Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: Pressed Rat on September 17, 2013, 06:06 pm
-
10 percent is a lot of money. we all appreciate the site and we all pay the fees.
But without the buyer where would this site be? I feel SR should reward buyers that been here a certain amout of time and spent a certain amount of money with lower fees.
E.G. If a buyer is here for over 10 months and spent over 10 grand then they should automatically go from paying 10 percent to 5 percent.
Isnt that fair?
-
10 percent is a lot of money. we all appreciate the site and we all pay the fees.
But without the buyer where would this site be? I feel SR should reward buyers that been here a certain amout of time and spent a certain amount of money with lower fees.
E.G. If a buyer is here for over 10 months and spent over 10 grand then they should automatically go from paying 10 percent to 5 percent.
Isnt that fair?
I agree with the principle but don't ask SR to do it, ask your vendor to do it.
As a vendor I already give preferential pricing and service to my best customers. I also hold back stock so I never run out when my favorites and desperate regulars are in need. When my inventory allows I toss in something extra for the larger buyer or give free shipping upgrades.
If you are a good customer, ask your vendor to show his or her appreciation with a little bit more.
I am sure most will realize the immense benefit of customer loyalty.
And thank you for the post, Pressed Rat.
Modzi
-
Well, thats another way looking at it but some vendors are doing better than others. With the amount of transactions here i think its only fair the site reward those who already paid a hefty amount in fees to SilkRoad. These are people that followed the rules, finalized once they received, and contribute to the site and forums.
Im sure to look into your business and thanks for the reply.
-
My vote? NO.
Otherwise the effect of this is to subsidise the most affluent customers.
-
I don't see this happening, but I do like the idea. SR is a business. It might not have stakeholders like a Fortune 500 company, but SR's CEO and board members whoever they are are making some serious coin. If there were incentives like bitcoin kickbacks for spending certain amounts then perhaps buyers would spend more money and SR could make more money. The only problem I see with the idea is the risks of SR. SR is a risk for all. It's a risk for the CEO all the way down to the buyer. Everyone is accepting some. So SR's fees IMO are fair considering the risks. SR should be rewarded for these risks. Basically what I'm trying to say is if it wasn't worth the risk then would DPR even be doing this? Heck no. If a vendor was going to be making $5 off every pound of weed he moves would it be worth doing this? Heck no. So while there probably is enough for SR to provide buyers with kickbacks, I don't think they are in the wrong for keeping all of their fees because they're sticking their necks way out to make this marketplace possible.
-
10 percent is a lot of money. we all appreciate the site and we all pay the fees.
But without the buyer where would this site be? I feel SR should reward buyers that been here a certain amout of time and spent a certain amount of money with lower fees.
E.G. If a buyer is here for over 10 months and spent over 10 grand then they should automatically go from paying 10 percent to 5 percent.
Isnt that fair?
I agree with the principle but don't ask SR to do it, ask your vendor to do it.
As a vendor I already give preferential pricing and service to my best customers. I also hold back stock so I never run out when my favorites and desperate regulars are in need. When my inventory allows I toss in something extra for the larger buyer or give free shipping upgrades.
If you are a good customer, ask your vendor to show his or her appreciation with a little bit more.
I am sure most will realize the immense benefit of customer loyalty.
And thank you for the post, Pressed Rat.
Modzi
I like this idea better and have already seen it in practice. Some vendors offer kickbacks and incentives for ordering certain amounts. If I was a vendor, I would 100% implement a strategy like this. Why wouldn't you? Which do you think would sell better? 5 x 10 mg adderall pills for $50 OR 4 x 10 mg adderall pills + 1 FREE for $50. I'd be willing to bet the later is the best seller. Heck you could switch that up to 5 x 10 mg + 1 FREE for $60 and do better than the first. There are so many ways you could price items yet some vendors I get the feeling just throw a dart or flip a coin to determine price. It's not smart and you're essentially leaving money on the table. Give your customers the incentives to spend more money. Just play the same psychological tricks that Walmart or the car lots play. Ever hear those car lots saying get $2500 cash back on any new car? Only the nieve think they're getting that money back. It's all built into the cost of the car. The lots are happy to give you $2500 cash back or $2500 for your clunker if you can just tow it to the car lot because that money is already somehow added back into the price of the car you're buying. You think you're getting a deal, but you're really getting nothing.
-
I don't think this is a good idea for me it resembles to much of say Capital one- spend more cause your rich get free points back, while the poor have to pay interest cause they dont have enough money to make the whole payment at once, essentially funneling money from less fortunate to more.
When you become a big player on the road you already get a better advantage- buy bulk you pay less and acquire more bitcoins at once often mean a lower fee or no fee.
-
I don't think this is a good idea for me it resembles to much of say Capital one- spend more cause your rich get free points back, while the poor have to pay interest cause they dont have enough money to make the whole payment at once, essentially funneling money from less fortunate to more.
When you become a big player on the road you already get a better advantage- buy bulk you pay less and acquire more bitcoins at once often mean a lower fee or no fee.
This is not socialism. its capitalism. people who spend more pay more into the system. and repeat customers that spend is the back bone of any business. reward those who earned their stripes also
-
they'll spend anyways unless other market forces (competition etc) dictates that SR needs to adapt for whatever reason.
-
This is a sellers market, the buyer gets stiffed left right and centre
-
This is a sellers market, the buyer gets stiffed left right and centre
true. hence the idea
-
I totally agree with the whole vendors rewarding long-time buyers thing. I personally can't stand when I order from a vendor and I'm given horrible customer service and even slower shipping because of all the newbies on the road now when I'm a loyal long-time buyer. No one likes someone with a sense of entitlement, but buyers are the reason SR is so successful at the end of the day.
-
I think the main reward from vending is the massive profit margin most vendors have. All sides are happy, Vendors get the profit, SilkRoad get a small amount of commission and the buyers get drugs in the post. :)
So no, I think It's fine how it is.
~D
-
Your reward is getting massive amounts of high quality drugs without having to get shot, robbed, or arrested.
-
I agree but will have to think about a system of stats etc that would be fair for everybody. Maybe 7% is a better % to aim for. You're talking about a 50% drop in their fee's... It sort of sounds like the people in the USA who make more money pay a lower % of taxes... Thats fucking bullshit LOL..
