@Hotspur to be fair, looking at the market sales thread, they were all selling reasonably quickly anyway, so don't think the market makers are the only reason for those. There are others that have queues that are months long and people are still listing. Can't really see much point, as we'll have sell orders before they sell, so all it's doing is reducing market value and causing more uncertainty.

I've had a few in the queue for a while, so am leaving those, but can't see me listing any more until there is a spike.

@GDS someone else will explain it better than me, but in essence your right. Not sure about the sell queue length part, as you've said yourself there are a few factors that make being precise difficult, but that's certainly the principle. I almost think a thread detailing how long we've had players listed might be helpful, so others know whether to bother adding to the sell queue or not, but that could be damaging to those listed so is probably not a goer.

@Coleyscrooge thanks for sharing. I know it's been pointed out this is not perfect for trading on it's own, due to those on fewer games who are just outside the top 1-4, etc. but it's still a really useful bit of info to have. If you are willing and able to keep doing this, I think it would be a really valuable thread.

@Black-Wolf I probably should have said in my last message that I think it would help long term, as it would restore confidence to trade. Short term any kind of generous IS could be carnage. I guess it would depend how many of those stuck in trades are already in the queue. They'd probably have to do some sort of deposit bonus, etc. to make sure it wasn't red everywhere. Not sure it matters though, as having gone this far, I can't see FI bringing back FI backed IS other than, at best, at a low percentage to sit at the bottom of any bid zone/OB system (and I would have thought even that is unlikely).

@Kanzz I suspect an 85% IS would help us massively but I can't see how it was ever sustainable. If average dividend yield is 11% and you can hold for 3 years, any IS above about 67% is a hugely risky thing for FI to offer. I suspect it was always intended to be a stop gap until the market reached a stage of maturity where there was so much liquidity that it wasn't needed.

@Dr-Jan-Itor I did a long and boring thread to basically say the same thing. I expected to log back in to calls that I was a genius, but there was nothing! I think it's a great idea though and could be a win win.

@Spot-the-value. I think you've kind of hit on why I'm not keen for further change. I'm fairly patient when it comes to selling and I'm happy to wait to market sell. Bids have made it harder to market sell though and I see sell orders making it harder still. I didn't want to see order books or any of these variations as it seemed fairly obvious it would make realising those profits more difficult. It's not so bad for any new purchases made on the bids system but it is more likely to mean taking a hit on existing holds bought at full value.

Don't get me wrong, the sell side is coming. Although I don't think it will help me, I still think this is an excellent platform, but I suspect I'll have to adapt my selling strategy. I know I'm lucky to have been here long enough to have built up a bit of a buffer but must be difficult for anyone that joined 4-6 months ago.

@Black-Wolf you don't have to convince me, I like it as an idea.

@Black-Wolf agreed, I think that would have worked better. I know it was introduced quickly to solve a problem but, absolutely, looks like they picked the wrong half to go with.

@Le-Blanc can't see it happening and not sure if it would even be allowed, but as a standalone idea, I think it's got merit and could get some trading going.