individuals had a product made. they are entitled to offer them at what ever price they see fit. irrespective of what the item cost them to produce they are permitted to add a premium for their risk and time contributed to get said product made. its no different to any other product people make and sell. are we going to start calling
cpc a flipper because he doesnt offer us chip at his cost? where does this end?
IMO a flipper is someone who purchases something at the expense of someone else with the sole purpose of charging them a premium due to the artificial increase in demand created simply due to the flippers presence. ZERO value added to the eco system.
@RivieraDanny you appear to be a resourceful individual demonstrated many times over. Dont waste your time on these meaningless arguments of what is and what isnt a flipper. Go out and get your own Paulsons made and or buy out a closed casino and sell the chips for what ever price you want. That way you can be the change you seek like you have been before.
Let me just say this and I'm done with the topic of
NAGB chips as y'all know how I feel.
Defending the
NAGB folks is a slippery slope as they are not a legitimate company selling products. Risk you say???? What risk??? the chance of being told NO from GPI? or are you suggesting that they did something illegal thereby exposed to risk? or do you refer to the minute chances that they could get stuck with chips that don't sell?? (not a chance there) most were sold ahead of time that paid production cost anyway and some even sold to folks that were told they bought at COST, that price $2 a chip. Was the Ill sell you at cost $2 a lie to the buyer? who knows, who cares.
Legitimate Public companies operate with transparency. They have to in most cases file profit and loss statements and pay taxes on their profits and write off their losses with the IRS. They usually tell the public when something is a "limited edition" how many were produced showing its collectability, not shroud it in secrecy to give a "perceived" value and protect the profit margins. No
NAGB has operated this way to date. And I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that asking for USDC and giving price breaks for seemingly untraceable currency is above board. I wonder if the revenue that
NAGB producers took in was reported on the producers IRS form 1040 with the production costs written off from the profits and the taxes paid.
The number of chips produced for many of the
NAGB chips have been posted in scattered threads here on PCF and are, I believe easy to find if they're still here. I only refer to the Tigers as the production number was told by
@kk405 to another user to be "well over 100,000 chips" in total so while that would intail what has been represented in cost at "well over $3 a chip" after crating packing and art fees, (i thought the art was provided by the buyer) that would lead one to believe that a $300,000 investment was made to produce these chips, GPI had to report that income and where it came from. the sale of the chips here on PCF and anywhere else, if anywhere else implies at the published prices for sale anywhere from $6.xx to $15. per chip, so lets use the Max cost number of 3.75 and the admitted base number of 100,000 chips 600,000 - 300,000 is a gross (gross in accounting terms) profit of $300,000 taxable income. As you may or may not know IRS audits are not just random, the are based over 80% on referral cases, meaning they audit joe, find bad information on a deal with frank, and bam, Frank gets audited. So are we assuming that all taxes were reported and paid on these
NAGB deals? Is your name connected to a buy from these
NAGB producers? seems that the oldest
NAGB, before the $600 reporting rule are less than 7 years old fitting into the audit time frame. It would seem fair to say that the buyers are at the same risk or even more than the seller and are paying a premium to be exposed to a risk they may not even know exists. Good thing the IRS is 85,000 agents short eh?
My book keeper warned me and makes me track purchases and sales on the chips, especially when I was finding many and reselling them and had a good chunk of income to account for not wanting trouble with the Government. I know other vendors here and elsewhere do too. So unless there's some form of transparency regarding who we do business with I would suggest setting the Halo for the produces aside and hope 7 years pass before our names get "Mentioned" and yes it can cost me and other vendors, Identified as "Vendors" openly on the internet a bit more to sell chips.
As for making the change I seek, 1 it's a hobby and the effort would not ever go hobby wide, as has been said there will always be the flippers, there are many of us who operate fairly and usually do deals with inner circle friends or even IRL friends which now is criticized by some. In the end we all have to operate how we see fit and decide who we deal with regardless of public opinion.
Seriously I have to be done with this subject and am now (everyone sighs of relief).... But indeed no halos for the extreme profiteers with so much "risk"