I'm in the category stated at the beginning of this post (I think 10 months and well over 10k ;) I've noticed that vender's do treat me with more respect than when I started. I also have no problem asking for deals because I'm usually ordering alot... This vender gave me a 40% break on a very high valued/sought after product just today and it was because of good communication and me being a buyer from him since he was offering free samples just to get his name out.
I'd write DPR (or whomever reads his letters) and try talking to him. Never underestimate what one man can do... I'd still suggest shooting for a number different than 5%... Maybe go for 4% so he's forced to counter offer? IDK, I usually play business negotiations as they come and I usually do pretty good. Maybe I'll help you draft up a letter if you want.
id like to see a discount for big spenders
-bill paxton
-
You've already been rewarded. The mere continued existence of Silk Road is reward enough.
The sense of entitlement that this thread suggests is disheartening to say the least.
You reward everyone or you reward no one at all. That is the Libertarian way. And SR has rewarded everyone on occasion with commission free days.
-
Say what?! No way man, that's crazy. I'm a BUYER, and *I* don't think SR "SHOULD" reward long time high spending buyers. (And I might just be one myself too). That' doesn't make sense. I love what Modziw said.. the idea is a great sentiment, that should be between the vendor and buyer. Not SR.
SR is a business as has been stated in the above posts.. this is not charity nor is it the Sally Struthers foundation. It's in business to do business. They've got a commission structure.. and it's meant to keep this business afloat and it's CEO/stakeholders/board compensated for being some of the most wanted person(s) in the planet. They're already "rewarding" us buyers buy allowing access to the site for free! It's not invite only, it's got no entry fee,... so techincally we're already getting a "break".
Now, just like Don Modziw the Silk Road Cartel Don (old school forum users will get that.. newbies, do a search, funny times those were) has said.. vendor's usually do "reward" their loyal/VIP customers. It's like any other client/provider relationship. Every single vendor I've been loyal too and spent a sizeable chunk of money too.. have rewarded me in ways that were just beyond fucking awesome. Without fail. And I'm not some $10k at a time bulk buyer by any means! But (the good) vendors are usually badass at customer relations. That's half the game.
I wont reveal which vendors, and I wont be TOO specific (lest I get a lecture for reveleaing trade secrets).. but I've had a vendor of mine be out of a certain product I needed, responded that he'll arrange it. He found me a fellow vendor who DID have it. Now, I was in the process of getting BTC and the other vendor was in a timezone and way past his cutoff. I informed my vendor that it will take me a few hours to get the BTC into my account, so basically I will be fucked all weekend. He told me to check my SR account in 3 minutes. He SENT ME the COIN for my order and a message saying "enjoy my man, payable when able!". I was able to place the order with Vendor2, beyond cutoff time cuz Vendor1 put in a good word, with funds Vendor1 took upon himself to spot me cuz he knew I'd never get the coin into SR in time! Of course when the coins came, I sent them right to Vendor1 with a giant thank you and he was like "no worries at all man. you've always been one of my best customers!" That's a "reward" if I've seen one.
I've also had the standard vendor VIP treatment such as throwing in extra product (1 particular vendor of mine, god bless the guy seriously. He's the cheapest of what he sells, and one time DOUBLED my order for no reason. No other reason other then I was a consistent customer and he said he had extra stock lying around! DOUBLED. (This is very rare and you shouldn't expect this ever. Even 1 "freebie" should never be "expected" as that ruins the fuzzy warm feelings when you do receive an extra/heavy of whatever it is).
Another one of my regular vendors, upon finding out that I was throwing a birthday bash for myself, not only hooked up the product with the best quality, it was overweight, AND he threw in 2 items of a product that he doesn't even technically vend (but are known to be party favors) + a VIAGRA and said "happy birthday fucker! enjoy the party favors and that other pill is a viagra. You'd better get yourself laid". Again, warm fuzzy vendor love.
And then there's shipping upgrades, bending the rules of cutoff, reserving stock especially on hold, and informing me well in advance when he'll be stocked up so when to prepare to order. Etc etc.
These are ALL exceptions to the "rule" and should never be expected. But if you're around long enough, spend enough, give positive vibes, respect (and are worthy of respect yourself by not begging or bitching).. your regular vendors will take care of you.
Am I right on this vendors?
And to the one guy who said it's not fair for affluent buyers to be rewarded buy vendors.. get real bro. Money talks and this is the FREE MARKET.
Next time you see some dude driving a Maserati.. approach him at a red light and tell him it's not fair that he's driving the Maserati and has scantily clad 21 year old chick bouncing around the passenger seat. Tell him it's not fair that because he's affluent he's got an expensive car and a beautiful girl.
He'll "reward" you with his middle finger!
-
Yea I agree with the above, it should be on the vendor not the road. I know the extra discount would be nice, but com-on if you selling you can probably undercut everyone around you and still double your money I know as far as weed mdma and psychedelics go thats true for me, if your just a user and you've spent 10k then mabey your doing a little to much drugs :) or you could just of been here a long time I suppose.
The money is so easy here maybe you dont want to be a dealer- I get that, but prices are still lower then street and you never have to go meet someone who you don't know for illicit substances
-
Your reward is getting massive amounts of high quality drugs without having to get shot, robbed, or arrested.
Kudos to that!
OP must be a virgin. Despite SR admins view on OOE, just like FE it will be here, always, because of the fees. Everyone wants to save a BTC, me included.
I know the rules. I pay my fees, by not doing OOE. I'm not not kidding myself that it's not going on. Admin's got em scared, but not that scared.
When they are caught, they get a nice form letter ;) I saved a copy, cause I find it very interesting to review.
As far as paying less tax, this has been discussed many times. I thought the percent went down the bigger the order? You must be talking about a hotel/airline point reward system. Would need software changes. Plus more bitching. Nice idea, would stop buyers from changing names like used underwear.
I'd like to get some free shit once in a while too (lol). Free flight to euphoria, no blackout dates, either.
The overloads of SR set the fees, not us. This is not a democracy. I for one welcome our new overloads, and look forward to a bright, and pleasant future with them. :D
I really liked the idea, of vendors taking care of regulars. Strange new concept. ;)
Just kidding. my vendors know I love them. ALL OF THEM, yes that means you. There should be a loyalty program for them as well. Free flight to euphoria, or cash, which ever they prefer.
