Opt-In Vendor Tax

[pK]

Once Opted in, as well as the vendors current taxes, a percentage between 0.1 and 1 of all the vendors sales will go to Tor, Tails, Whonix and Various Charities. In exchange, the vendor would receive a small icon, or emblem at some point in their profile, not large enough to make the opt-in anything of any significance to buyers without any vested interest in anonymity but still visible for those who do care. With even a small fraction of the market adopting the feature, the amount of money would be significant.

The publicity surrounding hitmen, murder, guns and hacking is slowly seeping into Silk Roads reputation, hopefully this could be a step in the right direction?

I understand that proceeds from Silk Road are already going towards Tor development and we are frequently encouraging others to setup their own nodes, but I'd like to see a more personal touch.

Let me know what you think.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I quite like this. Would you prefer set amounts (ie 0.1%, 1%) or would it be easier to allow vendors just to set their own contribution rate and show it publicly?

[pK]

I quite like this. Would you prefer set amounts (ie 0.1%, 1%) or would it be easier to allow vendors just to set their own contribution rate and show it publicly?

Set amounts would probably be easier, but have less people opting in. I really don't know, up to you I guess. Thanks for posting DPR.

[telemetree]

I think if you set it at a reasonably low amount and rely on volume to add up, then most vendors would opt in.

I know all things being equal I'd buy from a vendor that opted into something like this than not. Its for all our benefit after all.

[jesusofrave]

We would support this, and would support vendors being able to choose, with a min. requirement.

jor

[utopic]

I quite like this. Would you prefer set amounts (ie 0.1%, 1%) or would it be easier to allow vendors just to set their own contribution rate and show it publicly?

I respect your idea, however vendors already pay 8% on every listing under $500(90+% of the markets orders). Do you think buyers couldn't pay it? I think it's funny when all of the buyers of the community say things like, "Vendors have to pay the fees though right?". This isn't ebay and we as vendors understand there are costs to do business but don't always throw the cost on us when the fees are already as high as they can be without being classified as trade embargoes. Now for the real issue...

Fees already haven't been adjusted after stating they would be in the next 'major update'. And you're already looking to add more taxing possibilities before fixing the main issues of nearly double fees from what you state they are "supposed to be", ~4% after $20,000 in sales per month or otherwise; right now it's per transaction and is a joke. Less than 5% of the transactions completed on this site will meet that bracket, probably not anywhere close to 5% actually.

DPR please add to your To Do List
A) Auto-finalization
B) Fees adjusted to the curriculum you originally posted, not a constant 8% for everything under $500 forever.

It's brutal being as loyal of a vendor as I am to SR2(never trusted TM, always looked out here) keeping all of my business here and still receiving a featureless, high fee structured, unhedged market.

[jesusofrave]

We had undrestood that this would come out of SR fees?

[pK]

To clarify, despite not being on the forums yet I am a registered vendor with a large amount of listing going up after the Christmas break.

A) Auto-finalization
B) Fees adjusted to the curriculum you originally posted, not a constant 8% for everything under $500 forever.

I certainly agree that these features should be implemented before any extra taxation/modifications of the existing system are put into action.

We had undrestood that this would come out of SR fees?

Sadly no, this is not the idea I was going for in the original post.

--

What would each of you recommend as an improvement?

[gammagoblin]

I think it's a good idea but it would have to be taken from the commission, not additionally from the vendors. 8% is already a very high commission (it should be progressive, but so far this feature doesn't work...).

[jesusofrave]

...vendors could share the cost with SR?

ie... if a vendor selects 0.5% then SR would match the 0.5% taken from commissions with a total of 1%...

jor

[pK]

...vendors could share the cost with SR?

ie... if a vendor selects 0.5% then SR would match the 0.5% taken from commissions with a total of 1%...

jor

I like it. +1