[X] My Assistant

Good point.

I think in this case seller got 2c and 8c was confiscated. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

well, I think the proper way to handle it is, similar to above, deposit the extra 8c to your balance, so they will be returned whenever your balance is more than 10c...
but of course, it's just my opinion. I'm just curious about how it actually works.

if i cleared the manage prices screen by mistake does that mean i cant recall something a buyer never pays for ?

well, I think the proper way to handle it is, similar to above, deposit the extra 8c to your balance, so they will be returned whenever your balance is more than 10c...
but of course, it's just my opinion. I'm just curious about how it actually works.

Not worth adding the extra code path, it'd risk adding bugs, and the amount of credits is just... pitifully tiny.

if i cleared the manage prices screen by mistake does that mean i cant recall something a buyer never pays for ?

No, if they don't pay for it, it'll automatically cancel and return to your HVMarket account with the price set to whatever it was when you sold it. (Unless you change the price, for example, setting it to 0.)

This post has been edited by Nezu: Sep 6 2021, 15:12

Was a bug about wrong buy order when few people buy same item at same price, they buy in reversed order, i.e. the one who place buy order last will buy first, while it supposed to be in chronological order.

It was fixed i guess, but for sell orders there is same bug: i placed 2 items at low price, then on next day someone else add 1 item at same price, someone bought 1 item and seller was a guy whos sell order was placed after me, price is the same.

So order again seems reversed, or it mess order every time someone add new items, anyway same bug but for sale orders.

How about a multi search feature?

This is a simple example of this: the result screen for query '[{"id":60101,"q":50},{"id":60003,"q":1500},{"id":60203,"q":45}]

* It would be nice to have a buy-all-button.

[attachmentid=157621]

What do you think of adding a minimum increment, like in the auctions? It seems silly to be outbidding people by single digit credit amounts for items that cost tens of thousands, or more.

The current HVM trading system has become a bit like the stock market (economics is very interesting)

Some people may be disgusted with arbitrage

But in a free trading market, arbitrage is unlikely to disappear

If someone is arbitrage under the generally accepted regulations

Then he uses his time, wisdom, and funds to maximize his profits. In theory, there is no problem that needs to be criticized.

First of all, a market with a large monopoly transaction volume requires a very large amount of capital

Furthermore, he also needs to spend a lot of time to keep an eye on market changes

But in the end there will be an invisible hand in the market to adjust the price to the "equilibrium price"

That is a price that both buyers and sellers agree on

Provide some stock trading restrictions in our country (maybe it can provide some help in system improvement?)

1. Our stock market buyer transaction tax is 0.001425%, seller transaction tax is 0.004425%

HVM only needs to set the price and quantity, and the rest of the transaction is automated, which is very convenient.

The first suggestion: (Reduce arbitrage)
As a time-saving trading platform, I think tax collection is good. For example: Buyer 1.4%, seller 4.4%, and as Tenboro said, it can reduce the willingness of arbitrage, and the extra income can also hold activities.

You can also choose WTB/WTS, but the time cost should far exceed the tax. There is flexibility, and people will choose their own favorable way.

2. As long as the transaction is successful after we place the order, we will usually get the stock immediately, and we only need to give the money to the broker within T+2 days. Accompanying it, there will be a very small number of people breaching the contract.

The penalties for breach of contract are very serious. They will violate the law and be fined, the account will be frozen, and the credit will go bankrupt.

The second suggestion: (lower the cancellation of transactions)
Punish those who maliciously use the "cancel transaction" function.
For example:
When the transaction is cancelled for the first time, the account is marked (7 days?), but nothing else will happen (the quota for non-malicious users). If the transaction is cancelled again within the marked time:

Second cancellation: Ban HVM trading account, unable to transfer funds & items (freeze for 2 days?)
After the Ban is lifted (mark 7~14 days?)

Third cancellation: freeze for 4 days?

Then, by analogy, 8 days, 16 days, 32 days, 64 days...

The third suggestion: (stabilize the price)
Our stock has a single-day limit of 10%
For example, for a stock with a price of 100 yesterday, the upper limit of today's price is 110, and the lower limit is 90
The original intention is to prevent the market from rising or falling irrationally
However, if you switch to HVM, it may cause problems that require daily updates of prices and re-listing of items.
(Or change to N% of the average price?)
Take 10% as an example: The current average price of ED is 90k. Then the price of new orders after the buyer and seller (the old order does not affect?) should be between 81K and 99K? After that, the daily average price will be rolled over.
(But I have thought of a problem is how do we define the first "average price")


p.s.
I’m not sure if this can reduce arbitrage and malicious use of the "cancel transaction" function.
Some features take some time to experiment before you know their effectiveness
The above values ​​are only my personal opinion hypothesis, I hope to discuss rationally

Everyone hopes that this system will get better and better

If you have any better suggestions, please provide us and let me know

This post has been edited by ljh235689: Oct 13 2021, 09:39

HVmarket has been a very useful trading system, but imo it can be further improved by letting buyers directly deposit funding in HVM before they place an order.

Not sure if anyone has raised that question before (because there are so many pages in this topic) but I think this is a good way to improve sellers' experience.

The current system is convenient enough for buyers since they can immediately purchase items by cod, but sellers would have to wait until the buyers pay the cod. It seems to me the sellers who want quick cash would be less motivated.

HVmarket has been a very useful trading system, but imo it can be further improved by letting buyers directly deposit funding in HVM before they place an order.

Not sure if anyone has raised that question before (because there are so many pages in this topic) but I think this is a good way to improve sellers' experience.