Stay high! 8)
-
Maybe it's just past my bedtime, but I'm feeling confused about this whole thread. This seems to be a debate about lowering fees for buyers, but buyers don't pay the fees; sellers pay the fees. Or am I totally not understanding what this discussion is about?
-
SR was founded on the grounds of libertarianism, so lets take a look at what libertarian values would say to this matter.
Non-aggression principle: Any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
Why am I mentioning NAP? It is a core libertarian value that opposes taxes overall. Why am I mentioning taxes? It is because we are discussing user fees which is by definition: a fee, tax, or impost payment paid to a facility owner or operator by a facility user as a necessary condition for using the facility.
Let us move forward with the understanding that a tax and a fee are synonymous.
Now it is argued by libertarians that low taxes are necessary at most, for a society with no taxation could not support its own foundations and public goods could not be provided (SR market). Thus, it is established that some fees (bare minimal) are required to keep things running. (10% fee)
Yet can the taxation system be better structured to benefit a specific group using the service? (User seniority, high ranking, etc)
No. Under libertarian views, this goes against non-aggression principle. While taxation itself is a breach of NAP, taxation cannot be avoided in order to keep the system afloat as long as no more is levied than is necessary to optimize protection of individuals against [true] aggression. (Law enforcement)
So of what taxation is present, due to absolute necessity, must be kept equal among all to uphold NAP. Taxing one group more than others is an aggressive stance, no matter the sense of entitlement one group has.
Thus SR uses a neutral tax.
A neutral tax is a theoretical tax which avoids distortion and inefficiency completely. Other things being equal, if a tax-payer must choose between two mutually exclusive economic projects (say selling to a new buyer vs. and senor buyer) that have the same pre-tax risk and returns, the one with the lower tax or with a tax exemption would be chosen by a rational actor. (Aggressive, against libertarianism)
Economists argue that uneven taxes generally distort behavior, thus a neutral tax avoids this.
As you can see, a vendor may choose to act aggressively by choosing to sell to the senor over the newbie, but SR and its fees should have ZERO influence in distorting the vendors behavior in order to uphold its core values as dictated by Dread Pirate Roberts.
-
+1 to you sir(occams razor)
That's a solid post I think DPR would agree
-
You reward everyone or you reward no one at all. That is the Libertarian way.
No, it isn't. That's actually quite contrary to the libertarian way. Socialists are concerned with equity issues, not libertarians. The libertarian way is that two or more parties can enter into whatever arrangement they all freely consent to. If SR wanted to charge you 5% commission and me 50% and we both keep buying, then there's nothing wrong with that.
Of course, that's probably not a very sensible way to run a business and would alienate a lot of customers, but it isn't morally wrong - it's just a bad business model.
"It is a core libertarian value that opposes taxes overall. Why am I mentioning taxes? It is because we are discussing user fees which is by definition: a fee, tax...under libertarian views, this goes against non-aggression principle. While taxation itself is a breach of NAP, taxation cannot be avoided in order to keep the system afloat as long as no more is levied than is necessary to optimize protection of individuals against [true] aggression. (Law enforcement)"
Huh? That is some seriously confused reasoning. The non-aggression principle has - at best - tangential relevance in this case. For a start, I wasn't aware it distinguished between "aggression" and "true aggression".
"a vendor may choose to act aggressively by choosing to sell to the senor over the newbie"
That is not an act of aggression. That's an example of freedom of association, assuming all parties are willing traders.
Anyway, a fee or charge for using a service is not analogous to a tax. Taxes levied by states are not voluntary. You can't opt out of them. You don't have the choice (as you do here) of not using the service and not paying the charge. Even consumption taxes are unavoidable - if you somehow manage to avoid paying through selective buying (which is practically impossible, but for argument's sake...), you'll still pay indirectly when buying untaxed goods. The tax adds to the overall cost of those producing these goods, which is inevitably passed onto buyers in the form of higher prices.
We really don't need to fall back on classically liberal philosophies to explain why it's not a smart idea for SR to charge customers differing rates of commission. It's simply not good business. Cutting commissions for some customers would only be beneficial if these customers were informed they were receiving a discount from SR...and inevitably other customers would discover that some customers were getting a special rate. This is going to piss those other customers off or drive them to demand SR offer them the same rate or both. Either way, it's unlikely to boost sales volumes much (when was the last time you bought significantly more of something because you started receiving a 5% discount?) while putting downward pressure on SR's margins.
Regular, longstanding buyers should be valued and taken care of by sellers. That's most definitely good business. But the agent facilitating the transaction, as in this case? Problematic at best.
-
Hi roader´s!!
I think it would be fair to give long-term-vendors a reduce of fee.
When a vendor has sold items worth a specific amount of $, he should get a bonus at that fee.
Cause SR makes more money, too, when other vendors are inclined to reach that amount!
So, the vendor can do (a bit) lower prices and probably gets more biz.
All parties will have a benefit:
SR makes more $ when vendors are selling more.
Vendors make more $ cause they can do lower prices - get more biz.
Buyers get lower prices.
I´m located in a boring, non drug-related eu-country.
But even in our region I get stuff for nearly the same price like on SR, just 10-20% more.
Only disadvantage is: the stuff is not always available.
Generally I think SR has quite a high price-standard.
...and this way we buyers could get a bit lower prices, too!
Am I right or did I oversee something?
-
BenJesuit said: "You reward everyone or you reward no one at all. That is the Libertarian way. "
No, it isn't. That's actually quite contrary to the libertarian way. Socialists are concerned with equity issues, not libertarians. The libertarian way is that two or more parties can enter into whatever arrangement they all freely consent to. If SR wanted to charge you 5% commission and me 50% and we both keep buying, then there's nothing wrong with that.
Disenfranchisement = harm. Libertarianism is against harm.
For instance, in the current government systems around the world, the poor are disenfranchised at the expense of the rich. Libertarianism seeks to "equalize" this inherent disenfranchisement through equality (a level playing field) whereby actors are free to live as they please so long as how they choose to live does not harm another. Disenfranchisement is demonstrably harmful.
