Dynadot .com transfer sale, only $10.12 with coupon code DYNA12, available while supplies last, ends October 1, 2026.

NP$ System Revaluation - Important

Namecheap AuctionsNamecheap Auctions
SpaceshipSpaceship
SpaceshipSpaceship
Watch
Status
Not open for further replies.

RJ

Domain BuyerTop Member
Impact
3,226
Last edited:
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Unstoppable Domains — AI StorefrontUnstoppable Domains — AI Storefront
Unknowing, that's still not quite accurate because at some point, every single NP$ in the system was bought from the bank. If I buy 1,000 NP$ for $20 at the bank and sell it to you for $17, you should still have $20 in buying power. You essentially made a profit of $3 when you bought mine for a better rate. When the money was revalued, RJ took your profit, forcing you to sell for $17 what you bought for $17 because it was a bargain that was really worth $20.

Again, like I said before though, the only rate that matters is the rate the bank was selling at. If I bought 1,000 NP$ for $20 at the bank and sold it to you for $13... it still had $20 in buying power... the value didn't change. You should have profited $7 by finding that bargain... but guess what, RJ forced you to take $17 for it, knocking your profit down to $4 and putting $3 in his own pocket. Even people who bought from another member instead of the bank got the shaft.

Trading between members doesn't effect the agreed upon rate that an NP$ represented. We can all agree an NP$ was selling for around 0.017 between members... but is that the rate you saw people conducting business and accepting NP$ for? Definitely not.

If I buy 1,000 NP$ from RJ for $20, and then sell it to you for $17, is there now only $17 in RJ's bank account? Obviously not, the 1,000 NP$ still represents the $20 in his bank account, no matter how much I sell it to someone else for. If you bought it for less than the face value, YOU should benefit from that, not RJ. This change not only forced people who bought it at 0.02 to accept 0.017, but it also is screwing the people who bought at a discount, essentially taking their profits.
 
0
•••
thats not entirely true
As i recall, you could earn NP$ before, by posting on the forum, So I think in the beginning [I am not sure, as I wasnt a member when the forum started] NP$ were earned by posting on the forum.
Unknowing, that's still not quite accurate because at some point, every single NP$ in the system was bought from the bank. If I buy 1,000 NP$ for $20 at the bank and sell it to you for $17, you should still have $20 in buying power. You essentially made a profit of $3 when you bought mine for a better rate. When the money was revalued, RJ took your profit, forcing you to sell for $17 what you bought for $17 because it was a bargain that was really worth $20.

Again, like I said before though, the only rate that matters is the rate the bank was selling at. If I bought 1,000 NP$ for $20 at the bank and sold it to you for $13... it still had $20 in buying power... the value didn't change. You should have profited $7 by finding that bargain... but guess what, RJ forced you to take $17 for it, knocking your profit down to $4 and putting $3 in his own pocket. Even people who bought from another member instead of the bank got the shaft.

Trading between members doesn't effect the agreed upon rate that an NP$ represented. We can all agree an NP$ was selling for around 0.017 between members... but is that the rate you saw people conducting business and accepting NP$ for? Definitely not.

If I buy 1,000 NP$ from RJ for $20, and then sell it to you for $17, is there now only $17 in RJ's bank account? Obviously not, the 1,000 NP$ still represents the $20 in his bank account, no matter how much I sell it to someone else for. If you bought it for less than the face value, YOU should benefit from that, not RJ. This change not only forced people who bought it at 0.02 to accept 0.017, but it also is screwing the people who bought at a discount, essentially taking their profits.
 
1
•••
That doesn't matter, if RJ paid people NP$ for posting, he should have put cash in the bank to back that NP$ he gave out. If he didn't do that, it is his fault, and it shouldn't be up to us to pay for it now. That still doesn't affect the value of NP$ anyway, whether or not 100% of it was backed with cash, it still had $0.02 in buying power that it no longer has. If you had the NP$ equivalent of $20 before the change to USD reporting, you should have $20 now.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
hm wow, I got a negative rep? for what
RJ you really need to track down whoever is giving negative rep for no reason!
heres the screenshot
growup.jpg
 
1
•••
all arque here based on exchange rate variable which is very vary from one to other. It's not fair demanding something exist on our imaginary with the real hard fact. Once the rule has been set than the member will follow it, thats mean market will play by the rule. just keep it simple, all we need to do is to support this forum, and with better service this forum will grow even bigger.
 
0
•••
My other question still hasnt been answered, Why the revaluation? if Namepros is going to offer more services for $, then just let the user pay via paypal? why have them transfer balance from paypal to Namepros first, and then pay?


