Quote from: Cory on January 06, 2012, 10:16:30 PM

Quote from: copumpkin on January 06, 2012, 09:53:18 PM

Quote from: bwagner on January 06, 2012, 07:51:15 PM

"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).

It also just bothers me because consolidating lenders, in some sense, hurts pirateat40 (and all his lenders, by extension). For example, if I were his sole lender, and decided on a whim to withdraw one day, and he was in an awkward short position or something, he'd be forced to buy back coins at a disadvantageous rate. If people keep consolidating the lending I'd imagine pirateat40 might have to start instituting more rules to restrict withdrawals and such, so he covers his bases. There are book-keeping downsides to dealing with loads of lenders, but there are downsides to having too few, too.

I just hope this good thing doesn't turn into a tragedy of the commons where everyone looks out for themselves and forces pirateat40 to step in to restrict things more for everyone. Perhaps he doesn't care, but this behavior, taken to the extreme, is bad for everyone.

Thanks for the response. I really need some help figuring out the morality of this.
Perhaps the person selling their space could talk to pirate and set restrictions on themselves (and those who lend through them, of course) to only withdraw something like 20%/day.
Everybody had an opportunity to get in on this investment opportunity; shouldn't those who "took the risk" be rewarded?

Sure, there's definitely an argument for that, which is why I don't think anyone is claiming it's explicitly "wrong" for ineededausername or anyone else doing this to do so.

It also isn't wrong for all the villagers to take their animals to graze on the village commons; the end result is still that they kill off all the grass in the commons and nobody gets to graze their animals, though.

Obviously I paint a more dire picture than is really warranted here, and if pirateat40 had an opinion on this he'd probably have stepped in already. I just wanted to point out possible downsides of people acting in their own self-interest here. If I did so, (almost?) none of you guys would have any income from this anymore, which is "right" by some definition of me risking more by being his first lender, but still feels like a dick move. Of course, if there are no restrictions on it, if you don't do it, someone else will, so why not? It's a bit of a thorny issue, and one that was bound to arise.

I won't say I judge people who do do it, but I'm not comfortable with intentionally ejecting people myself.