-
Subsidize the rich... yeah, very Libertarian... NOT!
@ MetaContxt, I think you need to rethink what Libertarianism is and isn't. Willy nilly rewarding one type of buyer over another doesn't make any sense. Why? High rollers already enjoy volume discounts with most vendors. Why would or should SR reward them more?
The operators of SR are like the government of this community. In a Libertarian system, a government can't play favorites and reward some and not others. I know what you're thinking? You're thinking, "well the commission structure rewards high rollers!" Not it doesn't. It's cumulative and equitable. It's not that equality is a Libertarian thing. It's just that you can't have true liberty without fairness.
-
Seriously, you two need to read a few books on the subject before you start opining on what libertarianism is and isn't (ie. it is not a slightly edgier version of [American] liberalism.) A good start would be Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz.
"Subsidize the rich... yeah, very Libertarian... NOT!"
Actually, it's perfectly libertarian - assuming that the subsidy is not provided on someone else's dime, the subsidiser is perfectly free to spend their own money however they see fit. Libertarians are mostly anti-subsidy because these are generally provided by governments to favoured clients, at the expense of the taxpayer. That is, the government involuntarily extracts resources from the taxpayer using the proxy violence of the state, and then pays these resources to someone else. However, a business providing a subsidy - actually, it's more accurately described as a discount - to favoured clients is a different matter altogether. Let's say Valued Customer A receives a discount from a particular merchant, while Valued Customer B using the same merchant continues to be charged the normal rate. Valued Customer B is not paying for Customer A's discount. Even if the merchant raises the price of Customer B's purchases to fund Customer A's discounts, Customer B's perfectly free to stop paying the merchant and take his business elsewhere. Try doing that with the IRS.
"It's just that you can't have true liberty without fairness."
Got a question for you. Here are two competing visions of fairness. Which one do you most closely subscribe to?
- equal rights for all. Everyone has a right to an education, healthcare and a decent standard of living.
- equal rights for all. Everyone has the same rights to life, liberty and the ability to own property. An individual's rights extend up until the point where exercising those rights would have a deleterious effect on someone else's rights.
"For instance, in the current government systems around the world, the poor are disenfranchised at the expense of the rich. Libertarianism seeks to "equalize" this inherent disenfranchisement through equality (a level playing field) whereby actors are free to live as they please so long as how they choose to live does not harm another. Disenfranchisement is demonstrably harmful. "
Benjesuit: stop torturing that logic! Can't you see it's had enough already?! Please explain how on god's green earth you came to the conclusion that SR offering Valued Customer A a better rate than Valued Customer B is an example of disenfranchisement? And how an agreement freely entered into between SR and Valued Customer A to give the latter a discount causes harm to Valued Customer B or anyone else? I think you need to think your line of reasoning through a bit more. Then drop it into a 44 gallon drum, pour petrol on it, burn it to ashes, and then start over.
Libertarians generally only care about equality - impartiality is a better word - when it comes to involuntary/unavoidable collective relationships, such as being a part of society. For example, the application of the law should be impartial. However, there is no expectation that individuals or organisations be impartial in their dealings with others, assuming that all parties affected enter into agreements voluntarily. How an individual or organisation goes about their private business is no business of mine or yours or anyone else's - assuming these actions don't restrict our fundamental rights to life, liberty and property. And no, if SR decides to cut a special deal with a particular buyer but not you, that does not restrict your fundamental rights in any way. It is SR's prerogative to set their prices however they see fit, and it is your prerogative to not use SR if you don't like the way they run their business. From a libertarian perspective, there is absolutely no moral impetus whatsoever on SR to apply the principle of 'equality' to their pricing. Although, if profit maximisation is their goal (and we can assume it is) then it doesn't make a lot of sense, and could easily be counterproductive. Libertarianism doesn't come into it at all.
-
i think a points based reward system, at leat, should be available.
-
Large chains have membership cards primarily so they can amass data on the buying habits of their consumers. Large supermarket chains have countless terabytes of consumer data which they actually sell to advertising/marketing agencies and so forth to help them target their products at the kinds of people who buy them.
Small shops do it for loyalty purposes.
SR? No reason to. The data they might have collected has practically no mainstream benefits. And I don't think loyalty's much of an issue.
Look, the people that run this place are putting their balls on the line. Because of this site, DPR is one of the most wanted people in the western world. Good thing he's elusive, but the stakes are still high and the enemy is pouring a lot of resources into shutting this place down. One misstep, one lucky line of police enquiry, one snitch who happens to see something he wasn't supposed to...any of these things and more could see this place closed down and the owners thrown in jail for a good long spell. They are taking a helluva risk with this venture. They deserve their damn 10%, period.
-
I like the idea, but I'm biased ;D
-
i agree with every sentiment that SR is its own reward with enough unique beneficial potential already. i think i was feeling a little greedy or entitled when i posted earlier.
someone made a great point about rewards programs being illusionary benefits while truly serving as a tracking tool. don't want that.
-
My favourite vendor who seems to be on the missing list now always rewarded me.
Bought ten Oxycodone Capsules from him there were 15 in the box and 5 valium free too.
All his feedbacks said extras included.
Every order you always got about 50 percent extra.
I think he might have been locked up damn shame as he was a good fella or maybe all the extras bankrupted him ;D
-
@metacontxt
You got that whole thing all wrong. BJ and Mojo are actually correct.
I think where you went wrong is where you didn't recognize that SR is both a self regulating community (government) and a business. Individual vendors are free to come to whatever bonus arrangement with whomever as they see fit. But because SR is both a semi-transparent governing body and market, if they play favorites, it DOES harm the community. I don't think I need to show examples of how past inadvertent acts of what appeared to be favoritism have panned out in order to make the point clearer. DPR and crew take great pains at trying to be equitable and fair in accordance with both Libertarian values and common decency.
-
10 percent is a lot of money. we all appreciate the site and we all pay the fees.
But without the buyer where would this site be? I feel SR should reward buyers that been here a certain amout of time and spent a certain amount of money with lower fees.
E.G. If a buyer is here for over 10 months and spent over 10 grand then they should automatically go from paying 10 percent to 5 percent.
Isnt that fair?
Modziw gave the best advice.... And that is exactly what you should do...ask your favorite vendor for a deal for being a frequent buyer.