The current system is convenient enough for buyers since they can immediately purchase items by cod, but sellers would have to wait until the buyers pay the cod. It seems to me the sellers who want quick cash would be less motivated.

The adoption of HV market is very high, which shows that this current set-up works well. I personally don't like this idea, because then every user can have credit balance outside of their account which they may forget about or want back at one point - a lot of hassle, which may be a solution for a problem that very few players see as a problem.

The verse is such a long lasting grind, any notion of "quick" feels strange. What's a day or 10 in the long run?

The adoption of HV market is very high, which shows that this current set-up works well. I personally don't like this idea, because then every user can have credit balance outside of their account which they may forget about or want back at one point - a lot of hassle, which may be a solution for a problem that very few players see as a problem.

I don't deny the first sentence. In fact, this is exactly the reason why I would like to make a suggestion under this topic. The system is running well, and I believe it could be better. As for your concern, I don't feel like it would be an issue. Indeed, the HVM is already offering a credit balance for sellers outside of HV itself. If "forgetting" turns into a trouble, we can configure the system to send an automatic refund for these credits weekly (or monthly).

To be clarified, I did not mean to take a big move and completely change the current trading system. What I suggest is maybe we can utilize the credit balance left in the HVM for buying orders. By deposit funds in advance, buyers get what they need and sellers get their revenues. The order is processed fast and decently.

Honestly, I would rather argue leaving a buying order without deposit in advance is a potential hassle. It seems more likely that a person forgets his order on the HVM and just went offline for the following few days, though he did not intend to do so.

The verse is such a long lasting grind, any notion of "quick" feels strange. What's a day or 10 in the long run?

As I see it, subjective measures vary from person to person. It depends on how you regard this game.

There was a critical server error during the time I ordered stuff, and I never got the moogle mails (as a result of the error I guess?). The orders are supposed to be set though, based on the transaction logs.

Anything one can do about that? Failed/missing moogle mails would be a real problem if they can happen like that.

HVmarket seem's to be stuck. There is a lot of unprocessed order and when I buy something, the transaction is registered but I don't receive the MM. It seems to be the usual failure that happens from time to time.

A huge thanks in advance for fixing it !

HVmarket seem's to be stuck. There is a lot of unprocessed order and when I buy something, the transaction is registered but I don't receive the MM. It seems to be the usual failure that happens from time to time.

A huge thanks in advance for fixing it !

It wasn't the usual failure, no, the database service decided to restart itself for no reason while I was sleeping & it killed the application driver even after an application restart.

It's fixed now and no data was lost during this time (though I don't actually know why, but I won't complain about that).

Will there be a way to manually split grouped orders?

I got a single cod purchase mail of several items I placed a bid for which in total unfortunately exceeds my available credits. I would like to split it, so I can pay or cancel items individually.

E.g. something like a auto-response system on MoogleMail subject "split #12345" to retract order #12345 and resend it as up to ten individual mails again (each per item).

I can't speak for Nezu, but if I can make a comment, I don't think designing around cancellations is a good idea, you'd normally just not buy more than you can afford.

One idea would be that you could set yourself a budget, with the possibility to automatically refresh it weekly.
That would be nice, because you could put in all the things you need for your upgrade or whatever, and it'd never buy more than your credit limit would allow.
On the other hand it's also not nice, as this would make it look like more things are wanted than they actually are. (i.e. someone offers the most for 2 different bindings, but once their weekly budget is gone by someone selling 1 of them, the other would also disappear)

The problem is really, that most things added would come with downsides. The convenience of not having to worry about overspending vs. the "offering" side of the market becoming incredibly bloated and inaccurate. That's probably with most possible features at this point.

if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it?

I'm just curious...
If someone sells an item directly to the highest bidder and the bidder don't accept the MM until the time limit, what will happen???
Will the item returned to the seller's shop inventory or the bot just keep trying to send the item to the bidder??? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Also, I have a feature request...
How about adding a cart like function for buying multiple items???
I means, I think most people who buy binding will also buy catalyst at the same time...
And I think people who buy trophies will also buy multiple kind of it at once...
So getting them in the same MM will be nice thing...

This post has been edited by Greshnik: Nov 13 2021, 01:22

I'm just curious...
If someone sells an item directly to the highest bidder and the bidder don't accept the MM until the time limit, what will happen???
Will the item returned to the seller's shop inventory or the bot just keep trying to send the item to the bidder??? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

It returns to the seller's shop inventory at whatever their price is currently set to for that item. If the price was deleted, it should default to 0.

Also, I have a feature request...
How about adding a cart like function for buying multiple items???
I means, I think most people who buy binding will also buy catalyst at the same time...
And I think people who buy trophies will also buy multiple kind of it at once...
So getting them in the same MM will be nice thing...

This could be achieved with a userscript to be honest, as long as it's reasonably rate limited (something like 4 requests per second should be fine). I have no plans currently to provide a multi-search or multi-purchase API, but may do in the future if there's still interest when I have more time I want to spend on it.

It was fixed i guess, but for sell orders there is same bug: i placed 2 items at low price, then on next day someone else add 1 item at same price, someone bought 1 item and seller was a guy whos sell order was placed after me, price is the same.

So order again seems reversed, or it mess order every time someone add new items, anyway same bug but for sale orders.

Sorry this message got buried around real life shit at the time - stock is tracked separately for every deposit, so it's possible that seller just had a few older ones than yours placed. If you can conspire with two other people to have both add 1 item they have no stock of, one after the other, and then purchase it, you may be able to catch it.

This post has been edited by Nezu: Nov 13 2021, 15:27