when determining the fee/rate? Again, I doubt these conversations have resulted in policy positions as of yet but I'm sure the thought has crossed their mind. Regarding the seeming generalized lack of trust some have of the Lindens, I don't think it is really warranted or fair. I've been around 14 years or so and I've seen some bizarre decisions, hamhandedness in application and well, Sansar. Generally, they've done a pretty good job considering. I think it is fair for us as users/customers to seek and expect transparency in business affairs. I think it is fair for LL to seek opinion, experience and feedback on how their policy decisions will impact their customers.

To say "Not at the present" or "for now" remains concerning. Many of us remember XLStreet too. Will LL, in the future, begin or considering transaction or usage fees for CasperVend operators? You anwered with words which give LL the option to do something else in the future. I don't begrudge CasperVend from selling their service to LL and honestly, it makes some sense that LL would support the CasperVend system. The cost of a full blown CV system is what it is but I always wondered about RL financial sustainability for the server and web fees. While I follow the rules, I know other do not with regards to inworld use of brands. LL has policed MarketPlace listings rightfully so. Is LL now going to police CV listing for illegal use of RL brands? Secondly, will LL be adding features and/or improving analytics and sales/customer data for vendors? I would appreciate more granularity by day rather than by month (sorted with a slider).

I'll leave the "us and them" rants where they belong as they aren't constructive. Do basic members not contribute to the greater good? No, I said many do. The real point is by increasing the premium pricing without offering a relative increased or differential benefit between premium and basic members, what point is there in a premium membership? The value add is marginal. The difference between a basic and premium membership is negligible. Where LL should give some consideration is something above the 300L stipend or just plain eliminate the premium membership and then everyone is treated in the same manner. As an incentive to being a premium member, offering something of value such as different rate schemes for withdrawal of funds is at topic. By increasing the rate of a "voluntary tax" in the form of a premium membership without assigning some relative increase to those who choose not to pay for premium membership, LL is placing the cost burden on premium members. So is that fair or reasonable?

I recognize that LL has reversed part of their new policy. Non-premium members keep some of their groups, great. As a premium member there remain concerns. First, I don't believe it is unreasonable to increase the Premium fee structure. Any business needs to be solvent and profitable and LL has been dirt cheap for years compared to other platforms. Try to play GTA5 for free or some of the MMOs. I am less than amused at the features provided to premium members compared to those who are riding SL coattails for free. Sure we get the opportunity to wait for the new homes or the old homes which have been around for years and years. We get the opportunity to buy into the mainland ghetto where there is no zoning or recourse to settle land disputes. We get access to live chat, which for the life of me, I cannot locate. Still I believe we should invest a nominal amount to have our voice heard. Though are our voices really being heard, as premium members, compared to those who don't pay into membership? The reduction of tier and set up fees makes a lot of sense too that cost was overpriced for years. So there are good things happening with LL and SL. I watched your CEO's YouTube interview and I get and support the concept of "balance". Where you reduce participation costs in one area, LL has to increase revenue in other areas. However, it seems to be more on the back of premium members who perhaps aren't as vocal as the nonpremium participants. Voices should have relative weight the thing is, I don't mind paying more if my voice has greater comparative weight. I don't mind paying more if I see some improved value from my contribution. Otherwise, call "premium membership" a donation. One topic which I have read is a concern is the fees applied to withdrawing funds from SL. Forgive me if I don't have the actual rates presented accurately but I do have a point and suggestion to share. For nonpaying participants in SL, the fee to take Lindens into the RL should be greater than the fee for members. Here's why, as members, we are already paying into the community for the greater good. We are part of the profit scheme LL has. It isn't to say nonmembers do not contribute toward the SL economy, many do but what value is membership when nonmembers get the same relative benefit when they don't contribute? Perhaps by charging nonmembers a 5% fee to withdraw and charging members a 3.5% fee to withdraw inworld earnings, more people would choose to be members and membership would have another value add. At present, there is marginal value or benefit to membership to justify the expense when there is value in being a nonmember. I'll continue paying my membership fee because it is the right thing to do. LL is on the right path and finally well led. I would encourage, unless you are, to listen to your premium members first and with greater weight than those who have made the choice to not be a member. There are politics at play and like any business or community, you have a degree of vulnerability. Thank you for what you do.