Would like to know this also. Kinda confused.
 
0
•••
The best way I see this to end is 2 options.

There is NO WAY RJ is going to change anything now.

So either you accept what has happened and live with it.

Or

You stay pissed and angry and leave the forum, and move on to a new forum.

I find the comments favorable from both sides of the discussion. However, in the end NOTHING will be done. So you have the two options above.
 
0
•••
Michael's argument is logical TBH. I think there is a problem in that NP$ weren't properly accounted for. Every 1000NP$ added to the NP economy was a $20 liability for RJ as it could be used for domain registrations/renewals or other services. When a NP member purchased NP$ they provided $0.02 value regardless of the rate which we bought them from another member. The rate we bought them from another member also doesnt affect RJ, the $0.02 in liability is still there. Converting to 0.017 means the amount RJ owed us has decreased. He already received 0.02 for the services that the NP$ entail us to (domain registration/renewal, etc.) + 0.003 to cover expenses from the system (payment processing fees, etc.). RJ has cut his liability by 15%.

NP$ should just be seen as a prepayment for services from NP (auction listings, domain reg/renewal etc.). Creating a secondary market for members to trade them was a good thing but the price they trade for in that secondary market doesnt change their value of 0.02. Value and price are 2 different things. The price they are sold in the secondary market is of a seller looking to sell quickly and willing to lose a few cents, it is not the price most people would value their NP$ at or would be willing to sell them at since they bring 0.02 worth of value. Thats why its incorrect to convert them at this price and to me and probably some other members it looks as if its just a way for NP/RJ to cut liabilities which havent been properly accounted for.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I did not see an increase in my bank account when the revaluation was done. Was there supposed to be one?

Of course not now, but effectively you have withdrawn money from the NP economy that could have been sold to you which would have cost you money. Therefore, you have saved the money you would have had to spend paying people who would have sold their NP$ at a later date.

Oh, and thanks for the -ve rep from whoever that was.
 
0
•••
Ok I'll post that what I think in this matter...

- The basic reason for bank selling np$ was that members could use the services that RJ offered like domain registration, sticky thread etc. The bank sold 1np$ for US$0.023

- There was no reason for RJ to buy back the np$ because he sold these np$ so that members could purchase the services.. but still he was nice and was buying back at the rate of US$0.012 per 1np$

- So as soon as someone bought (lets say 1000 np$ at .023 rate for 23$ paypal), the 1000 np$ were meant to be used on services..

- Since the bank was buying back each np$ for US$0.012, therefore it means that the intrinsic value or the real value of np$ became US$0.012 as soon as you bought the np$ from bank or market at whatever rate..

- People started to trade services (like bookmarking) etc by np$... they should've realized that the real value is still .012

- The demand of np$ increased (because they were being used in NP$ incentives, NP$ auction etc) so the market rate of np$ also increased and reached even .022

- But at some point the demand decreased, the market rate came down to like .016

- Its somehow similar to the housing bubble that bursted and caused Global financial crunch.. the real estate were being traded much higher than its intrinsic value.. but as soon as demand decreased, there was rapid decrease in real estate prices... thats the same with np$.. the intrinsic value of np$ was .012 but because of high demand it went to .022... so whoever bought at .022, they should've kept in mind that the intrinsic value is still .012

- RJ reevaluated the np$ and used .017 rate... which is quite higher than .012.. so I still think he is in loss for offering this..

- Everyone who is saying that they are in loss, they should realize that whatever np$ they had (bought at whatever rate) the intrinsic value was still .012

So I think everyone should stop this discussion. Whatever RJ is doing is right.. He is doing for the betterment of forum so everyone should give him chance..

You've my support RJ..

Have a nice day everyone..
 
3
•••
What about the children? Who speaks for them? I blame the liberal media. What is Rush Limbaugh's Radio Call-in number?
 
0
•••
12 Noon and 3PM Eastern Time at: 1-800-282-2882
 
0
•••
- Since the bank was buying back each np$ for US$0.012, therefore it means that the intrinsic value or the real value of np$ became US$0.012 as soon as you bought the np$ from bank or market at whatever rate..

I don't agree with this. When you buy gold from the mint the mints sell price is higher than their buyback price. The intrinsic value of the gold is the sell price, because thats what its worth to trade on the market, not the buy price of the mint as you may get a better buy price from somewhere else.

So I think everyone should stop this discussion. Whatever RJ is doing is right.. He is doing for the betterment of forum so everyone should give him chance..

