All,

The objective of this rather long forum post is multi-fold, but can be generally summarized as the duty we feel to the community to provide informative, relevant information to the public view on under-reported (and often classified) topics. It is the duty of the public to analyze, verify, discuss, and debate topics which naturally promote skepticism; debate and discussion is encouraged by the authors.

The post will cover the following topics:

• Trader Guild Bids (Pre Multi-bidding v. Post Multi-bidding)
• The Myths and Truths of the “Trade Guild Mafia”
• Net Worth of GMs & Wealth Accumulation
• The Foreshadowed Conclusion of Multi-bidding on the Status Quo
• Bitter Realities of Being a GM
• Propaganda, Deception & Self-Interest
• Crown:Gold Exchange Effect on the Economy
• The Failure of Effective Gold Sink
• About the Authors & Closing Remarks

SECTION I - TRADER GUILD BIDS (PRE MULTI-BIDDING V. POST MULTI-BIDDING

The implementation of multi-bidding has been ridiculed, harshly criticized, and unfavorable to a considerably large audience — but most notably from influential trade Guildmasters and other top leadership Officers. Just a few months from the introduction of the new bidding system, two important socio-economic criteria have been observed: 1) the rapid rise of new start-up guilds with a focus on trading 2) the collapse and forfeit of several notable long-running and established guilds for factors which will be discussed in Section IV.

Before multi bidding, bidding in most main cities and several less trafficked areas maintained their spots with pocket change — significant portions of weekly revenue for years went stable, with marginal ups and downs depending on player traffic and game health. The authors originally intended to publish specific bidding zone ranges for various popular zones, but have ultimately decided to preserve specific data in respect to the trade leadership body. In its place, we have published example revenue comparison data for undisclosed zones below:

Currently, bidding prices are significantly inflated compared to just a few months ago; across most zones, bids have inflated to be roughly between 100-200% higher than pre-multi-bidding figures as shown in the breakdown above (assume that the revenue remains comparable). Many guilds who have been established for years have cut down on sister guilds to consolidate the position of the main guild. Others have simply given up in the new system (and we’ll go over those reasons in Section IV), and then some others have found peace in embracing the nomadic life by hopping from trader to trader. Indeed, the new bidding system has created several losers, and potentially some winners — the following sections leave it to the reader to interpret those winners and losers at their will.

SECTION II - THE MYTHS AND TRUTHS OF THE "TRADE GUILD MAFIA"

We have found nothing more amusing than the occasional forum post, comment, or continued speculation across other mediums that all trade guilds are somehow involved in an elite closed circle conspiracy to generate insurmountable wealth and capital — here’s a big secret: Guildmasters are incredibly wealthy even without a mass alliance.

But the subject narrative isn’t entirely false, either. In fact, known to the authors, there are three main alliance circles that GMs are apart of. These alliances share information on others, alert their fellows if a spot in a zone is available or uncontested, and are places to discuss other mundane political jargon. The effectiveness of alliances are almost negligible in the context of trader security in the modern arena; even the common player can establish that a significant portion of guilds are moving spots weekly. Our internal data suggests that since the introduction of multi-bidding, the trader turnover rate is anywhere between 30-50%. There is simply too much competition to successfully fend off all guilds in the new system without effectively negating any and all meaningful profits indefinitely.

It is arguable if alliances were more meaningful in the prehistoric and generally peaceful era many guild leaders woefully miss. The general philosophy of guild development in the pre-multi-bidding era was through progressive effort to fundraise millions of gold — while maintaining the current held spot at maximum profit margin — to amass a warchest large enough to take a meaningful stab at a more prestigious location. Trader bidding wars in this era could also be considered much more lethal and explosive, with guilds sinking hundreds of millions in the hopes of being able to rebuilt the war chest with the added bonus of a better location. Generally speaking, however, the consensus was that maintaining the currently held position is safer, builds reputation, ensures security overtime, and requires minimal gold sink compared to actively seeking war with solidified opponents who also collect millions weekly. It should be especially important to note that in these times, starting a trade guild was incredibly difficult — when facing guilds with balances of 300-800m gold at free disposal, it is virtually impossible to break into the system and claim a piece of the pie. It kept the current leaders content, amassing fortunes over time, while effectively shutting out competition — even without an established intentional monopoly.