I know you were just throwing out numbers...BUT 10 months and 10 grand would qualify 95% of my buyers...
Going from 10% to 5% is nuts...and SR should never do that. As if you owned the site you would not want to do that either...Again I know you were just throwing out numbers...and basically you were just saying that buyers should be rewarded...and I understand your thought process...but Ebay doe snot do it...neither does Amazon. But what both do...and what many top vendors on here do..is that the sellers offer discounts for their top customers. I know you may not be someone that only uses one vendor....but if that is the case...maybe you should start if you want a discount.
Though I think a reward system would be nice...and maybe one day that will be implemented...
-
As it is, I understand that the commission SR charges vendors scales from a bit over 10% to 4% depending on the bitcoin value of the transaction.
-
As it is, I understand that the commission SR charges vendors scales from a bit over 10% to 4% depending on the bitcoin value of the transaction.
You understand correct...BUT what does this have to do with what we are talking about???
-
As it is, I understand that the commission SR charges vendors scales from a bit over 10% to 4% depending on the bitcoin value of the transaction.
You understand correct...BUT what does this have to do with what we are talking about???
Oh, just that a flat 10% seems to have been assumed throughout this thread, along with suggestions that it be reduced to 5% in some circumstances.
-
10 percent is a lot of money. we all appreciate the site and we all pay the fees.
But without the buyer where would this site be? I feel SR should reward buyers that been here a certain amout of time and spent a certain amount of money with lower fees.
E.G. If a buyer is here for over 10 months and spent over 10 grand then they should automatically go from paying 10 percent to 5 percent.
Isnt that fair?
I agree with the principle but don't ask SR to do it, ask your vendor to do it.
As a vendor I already give preferential pricing and service to my best customers. I also hold back stock so I never run out when my favorites and desperate regulars are in need. When my inventory allows I toss in something extra for the larger buyer or give free shipping upgrades.
If you are a good customer, ask your vendor to show his or her appreciation with a little bit more.
I am sure most will realize the immense benefit of customer loyalty.
And thank you for the post, Pressed Rat.
Modzi
Modziw you took the words right out of my mouth. Let SR do their thing. And just like IRL, if you do repeat business with a vendor you will eventually reap the benefits of doing so. Many vendors offer such rewards right on their vendor page. Yesterday I missed a cutoff time and the vendor had already shipped for the day. But as a "reward", if you wanna call it that, they got my package together and went back out and got it in the post for me. No, it wasn't a monetary discount, but I'm sure if I wasn't a returning customer I would've had to wait till today to get it shipped.
In the end I think customer loyalty will pay off just as much as SR lowering their fees. But that's just my opinion.
-
No, I don't think I got it wrong at all.
You, and they, were justifying SR's pricing structure on libertarian grounds. This is specious. Libertarians believe that an individual should have complete freedom to associate and disassociate with others as long as that individual does not abrogate the rights of others. Thusly, if SR choose to charge me 50% commission to buy stuff on the site and charge you 1%, then the individuals that make up SR are NOT abrogating my rights. They would be if they forced me to buy from them, but obviously that is not something they could do. I do not have a right to pay the same commission as you. Same with the current suggestion that newbies pay 10% while oldtimers pay 5%. In my opinion, this sort of price structure for a site that generates revenue through commission doesn't seem to me like good business sense, but it's not anti-libertarian. I suspect when you three write "libertarian", what you actually mean is "egalitarian". Two very different concepts.
And here's some free-market dogma for you; despite all the guff about being a good corporate citizen you hear these days, EVERY decision made by the manager/CEO/owner/director of EVERY profit-seeking entity, everything the company and its representatives do, and, really, every consequence of that organisation's existence, takes place because that organisation was set up to make money. And SR's exactly the same; it's a profit-seeking entity. No chance of profit, no SR. The warm fuzzy feelings we may get from the knowledge of being a part of the SR community are only there because someone wanted to make money and built this place with that purpose in mind. The SR sense of community is a serendipitous manifestation of SR's desire to make money. Everything - and I do mean everything - is secondary making money, if that's why you're in business. Your assertion that SR's a self-regulating community, that it's somehow different from other structures humans create to make money - sorry, it's nonsense. SR is a bit different in the sense that it operates beyond the implicit and explicit mores of most human societies, but this does not mean the "self-regulating community" you describe is greatly different from eBay in structure and the fundamental nature of the relationships eBay's and SR's owners have with the people who use their respective services.
I need to make one important contradiction to an assertion of yours, though; SR is not a government. It is no more a government than eBay. Governments occupy physical territory in a manner that transcends ownership. They are, at this juncture of human history, the guardians of their nations, but more importantly they are also guardians of the concept of their nationhood. That concept of nation is enormously powerful in the human psyche. It shapes our world and the way we view the world. Governments are the most recent iteration of the folk in charge of that universal process of indelibly, invisibly branding human life at the point of conception with that human's eventual geographical birthplace, and all that entails. And then that human falls ultimately under the auspices of that peak body in society, the government. There is no opt-out.
Imagine you are a citizen of Blahan, a country at war. You provide intelligence to the enemy of your country for money because times are tough, your family's going hungry and you've never felt the least bit Blahish anyway. It's a no brainer for you and you don't feel the least bit guilty. If a competitor of your uncle's successful butchery offered you a large amount of money to steal your uncle's prizewinning sausage recipes, you'd tell the guy to go fellate a big fat white Cumberland. But getting paid big bucks reporting the location of someone else's ships at sea to their enemies? Easy money which benefits those you love in these lean times. You are soon arrested, charged and convicted with treason, and sentenced to hang. On the gallows, you demand to see the contract whereby you agreed to provide a lifetime of loyalty to Blahan. No contract is necessary, laugh the onlookers, you always have been Blahish and so you are obliged to be loyal to Blahan. Who says? I never agreed to that. And when did I decide to become Blahish? "You didn't, you were just born here, so you are." No, you have labelled me that, I never consented to it, I have no obligation to Blahan or anyone beyond those who I care about. Now, instead of murdering me - because that's exactly what you're doing - set me free. "Sorry, the trapdoor's opening in 3....2...1" snap.