I agree with this though, ffs if you cant afford to gamble a couple of bucks your in the wrong game to start with... come on people this is forum dollars were talking about not your life savings lol
 
0
•••
Thanks for the negative rep, Michael. :) :tu:
 
5
•••
I got some as well.

But, I think everyone has said as much as they can and this is going to flame out of control.

So maybe closing the thread would be wise.. As this is starting to get pointless and the points raised are going no where
 
0
•••
RJ what is Namepros thinking about the NP$ valuation now ? You have not commented a lot lately.
 
2
•••
If any other members would like to address this issue, please feel free to post in this thread or you can submit your messages to me privately by e-mail at: [email protected]

I know that the NamePros Staff would be happy to hear your input on how to improve the site, and the NP$ economy.

-Galel
 
0
•••
The system was flawed from the get go, again does anyone in their right mind think that RJ was sitting with cash on hand if there was a run on the bank,and everyone said "I want you to paypal me"

.02 was the amount accepted in auctions absolutely I agree, when you went there but the bank never said that. The banks bid was .012 and the ask was .023. So if you want to use the ask, then you should be pissed you did not get converted at .023. Again no one is ever going to agree, RJ you need to get something done IMO people have been discussing it for days and you should have a clear picture what you want the revaluation at.

And everyone should pick a side and IMO either side is fine. BUT the fact is the NP$ system was screwed up and causing RJ to lose money for 8 months, if you don't care I respect that, but say it, don't be using all the passive-aggressive nonsense RJ is great but where's my money man. Again RJ could have said f this I am out, losing too much money and then I think NP$ value equal 0. The fact is the NP$ system unchanged was going to close Namepros eventually. Now would it being .02 make everything great maybe ? RJ would just increase by 10% to 15 % things like domain reg. And whether he should have held money in reserve for every NP in the system makes sense who thought NP$ was backed by the full faith and credit of Ron James personal balance sheet. NP is a corporation that was losing money and could be bankrupted if RJ wanted to do that, his personal balance sheet was never backing NP$. Again IMO
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Pound, Michael - again just to confirm, the negative rep. you guys originally got in this thread did not come from a moderator.

As far as NP$ - I'm not going to argue either way. I'll stand by RJ whatever his decision may be, because I do believe he has this forums', and it's members', best interests at heart - he always has.

Here's to hoping we can eventually get things settled and move on. :)
 
1
•••
The system was flawed from the get go, again does anyone in their right mind think that RJ was sitting with cash on hand if there was a run on the bank,and everyone said "I want you to paypal me"

.02 was the amount accepted in auctions absolutely I agree, when you went there but the bank never said that. The banks bid was .012 and the ask was .023. So if you want to use the ask, then you should be pissed you did not get converted at .023. Again no one is ever going to agree, RJ you need to get something done IMO people have been discussing it for days and you should have a clear picture what you want the revaluation at.

And everyone should pick a side and IMO either side is fine. BUT the fact is the NP$ system was screwed up and causing RJ to lose money for 8 months, if you don't care I respect that, but say it, don't be using all the passive-aggressive nonsense RJ is great but where's my money man. Again RJ could have said f this I am out, losing too much money and then I think NP$ value equal 0. The fact is the NP$ system unchanged was going to close Namepros eventually. Now would it being .02 make everything great maybe ? RJ would just increase by 10 to 15 % things like domain reg. And whether he should have held money in reserve for every NP in the system makes sense who thought NP$ was backed by the full faith and credit of Ron James personal balance sheet. NP is a corporation that was losing money and could be bankrupted if RJ wanted to do that, his personal balance sheet was never backing NP$. Again IMO

He should have been sitting with cash on hand, it was our cash we gave him, that would be doled out as we spent NP$. Whether or not he actually did that doesn't really matter, the fact that we have him $20 and we now have $17 to spend means our money was taken.

I'm not saying he should have calculated it to .023. As stated earlier, the .003 was a premium to the bank, and probably accounted to some extent for transaction fees from PayPal, and then Google checkout after the switch. It would be unreasonable to ask for all of it back, but it is not unreasonable to ask for $20 to be reported as $20 instead of $17.

If RJ had to increase the domain reg price to make up for some other losses that is his business. But having the revaluation done incorrectly means everyone who accepts forum money has to adjust their prices because it was done incorrectly. That defies the whole point of making the change... we weren't supposed to have to do any more calculations.
 
1
•••
Status
Not open for further replies.
DomainEasy: white label portfolios are live. Enable yours.

We're social

Escrow.com
Spaceship
Escrowly
CryptoExchange.com
Domain Recover
Catchy
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back