Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Gold:Gems exchange abuse?


Recommended Posts

So this happened this morning,

Since the end of the wintersday festival, gem exchange rates have been fluctuating between 32 and 38 gold per 100 gems. There might have been some slight deviations but nothing major. This morning exchange rates skyrocketed to almost double the former value peaking at ~61gold for 100 gems. After this massive increase in the gold:gems ratio, the gems:gold followed suit. The image below shows that the gems:gold ratio grew to a rate higher than the gold:gems ratio from before increase.

https://imgur.com/a/7fncYAt

Seems to me like that would indicate someone bought a massive amount of gems with gold, expecting the steap increase in exchange rate, to then revert his purchase back to gold after the gems:gold ratio had risen enough. If this were the case, someone could essentially print more gold as long as they have enough starting capital. I would think that would be pretty bad for the game's economy

edit: im new to this forum idk how to properly embed images :#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After taking a look at the development after your screenshot I have to agree. It was not just a massive transfer of gold to gems, but it was quickly followed by massive transfers of gems to gold until the price dropped back to its previous level. That sort of spike does look very suspicious and is definitely indicative of something worth investigating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a neutral discussion of the same topic, see the earlier thread:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/66039/gem-store-conversion-market-crash

tl;dr more likely that this was a bug of some sort


@"Caelin.7613" said:This morning exchange rates skyrocketed to almost double the former value peaking at ~61gold for 100 gems. After this massive increase in the gold:gems ratio, the gems:gold followed suit.The one doesn't follow the other; the rates are mechanically in lock-step with each other.

The image below shows that the gems:gold ratio grew to a rate higher than the gold:gems ratio from before increase.

https://imgur.com/a/7fncYAtGW2 Spidy's interface with the exchange API has long been wonky. I don't think you can conclude anything from its snapshots (it's not the first anomaly I've seen).

Again, with the way the exchange rate works, it's not possible for the rates to be out of sync.

Seems to me like that would indicate someone bought a massive amount of gems with gold, expecting the steap increase in exchange rate, to then revert his purchase back to gold after the gems:gold ratio had risen enough. If this were the case, someone could essentially print more gold as long as they have enough starting capital. I would think that would be pretty bad for the game's economy

It would be, if it were possible for a single person's gold to influence the exchange rate by that amount. There's no evidence that could happen though.

The most gold that anyone (using GW2 Efficiency) has is ~320k gold. For that to double the exchange rate would mean that a few hundred people selling 1000 gold for gems could, too. And since we know that the rate spikes at most 20-25% even during the most popular sales, a single person couldn't possibly have enough wealth to double the rate in a moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Caelin.7613" said:So this happened this morning,

Since the end of the wintersday festival, gem exchange rates have been fluctuating between 32 and 38 gold per 100 gems. There might have been some slight deviations but nothing major. This morning exchange rates skyrocketed to almost double the former value peaking at ~61gold for 100 gems. After this massive increase in the gold:gems ratio, the gems:gold followed suit. The image below shows that the gems:gold ratio grew to a rate higher than the gold:gems ratio from before increase.

https://imgur.com/a/7fncYAt

Seems to me like that would indicate someone bought a massive amount of gems with gold, expecting the steap increase in exchange rate, to then revert his purchase back to gold after the gems:gold ratio had risen enough. If this were the case, someone could essentially print more gold as long as they have enough starting capital. I would think that would be pretty bad for the game's economy

edit: im new to this forum idk how to properly embed images :#

It shouldn’t be printing cash due to the fees. There’s a reason that the gem->gold and the gold->gem rates are not the same.

The only exception being if a player can purchase an “infinite” amount of gems locked at whatever the current rate was at the time of purchase compared to numerous players purchasing that same about of gems with the rate increasing with each individual purchase.

It’d be an oversight on Anet’s part as that would be player created/manipulated arbitrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ayrilana.1396 said:The only exception being if a player can purchase an “infinite” amount of gems locked at whatever the current rate was at the time of purchase compared to numerous players purchasing that same about of gems with the rate increasing with each individual purchase.

Actually a momentary spike of 100% is enough to profit, even with the fees.These days, exchange fees range between 17 and 18.3% (there's no way to measure it in one direction, so I take the rate at a given moment from the API, and calculate the remaining gold after exchanging to gems and back, and then assuming it's the same both ways).

To make the math easy, let's call it 20% and let's use the OP's selected site (GW2 spidy) which shows a pre-spike rate of ~132g per 400 gems and spike rate of ~243g per 400If someone started with 132 gold, they'd get 400 before the spike. During the spike, they'd sell those 400 to get 152 gold, a profit of 20 gold for no effort.

Let's say they started with 396k gold (more than anyone on GW2 Efficiency has). They get 1200k gems pre-spike. Selling those during the spike would produce 456k gold, a profit of 60k.

That would require precise timing though, because the rate started to drop very quickly after spiking. And since it didn't drop as quickly as it spiked, that even if there was a single person behind this (which, per above, is all but impossible), they apparently failed to profit from their endeavor. That 20g margin dwindled fast enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...