You know that whole libertarian "you have infinite rights as long as you don't impose upon anyone else's infinite rights" refrain? Let's see how much power governments have. Nearly all will happily agree to mollify their subjects with the first few words: "you have infinite rights, as long as...", but at that point every government in history has finished that sentence in any way they see fit. The Blahah nation has their own version.
So, governments are sinister things and SR is certainly not a government, and they should be thankful for that. SR is a shop. The shop owners design the shop based on the knowledge they have of what their customers would want, open the door to customers, listen to customer feedback, make adjustments to the shop if they think it commercially advantageous, run the place, keep listening to customers, make adjustments where they see fit....and so on. And to the extent to which SR is self-regulating...well that's entirely at the behest of the owner, who could revert from supremely benign, generally laissez-faire dictator to hyper control freak who interferes with every interaction here with a single decision and some actions which make it so. Autocrats run SR. Although since we've already established this is not a government, let's call them directors.
Sigh. Point is that the argument that's been put forth about the demand for everyone to pay the same rate to protect the little guy and not advantage the rich...it's just a standard socialist/social democrat truism. It's far from libertarianism. Again, if SR decided to charge some users more than others, I'd say that's probably a bad business idea. Justifying or arguing against a two-tier commission system of a private business based on political philosophy is perhaps the weakest rationale imaginable - particularly so when the ideology that's being applied has been grossly distorted and confused. Words have meanings, folks. They need to be deployed carefully.
As a final thought, a key libertarian precept is that of non-coercion. Libertarians aren't into telling people how they should live their lives or manage their property or resources. Please. Explain the following to me: SR managers agree to a 5% commission for a VIP customer but leave the standard rate for the rest to pay (10% commission).
Who is being coerced? No one? Well, in that case this is not a libertarian's concern. QED.
-
A rewards system based on performance for vendors and loyalty for buyers would be nice. By that I mean, if you are a consistently top tier seller, SR could reduce fees for you on a rolling basis, and if you are a long-term buyer(not necessarily a big spender)with good stats, those benefits could be passed along to you by the seller, or issued in some kind of direct kickback from SR every 3-6 months. Like, say, a coupon for free shipping(wherein SR covers the cost). Not likely to happen, I know, but it is a nice idea, Libertarian or not. :P
-
Happily, it's perfectly compatible with libertarian philosophy. People who wish to sell their property have a right to fix whatever prices they see fit.
Of course, a buyer has a right to go errr thanks but no thanks. So we can see why sellers can't set their prices ridiculously high. Competition. It's a beautiful thing.
-
My vendors reward me right off the bat.
Good weight, so far always over.
No comm. required.
No FE.
Dope that is as good as hell!
Caerus, xinhai, felidae...
There is your f'in reward now smoke it!
-
A rewards system based on performance for vendors and loyalty for buyers would be nice. By that I mean, if you are a consistently top tier seller, SR could reduce fees for you on a rolling basis, and if you are a long-term buyer(not necessarily a big spender)with good stats, those benefits could be passed along to you by the seller, or issued in some kind of direct kickback from SR every 3-6 months. Like, say, a coupon for free shipping(wherein SR covers the cost). Not likely to happen, I know, but it is a nice idea, Libertarian or not. :P
This would be bad for the consumer actually(the buyer) and therefore bad for SR. I see what you are trying to say...but the fact is...all the vendors are actually just fine with the system in place...sure you always want to pay less....but the ones that are complaining...And I can tell you that in the vendor forums....there is never any talk of vendors complaining about fee's. We all are just fine..and the vendors that I have seen complain...are in these forums..and they are usually new..and they usually have no sales.
Ultimately..the vendors take care of there big time customers... And also...buyers are just fine paying a premium for being able to sit on there ass...and have primo drugs delivered to them at home.
I can tell you that NONE of my customers ever ever complain about prices. In fact...I only see it on the forums...and it is ALWAYS a broke dick. My customers..only care about getting their drugs and getting them fast. That is what they pay for.
And every drug has different buyers wanting different things. And Weed is the most competitive hands down..and it is also the easiest to get. And Rx is the most in demand..and as a group..we get a long the best.(and this has NOTHING to do with this thread...sorry) I was just going on a rant that vendors should take care of customers..and not SR. And I am very happy with how SR operates and the fee's that are charged. And I would pay even higher. And be happy.
-
I think it's fine the way it is. I communicate on a regular basis with one of my favorite vendors and every now and then he throws in a few extra's. I guess that's enough of a reward for me for being a loyal customer.
-
No, I don't think I got it wrong at all.
You, and they, were justifying SR's pricing structure on libertarian grounds. This is specious. Libertarians believe that an individual should have complete freedom to associate and disassociate with others as long as that individual does not abrogate the rights of others. Thusly, if SR choose to charge me 50% commission to buy stuff on the site and charge you 1%, then the individuals that make up SR are NOT abrogating my rights. They would be if they forced me to buy from them, but obviously that is not something they could do. I do not have a right to pay the same commission as you. Same with the current suggestion that newbies pay 10% while oldtimers pay 5%. In my opinion, this sort of price structure for a site that generates revenue through commission doesn't seem to me like good business sense, but it's not anti-libertarian. I suspect when you three write "libertarian", what you actually mean is "egalitarian". Two very different concepts.
And here's some free-market dogma for you; despite all the guff about being a good corporate citizen you hear these days, EVERY decision made by the manager/CEO/owner/director of EVERY profit-seeking entity, everything the company and its representatives do, and, really, every consequence of that organisation's existence, takes place because that organisation was set up to make money. And SR's exactly the same; it's a profit-seeking entity. No chance of profit, no SR. The warm fuzzy feelings we may get from the knowledge of being a part of the SR community are only there because someone wanted to make money and built this place with that purpose in mind. The SR sense of community is a serendipitous manifestation of SR's desire to make money. Everything - and I do mean everything - is secondary making money, if that's why you're in business. Your assertion that SR's a self-regulating community, that it's somehow different from other structures humans create to make money - sorry, it's nonsense. SR is a bit different in the sense that it operates beyond the implicit and explicit mores of most human societies, but this does not mean the "self-regulating community" you describe is greatly different from eBay in structure and the fundamental nature of the relationships eBay's and SR's owners have with the people who use their respective services.