Perhaps it is the change in the normality and approach to the bidding system now that explains the discrepancy between the new guilds who are desperately trying to break through, and the Guildmasters of old who now see significantly reduced profit margins that explain many of the current philosophy surrounding the subject today.

SECTION III - NET WORTH OF GUILDMASTERS & WEALTH ACCUMULATION

It is hard to place an accurate, solid figure on the exact net worth of established Guildmasters, but to the average player, the wealth discrepancy may be a bit unbelievable. When thinking of net worth in ESO, the following criteria is established:

Only items, currency and other property which can be converted, AND originated from an in-game currency (e.g. Gold, AP, Tel-Var), are considered as assets.
Worth which violates the TOS as set forth by ZOS including, but not limited, to accounts owned, mounts, collectibles, or otherwise account-bound assets are not included (excluding Furniture)

Below are generally accepted figures used in estimating current Net Worth:

It is important to not confuse the net worth of an individual with the net total balance of items/currency currently held in the guild bank. It should, however, be notably clear that it is common practice for Guildmasters to associate their wealth against the value of the guild bank. A general consensus observed among Discord groups dedicated to advice for Guildmasters occasionally bring up the topic and mantra 'your guild, your decisions, your wealth' in no particular order.


SECTION IV - THE FORESHADOWED CONCLUSION OF MULTI-BIDDING ON THE TRADEWORLD STATUS QUO

Despite significant protest from the leadership of trade guilds in various forum posts, mail, and other correspondence about the long-term consequences of the new system, ZOS has responded with their assertion that the current system will be here to stay — bad news for the rich and powerful.

But the damage to the economy and satisfaction of trader and customer as a result of the new system is also worthy of attention. Many buyers enjoyed the previous system where they could travel to a zone and practically guarantee their favorite Trade Guild maintained their position, which was good for sellers too: familiarity and reputation build up over time. It is why some trade guilds make 20m, 30m, 50m more than their neighbors adjacent to their own position. Presently, there are no guarantees, and more often than not, buyers are being redirected weekly to find the guilds that they most often buy from. A seemingly minor inconvenience but overtime adds up to major annoyances. Further analysis on the effects of this nomadic atrophy is yet to be released — a subject that interests many “ESOconomists” alike.

And further, what will be the long-term effect — if any — that the continuous closure of well-established guilds continues? What is the solution to giving Guildmasters the necessary tools to fight against a system that is unrewarding? How on earth do we expect anyone to carry the mantle of leadership especially in times where server stability and essential guild maintenance addons are disabled? What, ultimately, was the intention behind allowing up to ten bids to be made weekly? How will ZOS deal with the persistent dilemma of effective gold sinks when trader bids have proven to be not enough? These are all questions that should be given much more serious thought to the development team at ZOS.

SECTION V - BITTER REALITIES OF BEING A GUILDMASTER

While the appeal of amassing incredible amounts of wealth may be appealing to a significant portion of individuals, it is also crucially important to recognize the amount of effort necessary to create, maintain, and operate a Trade Guild. In inner circles, it is often recognized as one of the "most thankless jobs in the world”, to quote several Guildmasters verbatim on the subject. Indeed, especially in the early development cycles (typically 1-1.5 years), leaders often put in over 30-50 hours a week as they built up the guild(s). Many continue to pour in endless hours in following months — very few ever get the luxury of maintaining a Trade Guild operation as the main source of passive income.

With the new bidding system in place, many Guildmasters are starting to wonder if continuation in the current environment is worth the comparatively marginal profits experienced versus the prestige and titular oversight and pride in running an multi-million operation. Many have already made a choice to exit, and more will certainly follow. For others, albeit few, the glory of running a Trade guild operation was never about wealth but the thrill of competition and simply being able to wear a tabard with pride. Perhaps for the first time since established guilds became established, questions are being asked if the millions of gold accumulated in the bank mean anything at all.

