james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 2:15:58 GMT
I am not the Moral police around here all I am saying is the nature of MT will completely change. Yes more people will get a smaller slice of the cake and probably lead to even more people joining MT. I don't know what MT's plans are regarding the future direction of company. What I would like to see is two smaller limits. One about 12 noon till 5pm then 5pm till 12 noon next day. I think this would be easier to implement for Ed. Yes, it will change and there will be two groups which will certainly on average get less. Today we have theses two cases: 1. Ed sets bid limit too high. Those around at 4PM win, those not around lose, however little they want. These winners will stop winning and the losers will stop losing, both will get closer to the median result. 2. Ed sets the bid limit too low. Smaller buyers get what they want, those in a middle range get less and those with the fastest fingers and automation after 24 hours benefit at their expense. And Ed is always going to fail and produce one of those two cases if we assume an objective of giving people 24 hours and having nothing left to go at the moment that time ends. Not because he's bad or doesn't try hard, it's just an intractable problem. And people have correctly learned that however hard he tries, you really need to be around at 4 on the first day, because we also can't reliably be sure there will be time to get in if we aren't. While I am sure that those two groups will get less on average, I'm far from sure that most will get less because the money now going to those groups will be reallocated to them. In the past I've suggested multiple time windows and lowball allocations. That would be an improvement but it's not going to comprehensively deal with the issues: the money involved will be less and fewer people will be participating in the scrums but they will still happen. So I prefer something which gets Eds crystal ball out of the picture and assures even allocation up to whatever people want and the loan size allows.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 1, 2017 6:26:58 GMT
I hadn't realised the above poll is still open and those who have already voted can go back and change their vote. I've just changed mine.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Feb 1, 2017 7:12:32 GMT
Fastest finger first frantic feeding frenzy? Okay, ffffff !!! Or new variant FluFF ~ accounts for pets
|
|
phd
Posts: 35
Likes: 10
|
Post by phd on Feb 1, 2017 8:04:08 GMT
....whereby we might need to revisit the pre-funding option. I appreciate that this has been discussed at length on various threads over the nearly two years we have been operating, however I would really appreciate your input again to try and assist us Things in designing a system that it is equitable to all lenders as possible. The reality is that it has got the point where we need to remove the 4pm surge and whilst I know that many of you enjoy the FFF...the system clearly does not enjoy it so much. (Indeed, If there is the consensus that lenders would rather we keep the current model than we will gladly focus our efforts on improving the existing code/db/hosting/etc.) We are really open to any ideas as to the best design so please feel free to contribute...(please). As and when ideas crystalise, I will add them to this top post to keep it all together. Many thanks in advance, Ed Ed, am in favour of keeping the current model and tweaking things. Maybe an increase in processor speed your end to help speed up, together with slicker coding etc. Existing model I believe works well IMHO anyway!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 11,106
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 1, 2017 8:11:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marcusponds on Feb 1, 2017 10:39:18 GMT
....whereby we might need to revisit the pre-funding option. I appreciate that this has been discussed at length on various threads over the nearly two years we have been operating, however I would really appreciate your input again to try and assist us Things in designing a system that it is equitable to all lenders as possible. The reality is that it has got the point where we need to remove the 4pm surge and whilst I know that many of you enjoy the FFF...the system clearly does not enjoy it so much. (Indeed, If there is the consensus that lenders would rather we keep the current model than we will gladly focus our efforts on improving the existing code/db/hosting/etc.) We are really open to any ideas as to the best design so please feel free to contribute...(please). As and when ideas crystalise, I will add them to this top post to keep it all together. Many thanks in advance, Ed Ed, am in favour of keeping the current model and tweaking things. Maybe an increase in processor speed your end to help speed up, together with slicker coding etc. Existing model I believe works well IMHO anyway!
|
|
|
Post by marcusponds on Feb 1, 2017 10:44:26 GMT
I hope this idea might be seen as a sensible compromise and not onerous on system changes.
When a new loan is announced (i.e. 24 hours notice) people who want to invest in it register, not bid.
Bid limit is set =(loan value/people registered). Only registered people can then invest in the first 24 hours (or perhaps another period), and they know they will get an allocation in that period.
No 4pm feeding frenzy, everyone who wants one gets a slice of the cake.
Ed can still set a limit for day 2 if he thinks it makes sense.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Feb 1, 2017 10:52:38 GMT
Prefunding with users being able to set the maximum and minimum they want in a loan. For me the minimum would probably be zero, buit I know that some people would want to set a minimum.
Having read Cooling Dude's suggestion of keeping things tight on the same day, I see that the idea has some merit.
One thing that I would add to this is the idea of being able to set a "default" upper/lower bid limit, which could be over-ridden for a particular loan. Generally I would leave this set at zero/zero, but if I knew that I would be away from a computer and unable to place bids, I would be able to set defaults for any loans that would appear while I was away. In this case of course, sufficient funds would need to be in my account to cover these. I am generally very much against money drag, but could live with that for a few days to make sure I did not miss a nice juicy loan.
