Poll re. distribution of year-end proceeds from Operation Paperclip (poll done- we'll keep the statu

lordmarcovan

(Poll deleted- the majority voted to keep the status quo.)

---

I was just thinking, regarding Operation Paperclip 2013, whether or not we should change up the year-end distribution, maybe so EVERYBODY who participates gets a little dividend at the end of the year, even if it only turns out to be a PayPal gift of a couple of bucks.

Last year I split the final proceeds with one trader, selected randomly. TorinoCobra71 won the drawing.

This year I am thinking that maybe if everyone got a little kickback at the end of the year, it might provide more incentive for folks to play.

I've included some of these ideas in the poll above.

(I voted the neutral "results only" option in the poll.)

---

Update: I see there was but a small majority who wanted to keep the status quo.

But that and the comments posted by past Paperclippers were enough for me to decide that we'll keep things as they were last year.

No rule change in midgame, then.

Just thought I'd run that idea up the flagpole and see if it flapped. It flopped, instead. But that's why I posted this- to see.

So, in the final random drawing, the winner takes all. (Well, winner takes half. I get the other half.)

lordmarcovan

I only included three breakdown options in the poll above, for the sake of my own sanity.

We're familiar with Option #1, since that's how it was done last year.

Option #2 gives one random trader the opportunity for a modest "windfall" (45% of the proceeds), and everybody else a tiny dividend of a few dollars or even cents.

Option #3 gives me half the proceeds, as last year (hey, this is my game and I do a lot of the work keeping it running!), but it gives everybody else an equal dividend.

Let's look at Option #3 a bit.

Suppose (very hypothetically speaking), we do 20 trades by the end of the year, and the final proceeds net $200. One hopes it will be better than that, but for simplicity's sake let's just use those numbers.

I'd take 50% of the proceeds, meaning I'd get $100 for my half.

That would leave $100 to be split amongst the 20 traders. (Actually I am trader #1, so I'd get a small dividend in addition to my 50%.)

$100 split 20 ways is $5. So every swapper would get a $5 dividend after the end of the year (for each trade they contributed), and I would get $105 (my half plus one share for swap #1).

Furthermore, those who traded multiple times would get multiple dividends. You'd be getting one share for each trade you contributed. So if you traded three times you would get three shares of the final half, meaning you'd end up with $15.

Those dividends may end up being peanuts, but you hopefully will have gotten some cool stuff in the trades, so the small year-end payout would just be icing on the cake.

However we do it, I've had fun with the Paperclip thing, and I hope everyone else has, too.

lordmarcovan

Let's look at how these numbers might have worked if we had used them last year. (By all means, check my math.)

Option 1 was what we actually used.

The final trade item was worth $134.94 in bullion at the time. Supposing I had actually sold it for that, the winner of the drawing (TorinoCobra71) and I would each have gotten $67.47. (Since the final lot was two rolls of war nickels, I just sent Gary one of the rolls and we called it done.)

But if we had used Option #2, Gary and I would have each gotten $60.72, and $13.49 would have remained to be divided up, meaning each share would have been worth $0.84. (Actually this breakdown creates a one-cent accounting discrepancy, but those can all come out of my cut.)

So somebody like JayPem, who did two trades in Operation Paperclip 2012, would have gotten a $1.68 dividend at the end of the year in spite of the fact he didn't win the drawing. Peanuts, admittedly, but 2012's game had some really long stalls when I was away from the forums.

If we used Option #3 last year, I would have gotten $67.47 from my half of the final proceeds, and everybody else would have split the other $67.47. There were 16 swaps, so split 16 ways, the dividend for everybody (including me, for swap #1) would have been $4.22 per share. (Again, I'd have deducted any penny accounting discrepancies from my portion). That's still peanuts, but in this situation somebody like JayPem, who swapped twice, would have gotten an $8.44 dividend at the end of the year (in addition to the coins he got in the swaps, of course).

I think Option #3 looks pretty fair. Nobody is gonna make out like a bandit that way, but everybody gets a smallish kickback at the end of the year.

CoinZip

I think option 3 would attract more players.....


The only problem I see is the item or items have to be sold and the money dispersed. So its probably a little more work for LordM.

I will gladly offer my services for the dispersal, photos and selling on ebay or any other online venue.

lordmarcovan

<< <i>I think option 3 would attract more players.....


The only problem I see is the item or items have to be sold and the money dispersed. So its probably a little more work for LordM.

I will gladly offer my services for the dispersal, photos and selling on ebay or any other online venue. >>



I think you're probably right, and so far the poll is bearing this out.

And more players means more goodies, so potentially more share value for everybody at the end.

We'll be having to sell the item at the end of the year, anyway. That was always the plan.

It just proved unnecessary last year since the final item was so easily divisible into two equal halves.

And yes, Option #3 would involve a little bit more work for me, but I don't mind. Keeping the whole thing running is a lot of work (perhaps well in excess of the modest monetary gain involved), but it's a labor of love and you can't always put a price on fun. This has been a lot of fun, both last year and thus far this year.

And thanks for the offer of assistance. I might take you up on that, but then again, I can just eBay whatever it is myself, since we'll already have pictures. And then I can disperse the share payouts via PayPal gifts.

illini420

I participated last time because it was fun and there was a small chance of a big win. I know I'm more motivated at the chance of winning big and that splitting the prize with a couple of dozen people wouldn't get me too excited, even though there's a small return. I'd rather take the gamble and have at least one person hit the jackpot. More fun that way for me so I picked Option 1.

Whatever is decided, I'll try to participate as it's a cool swap either way

JaLP

I'm not one that likes rules changed midgame, but it's not my game, so I don't make the rules.
I like the idea of a bigger payout at the end for 1, since everyone that trades does get something in return.
Even though I've already traded twice, I vote for option 1.

LochNESS

Hard to decide which option offers the most incentive. On one hand, choice #1 has the biggest payout. On the other hand, with choice #3, people who are not keen on "playing the odds" might see more incentive if everyone who participates get some payout. Option #2, to me, just doesn't make sense; it's like a diluted version of option #1 trying to make everyone happy. You can't win trying to please everyone.

lordmarcovan

illini420 and JaLP- I hear you, and as repeat traders, y'all's opinion definitely carries some weight.

It was just an idea, so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole, is all. Because we ARE midgame, I thought this poll necessary.

Let's see if the poll resolves itself into a clear majority. It seems to stay neck-and-neck between Options 1 and 3.

Option 1 is simple enough, since it's the status quo. It provides a bigger potential payout, of course. And less work for me.

Option 3 seems more democratic, but of course the dividends would be smaller. I wouldn't mind the extra work, but it's true we'd be switching horses in the middle of the race. (Well, only a little past the starting line).

Of course all of this is moot if we don't get some good trades. I don't think anybody, me included, is gonna get rich here.

But we'll have fun.

TorinoCobra71

<< <i>I participated last time because it was fun and there was a small chance of a big win. I know I'm more motivated at the chance of winning big and that splitting the prize with a couple of dozen people wouldn't get me too excited, even though there's a small return. I'd rather take the gamble and have at least one person hit the jackpot. More fun that way for me so I picked Option 1. >>



I will 2nd that!

lordmarcovan

Well, TC71, you would say that, now, wouldn't you, considering the outcome of last year's Paperclip game?

But maybe we'll just stick with the status quo.