And there is some observed consensus even here on the forums when the occasional firestorm erupts about how rich some Guildmasters are: many members of these guilds are content with handing over millions of gold weekly to the pocket of the mogul-in-Chief weekly if it means that the burden of running the operation is not on them. Consumers and buyers alike enjoy the ease of access of being able to throw a few dozen items into the trader a week and make sales — many purchase raffle tickets or bid in auctions with the full understanding that the dividends are often going directly to guild leadership. Debate over whether this relationship is agreeable or deplorable is, in part, influenced by the way we perceive the arrangement.

SECTION VI. DECEPTION, SELF-INTEREST & GOOD HEARTS

Critical to understanding the relationship between the consumers of the system and those who have majority shareholding in the exploitation of the system is understanding why certain choices are made.

Various strategies are being currently utilized by guild leadership in a continuous, dynamic effort to understand, predict, and adapt to the multi-bidding arena. For some guilds who wish to retain pre multi-bidding profits, the employed strategy is placing 6 or 7 below average bids, followed by 1-3 strong bids in comparatively lower traffic locations (ensuring a spot for the week, while refusing to play into the inflated bid prices). For several other guilds, the hope is that over several months of strong bidding, enough competition will cease to allow for bid prices to drop. And for some others, they have taken the position that if guild bids are going to be this high, it is worth to pursue the most popular spots in the game -- a quick observation of the most popular locations in the game bolsters this narrative.

Many remember the Rawl’kha incident where one bored player was able to flip all five traders. They were able to do so with relative ease and security because of the previous norms surrounding trader bids. With virtually no competition, guilds were able to bid laughably low on their current positions (or even bid the minimum) to continuously claim the same position week after week. The stunt sent waves across GM channels; within minutes virtually all Guildmasters knew what had happened and were desperate to understand the intentions behind “RIOTS” (each shadow guild started with a specific letter to spell out ‘RIOTS’). Of course, GMs of this zone had no choice but to reassure their members that they were, indeed, “bidding high”. And while it was true that at least one or two guilds were bidding at close to the Rawl’kha average, others were not. The deceptive truths about the status quo of the time was revealed by the Rawl’kha stuntmaster; to paraphrase the spearhead of the conversation, “I wanted to send a message to GM monopolies”. Is it wrong to present half-truths or lies in order to preserve the false idea that there was weekly competition for guild traders? Consumers must decide that answer for themselves.

But it is absolutely paramount to understand too that not all leadership are corrupted by the insatiable desire of rapid gold acquisition. Indeed, there are many in guild leadership who are genuinely committed to the transparent growth of public service, and who do their best to close the gap between confidential material and public access. There are many that have continued a guilds legacy by passing down its ownership and surrendering all titles and wealth -- a powerful and selfless choice. A few months ago, one particular individual operated a multi-guild trade operation which held guilds in several low-traffic areas, offering extended membership for hefty gold sums upfront. In perhaps one of the greatest heists ever conducted, this player managed to collect over 200 million gold over the span of a few months -- kicking every guild member and shutting down all guilds. Immediately Guildmasters convened and discussed the implications this heist had on the reputation of Trade guilds -- following the incident, many Guildmasters sent letters to their members informing them of the deplorable incident. While never fully materialized, original plans included a letter to the community from a considerable number of leaders to express sympathies for the individuals affected by the incident. It is known to the authors that the player who conducted the scam was banned after pressure from various guild leaders and community members.

SECTION VII. CROWN:GOLD EXCHANGES

The explosive popularity of the once elusive crown:gold exchange has produced an interesting dynamic to the economy as a whole. Several immediate observations can be made in the present exchange dynamic: 1) the colossal amount of gold circulating on the servers is significantly disproportionate to the amount of crowns available for sale at any time 2) a lack of competition in organized crown exchange has produced almost unbeatable monopolization of the market as middlemen (this will be discussed further) 3) the long term effects -- if any -- of massive shifts in gold is unclear.

