That's an interesting perspective. Let's take a deeper look. Defining Unethical: Source The act of business in question: Adjusting prices for a digital product/property based on the consumers income, economical geography, and other value related data. Here's a 2005 case study and legal proceeding Source - CNN Franchises: Interesting tidbit about franchises that basically outlines how a McDonalds in Toledo, Ohio may charge less for a Bigmac than a McDonalds does in Anchorage, Alaska. Unless there is a contract outlining a flat/cap/min/max rate across the board, a franchise is free to charge what ever they want at their respective location. Generally they are competitive and not over-priced for the target demographic they cater to in the locations region. Source Note: Have you ever seen the price tag on a small bottle of coke at the Bellagio in Las Vegas? I have... They legally charge upwards of $5.00 for a tiny bottle or can of coke that I can get in Texas out of a vending machine for $1.00. I think in light of the above, price flux is common practice among businesses charging consumers sliding scale rates, so why should business to business or investor to business be any different? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. At the end of the day, it's business. Until there is a law to stop price-sliding in brick-n-mortar businesses, franchises, etc., there won't be one online either. What would be unethical, would be to allow only some businesses to price-slide to take advantage of consumers, but not to allow business to business or investor to business to price slide them right back. Just my thoughts on this topic anyways. To each their own, everyone does things differently and sometimes has a difference of opinion. Not the end of the world. It's an interesting topic.