I need to make one important contradiction to an assertion of yours, though; SR is not a government. It is no more a government than eBay. Governments occupy physical territory in a manner that transcends ownership. They are, at this juncture of human history, the guardians of their nations, but more importantly they are also guardians of the concept of their nationhood. That concept of nation is enormously powerful in the human psyche. It shapes our world and the way we view the world. Governments are the most recent iteration of the folk in charge of that universal process of indelibly, invisibly branding human life at the point of conception with that human's eventual geographical birthplace, and all that entails. And then that human falls ultimately under the auspices of that peak body in society, the government. There is no opt-out.
Imagine you are a citizen of Blahan, a country at war. You provide intelligence to the enemy of your country for money because times are tough, your family's going hungry and you've never felt the least bit Blahish anyway. It's a no brainer for you and you don't feel the least bit guilty. If a competitor of your uncle's successful butchery offered you a large amount of money to steal your uncle's prizewinning sausage recipes, you'd tell the guy to go fellate a big fat white Cumberland. But getting paid big bucks reporting the location of someone else's ships at sea to their enemies? Easy money which benefits those you love in these lean times. You are soon arrested, charged and convicted with treason, and sentenced to hang. On the gallows, you demand to see the contract whereby you agreed to provide a lifetime of loyalty to Blahan. No contract is necessary, laugh the onlookers, you always have been Blahish and so you are obliged to be loyal to Blahan. Who says? I never agreed to that. And when did I decide to become Blahish? "You didn't, you were just born here, so you are." No, you have labelled me that, I never consented to it, I have no obligation to Blahan or anyone beyond those who I care about. Now, instead of murdering me - because that's exactly what you're doing - set me free. "Sorry, the trapdoor's opening in 3....2...1" snap.
You know that whole libertarian "you have infinite rights as long as you don't impose upon anyone else's infinite rights" refrain? Let's see how much power governments have. Nearly all will happily agree to mollify their subjects with the first few words: "you have infinite rights, as long as...", but at that point every government in history has finished that sentence in any way they see fit. The Blahah nation has their own version.
So, governments are sinister things and SR is certainly not a government, and they should be thankful for that. SR is a shop. The shop owners design the shop based on the knowledge they have of what their customers would want, open the door to customers, listen to customer feedback, make adjustments to the shop if they think it commercially advantageous, run the place, keep listening to customers, make adjustments where they see fit....and so on. And to the extent to which SR is self-regulating...well that's entirely at the behest of the owner, who could revert from supremely benign, generally laissez-faire dictator to hyper control freak who interferes with every interaction here with a single decision and some actions which make it so. Autocrats run SR. Although since we've already established this is not a government, let's call them directors.
Sigh. Point is that the argument that's been put forth about the demand for everyone to pay the same rate to protect the little guy and not advantage the rich...it's just a standard socialist/social democrat truism. It's far from libertarianism. Again, if SR decided to charge some users more than others, I'd say that's probably a bad business idea. Justifying or arguing against a two-tier commission system of a private business based on political philosophy is perhaps the weakest rationale imaginable - particularly so when the ideology that's being applied has been grossly distorted and confused. Words have meanings, folks. They need to be deployed carefully.
As a final thought, a key libertarian precept is that of non-coercion. Libertarians aren't into telling people how they should live their lives or manage their property or resources. Please. Explain the following to me: SR managers agree to a 5% commission for a VIP customer but leave the standard rate for the rest to pay (10% commission).
Who is being coerced? No one? Well, in that case this is not a libertarian's concern. QED.
Thing is, SR is a governing body. Therefore, it is the government of this community and marketplace. Think about it. Think about their rules, their legislation, binding adjudication and enforcement of those rules, its bylaws and its taxation. They have every qualification of what constitutes a government. And you're looking at a Libertarian government, albeit it a cyber government. While your arguments hold when discussing interactions between individuals, they fail when discussing interactions between a governing body and individuals. A Libertarian government or governing body must still hold to egalitarian principles. And that's why every bonus event the SR has ever had was inclusive of every one.
So if there is to be a bonus program, it would necessarily have to be open to all who are at liberty to partake in. That IS the Libertarian way with regards to a Libertarian governing body and those over whom it has jurisdiction.
State (governing body) sponsored inequality breeds coersion. And that's how we know inequality is incompatible with Libertarianism (with respect to a Libertarian governing body).
-
It sort of sounds like the people in the USA who make more money pay a lower % of taxes... Thats fucking bullshit LOL..
haha, i was thinking the same thing. Although, in this scenario it seems i may qualify for the tax cut, so FUCK IT, i'm switching sides ya lazy degenerate fucks. the grass IS greener :P
-
"Thing is, SR is a governing body. Therefore, it is the government of this community and marketplace. Think about it. Think about their rules, their legislation, binding adjudication and enforcement of those rules, its bylaws and its taxation. They have every qualification of what constitutes a government. And you're looking at a Libertarian government, albeit it a cyber government. While your arguments hold when discussing interactions between individuals, they fail when discussing interactions between a governing body and individuals. A Libertarian government or governing body must still hold to egalitarian principles. And that's why every bonus event the SR has ever had was inclusive of every one."
Most libertarians would be extremely wary of egalitarianism. It's often used as the palatable face of involuntary income redistribution in the name of "equity" or "fairness"; something that is an anathema to a typical libertarian. Now, you have identified a few functions of the SR management which appear superficially similar to those of governments, and you are using the language of government processes, but look a little deeper and it's clear the functions of the SR community, the owners of the community space and the limits to their authority are no different to those of any other club, marketplace, business or organisation. SR does not have legislation, bylaws or taxation. These imply coercion. It does, however have conditions of site use, a code of conduct, and a service fee. SR members can avoid these at any time by simply not using SR again. Residents of jurisdictions where taxation is levied and legislation and bylaws are applied have no way of avoiding these imposts.
SR is only different from other voluntary organisations or businesses in that it acts outside the law, hidden in the darkweb. The key difference between a governing body of an organisation and a State government is that the governing body represents members and all relationships are entirely consensual, while States/governments have subjects, citizens or slaves (by any other name), and these people are coerced to follow their masters' laws at pain of fine, imprisonment, death, or whatever punishment the State can dream up. They can't opt out of the law as set down by the government, even in cases of 'victimless crimes'. They can't - or at least have extremely limited scope to - say 'these laws suck, I'm out of here'. They are chained to their nationality, the government that runs it and the laws they set down. On the other hand, a governing body representing its members, or a management team (like SR) sets site rules designed at attracting, retaining and incentivising honorable behaviour of customers, who are free to leave at any time.