Perhaps the most interesting to the authors is the level of monopolization that currently exists. Namely, one crown exchange empire has now amassed a fortune of over 400m+ gold just through the meager broker tax split. To the knowledge of the authors, the wealth is not distributed to its lower-level staff, nor is it distributed as any sort of dividend to sellers or brokers and other applicable active participants. The wealth is concentrated among two or three individuals which comprise of the executive leadership board. Intense monopoly has also been a trademark, as testimony from former Brokers and Sponsors alike similarly conclude that the operation conducted is similar to a mafia; the video attached best summarizes one such occurrence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5orS9J75olo.
And in truth, there is reasonable duty to pursue intense monopoly efforts; any organization acquires more wealth without sufficient competition, and just like trade guilds, many consumers are more than content to pay for the service provided.

Another interesting element of the rise of crown:gold exchange is the simple fact that it is seemingly impossible to effectively create equilibrium between the demand and supply for one major reason: the wealth discrepancy. Current rates currently stand anywhere from 225:1 - 250:1 on the PC-NA Megaserver; lets imagine that the rate went up to 400:1 today. The disproportionate effect this would have would be critically dramatic. Various gold moguls who have amassed fortunes in the game would be content to pay the rate (and anyway, this rate is what normal EU players pay), while the biggest losers would be the average player who would be effectively cut out of the market. It is assumed by the authors that while it would cut out a significant chunk out of the exchange market, a large enough market of participants would remain to maintain the status quo of insatiable demand.

And finally, the seemingly endless demand for crowns has allowed guild leaders who are desperate for gold to fend off competing guilds or wage war on other guilds now have an easy, ZOS-endorsed gold buying strategy. Within Guildmaster circles, the practice of buying gold to wage war is commonly known, albeit discreetly discussed.

SECTION VIII - THE FAILURE OF EFFECTIVE GOLD SINK

As it stands, the biggest gold sink is trader bids. It is thought among the authors that the introduction of multi-bidding by ZOS was implemented with the two-fold intention of removing more gold from the game, as well as promoting a more fluid environment. But trader bids aren’t enough; the other few gold sinks the game has are largely negligible (inventory, mount, some houses, and so on). It is baffling that even activities such as Daily Writs can net a single individual over 15-20m gold a month just for logging in a few minutes a day for several characters. It is baffling that market monopolies and control over the entire economy is currently possible due to the amount of wealth on the server. Look at what happened to the PC-EU Megaserver when ZOS brilliantly managed to screw trader bids in such a way that added billions to the balances of guild leaders; within mere hours, commonly traded commodities such as gold tempers shot up 300% or more in mass-market buyouts. It is one thing for market demand to increase naturally as a result of events (recall #Summerfall and Culanda Lacquer/Mundane Runes; Blue Jewelry Writs and Iridium Platings; Necromancer introduction and gold tempers; New Life and the relevant crafting materials), and it is another for market shifts to occur for no other reason than player-sponsored monopolization.

SECTION IX - ABOUT THE AUTHORS & CLOSING REMARKS

The authors represent a group, Aura7; a collective anonymous closed collective which is dedicated to counter market monopolies, promoting effective gold sinks, and informing the public of deceptive economy-related practices. The opinions expressed in the post are those of Aura7 strictly, with assists and testimonials from anonymous Guildmasters. All data, observations, and assumptions made are based solely on the PC-NA Megaserver.

Ultimately, the trader game is one with heavily guarded secrets. Guildmasters are only the product of the system provided by ZOS, and we collectively as consumers generally agree that the system is unique and positive -- despite the occasional forum post calling for a global auction house. The full effects of the multi-bidding system have yet to be materialized; there are already indications that inflated bidding prices will once again go on a downtrend. The issue of effective gold sinks still remain, and the economy as a whole still remains wholly vulnerable to the grip of a few wealthy money bags.

From all of us who represent Aura7, thank you for reading!