I would be wary of setting defualt bids on some other platforms, but with MT the DD is such that there would be few loans I would really want to avoid at all costs. If I did buy any of these due to default bids, the SM is (presently) such that I can soon divest. We cannot guarantee this will always be the case, but we should not be here if we are not prepared to take a calculated risk.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 11:47:33 GMT
When a new loan is announced (i.e. 24 hours notice) people who want to invest in it register, not bid. Bid limit is set =(loan value/people registered). Only registered people can then invest in the first 24 hours (or perhaps another period), and they know they will get an allocation in that period. No 4pm feeding frenzy, everyone who wants one gets a slice of the cake. Ed can still set a limit for day 2 if he thinks it makes sense. Since there will be many people who want less than a bid limit calculated in that way the results will be: 1. Bid limit set lower than it could be set, so middling size lenders get less than they could have. 2. Fast fingers and automation scrum every time at the start of day two. Not just sometimes, but guaranteed that every time there will be money left over. Or if Ed sets the limit low for day two, the scrum is deferred to day three. It's a guaranteed failure every time except for those who think they can benefit from the scrum or being around at 4PM. Because the lower amount lenders will have got what they wanted there will be fewer participants in the scrums but it still doesn't remove them. Better to look longer term and completely eliminate the scrum.
|
|
sildenafil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 60
|
Post by sildenafil on Feb 1, 2017 12:12:52 GMT
Pre-fund auction, 24 hours in advance. Give everyone a chance to request what they want by a set time, say 24 hour window Allocate loan parts bottom up, relative to requested amount Notify lenders of amount allocated 24 hours to fund account Anything left over or not paid for onto the SM at the end of the 24 hour period, FFF time. Gives everyone a fair chance and time to bid, saves processing deposits and withdrawals for anything other than what is required. I haven't read through the whole thread but this sounds like the best idea to me
|
|
|
Post by marcusponds on Feb 1, 2017 12:42:44 GMT
Pre-fund auction, 24 hours in advance. Give everyone a chance to request what they want by a set time, say 24 hour window Allocate loan parts bottom up, relative to requested amount Notify lenders of amount allocated 24 hours to fund account Anything left over or not paid for onto the SM at the end of the 24 hour period, FFF time. Gives everyone a fair chance and time to bid, saves processing deposits and withdrawals for anything other than what is required. I haven't read through the whole thread but this sounds like the best idea to me
|
|
|
Post by marcusponds on Feb 1, 2017 12:46:18 GMT
I'm pretty sure MT has already said they won't allow post payment, and I agree with that. If people cant be bothered to pre-fund their account why should they be allowed to bid. Also how on earth do you fairly redistribute the allocations of those who successfully bid but then don't provide the funds next day?
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 13:06:54 GMT
I haven't read through the whole thread but this sounds like the best idea to me Why do you think that this method that guarantees a 4PM surge every time is better than the ones discussed in the first few posts that guarantee that it will only happen if there is insufficient lender demand? What advantages does it have or disadvantages do the others have that cause you to have that view?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 11,106
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 1, 2017 13:13:38 GMT
I'm pretty sure MT has already said they won't allow post payment, and I agree with that. If people cant be bothered to pre-fund their account why should they be allowed to bid. Also how on earth do you fairly redistribute the allocations of those who successfully bid but then don't provide the funds next day? I think the idea is that the bids and the payment happens before the loan actually goes live 24hrs later so there ont be any post payment and any bids/pledges not funded would be released to the masses on official launch. The system described is the same as the pledge systm used by Ablrate but with the improvement of knowing how much you need to fund rather than having to calculate a rough sum passed on the overfunding level.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 13:17:03 GMT
I'm pretty sure MT has already said they won't allow post payment, and I agree with that. If people cant be bothered to pre-fund their account why should they be allowed to bid. Also how on earth do you fairly redistribute the allocations of those who successfully bid but then don't provide the funds next day? Giving people better guidance on the amount they will get has these advantages: 1. They will need to sell lower amounts of other loans, if selling to fund. Removing this harms those who try to exploit automation to rapidly buy on the secondary market, because it reduces the harm done to those who sell too much. The unnecessary selling might not be on the MoneyThing platform. 2. They will need to deposit less and then have less excess to withdraw. Saves work for them and MoneyThing. The proposal I made didn't have any post-payment feature, you're allocated up to what you have in funds but get notified regularly about your current expected allocation, updated as often as MoneyThing cares to run the calculation. The modifications that have a first deadline then time after that to fund can be tweaked by having a final round that limits bids to available funds, just as the final round in the original description would. That would distribute the money from those with insufficient funds evenly among those who have excess. The waiting time modification does a more precise job of eliminating extra funding, at the cost of tying up MoneyThing's float for longer. The difference is the amount that is bid but not funded plus the amount that bids near to the end reduce the projected allocation. I don't think this difference provides a material benefit to lenders vs the cost to MoneyThing and potential lenders in the rate at which deals can be done. It's the nature of MoneyThing that you usually will have money in your account because of well spread out interest payments, so I'm very relaxed about such small amounts. Not that I have any great objection, I just don't think it's delivering much extra value either. I'd be entirely happy with it or without it.
|
|