If SR was a government, we would HAVE to follow their rules if we didn't want to be punished in any way the SR government sees fit, and we couldn't leave, either. And the fact that we are subjects of SR would be an integral aspect of our identity, whether we liked it or not. Clearly this is not the case. So it's quite clear that your metaphor as SR management as a government just doesn't stack up.
"So if there is to be a bonus program, it would necessarily have to be open to all who are at liberty to partake in. "
No, it isn't. This is not a democracy. This is not a state. This is a business, and the business owners make the rules. Period. If customers of the business don't like it, they're free to leave.
"That IS the Libertarian way with regards to a Libertarian governing body and those over whom it has jurisdiction."
"The Libertarian (sic) way" regarding a governing body of a business entity, club or whatever is that people should not coerce others. As I keep saying, this is private property. The owners of the property are able to set whatever rules (not laws, they can't set laws) they want - assuming these rules do not abrogate the rights of anyone else (and no, you do not have the right to be treated identically to other members of SR). And neither you nor I have the right to be here. We are here at the owners' pleasure, they could demand we leave at any time, and we are free to leave any time.
"State (governing body) sponsored inequality breeds coersion. And that's how we know inequality is incompatible with Libertarianism (with respect to a Libertarian governing body). "
First, a point of order. Inequality is absolutely not incompatible with libertarianism. In fact, libertarians encourage individual achievement. This may result in an individual acquiring significantly greater wealth than another due to their hard work, luck and/or ability. This is inequality, right? Socialists/American liberals don't like this and use the proxy violence of the state to redistribute the fruits of the wealthier individual to the less wealthy individual simply to "solve the problem" of inequality. Libertarians are fundamentally opposed to this. But I am discussing government policy, which does not apply in the case of SR. As we've already established, SR is not a government. It is private property, and thus the owners have exactly the same rights to establish the rules of conduct of guests on its property in any way they see fit. They do not have the right to coerce you to act involuntarily in any way, but that's it. If you don't like SR's rules, you are completely free to leave and SR has no right to prevent this.
The same conditions apply if you owned your own house. (Although, if you're particularly concerned with inequality, you may want to make things more equal by selling your house and distributing the proceeds to those who are poorer than you, but I digress.) In such a case, you have exactly the same rights to set the conduct of guests in your place, but you also have no rights to coerce them to act involuntarily in any way simply because they're on your property. If your guests don't like your rules, they are totally free to leave and you have no right to stop them.
Governments of states demonstrably do not extend these freedoms to their citizens. Consequently, your contention that SR management is a government is fundamentally flawed. There's absolutely nothing anti-libertarian about owners of private property extent to guests the privilege of accessing that private property on the condition they follow the rules as determined by SR management. If the guests think the rules are unfair or unreasonable, well that's too bad. They can either stay and put up, or they can stop being subjected to the rules they consider unfair by leaving, and perhaps starting a competitor site and setting rules they find fairer and more reasonable.
That's the libertarian way.
-
"It sort of sounds like the people in the USA who make more money pay a lower % of taxes... Thats fucking bullshit LOL.."
Actually, you're quite correct in saying that's bullshit, as in it's complete rubbish. The US tax systems is one of the most progressive in the world. Here are some interesting stats for you. The bottom 50% of income earners in the US pay NO net federal tax whatsoever. Yes, half of the taxpayers in the US pay no tax (they pay tax, but this is returned to them in a myriad of welfare/government assistance payments/deductions claimable at the end of the financial year). The top 10% income earners pay 70% of the total federal income tax take. The top 1% pay 30% of the total income tax take.
So yes, you're right. It is fucking bullshit that "the people in the USA who make more money pay a lower % of taxes". Although I wouldn't be LOL'íng if I was one of them.
-
Yes as a vendor we can look back at transactions and user names but Sr should show us buyer /transaction info to the vendor of which the purchase is from...
so the vendor will know.
As some vendors are busy from good service and great products or just simply great pricing...either way due to security and keeping info we only see username and stats or reconize the few unique usernames and remember those loyal great clients....but that is a challenge also!
Vending is more then a hobby or part time job....
-
Some may wonder why I've taken the time to go on at length in correcting those invoking libertarianism (or what I prefer to call classical liberalism) when they justify why the owners of this business should treat everyone the same.
The philosophy of classical liberalism is a moral. equitable and non-coercive method of dealing with one's fellow man. Furthermore, in practice, it provides an economic environment which advantages human wellbeing far more than what we know today - even in so-called developed countries. It's humanity's hope.
Many people associate libertarianism with SR whilst understanding practically nothing of libertarianism. To them, libertarianism = easy to buy drugs. Beyond that, they superimpose their own values onto the way they think SR should operate and assume that must be libertarianism because it seems reasonable to them (ie the guy who believes a key libertarian tenet demands that property owners charge all their customers the same rate for the purposes of equality; or the other who claims non-preferential customers are "disenfranchised"). Both assertions are palpable nonsense. Look. If you're interested in libertarianism, or classical liberalism, or reducing the role of government in our society while enshrining the primacy of the rights of the individual above the collective wellbeing*, then go inform yourself and read some goddamn books on the topic, ok?
Brink Lindsay - Against the Dead Hand
Great start. Would strongly recommend you read this engaging book full of entertaining vignettes of the stupidity of governments. If you are interested in why libertarianism matters, and why authoritarianism sucks far beyond SR's borders, then go learn about this philosophy you obviously think is cool yet have demonstrated little more than surface-level understanding of.
Incidentally, it's libertarianism, not Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not a proper noun, in the same way you wouldn't write Democracy, Colonialism or Dictatorship.
Sorry, had to get that off my chest.
*in spite of the wailings of the anarcho-capitalists, there are a few functions of society that are best arranged collectively; national defence, enforcing contracts and criminal law, epidemic control - everything else is much more efficiently done by the glorious interaction of individuals pursuing their self interest. Chop off the dead hand of the government.