INK Concerns (with MATH!)

[rajillustration]

Michealson mentioned that some countries tax game purchases as a reason as to why he can't say how much an ink is worth. Wouldn't that happen on the consumer end at purchase, maybe? I don't think it would appear on our end. Maybe that's another reason why the numbers would appear so different? It's a very vague mysterious number we have no choice but to trust, and I don't even have ink unlocked so I try not to think about it. I prefer cash.

Also, does getting that 25$ from tapas also include the amount you make in ad revenue? Maybe some people are just making more via ad revenue and that's why it appears like it's taking more or less ink for different people?

[colinmooredraws]

It's a very vague mysterious number we have no choice but to trust,

That sentence alone scares me. And government based taxes like that would not change the value so much. With the values I've been given, Ink can lose value up to 36% just between purchasing and giving to a creator. Nor does it account for the game currency structure they're using.

Also, does getting that 25$ from tapas also include the amount you make in ad revenue?

Yes, it does. Ads and support are all Ink and all roll into the same account balance.

[phoenixrenaissance]

I'm not understanding how this 36% loss is so mysterious. It's all fees?

[colinmooredraws]

One again: this is before a single fee is coming out. The difference is anywhere from 4% to 36%. Then the app transaction fee is taken. Then Tapas’ fee is taken.

[phoenixrenaissance]

I don't think your math is right and I don't think you'll ever be satisfied by anyone's answer in this thread.

[colinmooredraws]

You’re welcome to run the numbers yourself to prove me wrong. There’s a spreadsheet up higher with my figures.

[phoenixrenaissance]

I don't see any reason that "extra" ink should be factored into your equations.

[Maps]

This thread re-confirms how I only made it to Algebra 2.

[colinmooredraws]

In that case use only the line with 0 Exta Ink. Because you will find Extra Ink is what makes the values shift and without it the math is much simpler.

You will also notice the line with 0 extra Ink has the largest discrepancy.

And the ink value is calculated based on multiple sources found around the forums in which 25 Ink equates to just 2 cents once donated.

[michaelson]

The Amount column is either a dollar conversion of the Ink used for Support OR the dollar amount accrued from Ad Revenue.

So, each individual Ink is meta-tagged with a source and origin. The sources being iOS, Android, Web, or Earned (i.e. generated from watching ads, installing partner games, or participating in surveys). The origin meta-tag is based on whether the Ink has been purchased, each Ink Pack consists of its own individual Ink values (different values and price points will occur depending on your country of origin - different fees also apply based on those individual country's laws regarding how in-app purchases work). When Ink is used for Support or for the purchasing of premium episodes our system checks for each individual Ink's source and origin, and depending on it's source and origin, a fee is incurred - for iOS and Android a 30% fee occurs, for web a 15% fee occurs.

There can be instances where the total Ink used can come from multiple sources and origins which will impact the "Est. Fees + Tapas' Share" column, so for Support, it won't always display a consistent 30% (app) + 15% (tapas) fee, 15% (web) + 15% (app), and/or 0% (Earned)+ 15% (tapas) fee.

Hopefully that clarifies how the Amount column is calculated and how the fees' column operates, as well as sheds some more clarify on how each individual Ink is valued.

[colinmooredraws]

Hopefully that clarifies how the Amount column is calculated and how the fees' column operates, as well as sheds some more clarify on how each individual Ink is valued.

No, it does not. Because I just ran a test eliminating any possible variables. Which proves my original theory. My numbers were only off by a few cents.

I made another account to test this out. So this is all me, from the same computer. I used the website to remove the factor of the app fees or government mandated taxes for in-app purchases. A straight across web transaction.

Here is the purchase and of the simple 1600 Ink level. No bonus packs.

Then I sent the entire balance of 1600 Ink to my main account.

And the strangest thing happened.

$0.66 went missing along the way. That's 33%.

Meanwhile the $0.37 accounts for the fees everyone is on about.

Because this was on the website, it's just the 15% transaction fee, which would be ~ $0.20 leaving a balance of $1.13. Then the 15% fee from that portion for Tapas' share, at ~$0.17 leaving the final balance of $0.96.

Here it is in just straight numbers:

So, @michaelson where did that other 33% go? On a web based transaction, if you are already charging a transaction fee on top of Tapas' share that would cover anything like processing fees, exchange rates, etc. But instead of the compounded fee of 27.8% of the two expected fees, I was actually charged a fee of 51.8%.

[colinmooredraws]

Extrapolating from that, because according to what @michaelson said, each individual Ink is meta-tagged with a source and origin. So all Ink coming from one source will have the same value. However, it is clearly not based on the original purchase price. Because one sources buying a solid chunk, then giving that whole chunk to another person results in the following values:

And this has removed all possible variables and we have proven no fees are involved as of yet.

To make the math a smidge easier we can round to $1 being 1200 for this particular transaction. So we have an update to my previous calculations:

And to appease @phoenixrenaissance if we don't involve the Extra ink and just go straight on the base ink:

I also updated the previous line items with the losses and loss percentage, AND a speculation on what would have been lost if it were an app purchase:

I encourage anyone to check my math on this, but no matter how you slice it, there's an unaccounted for loss.

[skicoak]

but no matter how you slice it, there's an unaccounted for loss.

I think we probably know it's not really a "loss", someones accounting for it outside the information you're privy to.

[colinmooredraws]

I think we probably know it's not really a "loss", someones accounting for it outside the information you're privy to.

Based on the information we have been given it is unaccounted for.

Michaelson said ink has value based on where and when it's purchased. That each Ink is "meta-tagged."

If I buy Ink and give it to myself in a format I have control over and know there are no government mandated fees (because it's not an app purchase), that removes anything there.

By "unaccounted for" I mean in any way that we have been told. We should have clear information on where money is going. Even if it is just "X fee at X stage." But aside from a slightly shifty value based on the source of the Ink, according to Michaelson the only other fee is those taken at the end.

Are you just okay with them saying they're only taking 28% but then taking 52% and not saying why?

Imagine if you made $10/hr and you worked for 10 hours. You would expect your paycheck to be $100 minus any taxes. For this example let's say your expected taxes are $28. So you would anticipate a paycheck for $72. But instead you are handed a check for just $48. When you look at why it's that amount, all it says under the line for your pre-tax, pre-deduction amount is $67 even though you can clearly see it says 10 hours @ $10/hr.

Then when you ask your boss where that extra money went you're just told "Someone accounted for it, you're just not privy to it."

[skicoak]

Are you just okay with them saying they're only taking 28% but then taking 52% and not saying why?

Perhaps my post was unclear, I think it's hinky as hell.

That's why I'm saying it's not "lost" at all, someone or some company is taking that slice of pie under the cover of information not provided and questionable math.

[GamerPrincessXI]

I feel like getting off the internet, hunting down the artist in real life and shoving money at them. People need money to live. XD

[joannekwan]

I'm hesitant to post this since it's just making the thread needlessly longer, but thank you for this Khan Academy lesson complete with an example problem and visuals.

[colinmooredraws]

It's information we should be given. It doesn't need to be all that detailed, either. But the simple fact that it took me even running this myself to see the exact amounts is a serious problem.

This is especially confusing in that one of their primary competitors for tipping sources is places like Ko-Fi. Either here on Tapas or on Ko-Fi, all you need is is access to a credit card account or a paypal account. And you can send funds to whoever has their set up.

The difference being on Ko-Fi the artist gets to keep approximately 97% given as the only loss is the Paypal fee. And Paypal auto converts currencies, and gives you a breakdown of everything along the way. That 2.9% + 30 cents is a fee I am more than happy to cover for the convenience of being able to pay and receive payments from anyone in the world in an instant.

And I'm much happier knowing that if I give an artist $1, they're not going to end up with just 48 cents that they can't even access because it's only a fraction of the cash out limit.

[jensrichard77]

$0.66 went missing along the way. That's 33%.

This is not good.
What is going on?

[Darkstrong]

I have my suppositions about ink calculation for a while now, and my preliminary numbers were about the same as yours. Since we were not getting a lot of ink support, had no incentive to investigate further, and even do the actual testing. So, thank you for your work on this. We do need a more transparent formula for this. Mostly because I feel bad for people who actually want to support artists, but end up giving their money to third parties.