INK Concerns (with MATH!)

[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.

[colinmooredraws]

I feel bad for people who actually want to support artists, but end up giving their money to third parties.

That's exactly my concern. There's a lot of people wanting to give tips, especially young and eager folks. I don't even care about it in the sense of how much I'll be making personally. I have a total of 85 subscribers, so I'm miles away from making anything myself.

[Kelheor]

We just did our testing with free ink. Darkstrong sent me 1600 ink that was received 100% from ink offers. We got these numbers. Amount 1.33$, Fee 0.20$, your share 1.13$.

[colinmooredraws]

We just did our testing with free ink. Darkstrong sent me 1600 ink that was received 100% from ink offers. We got these numbers. Amount 1.33$, Fee 0.20$, your share 1.13$.

That matches exactly with what I had. Since it was free Ink there would be no transaction fee. So no matter whether paid for or earned free 1600 Ink = $1.33 and removes the possibility of it being a hidden fee when you purchase it.

Thank you for testing it. It helps a ton.

[jensrichard77]

So 1600 ink = 1.33$

Then why are we paying 1.99 $?

[colinmooredraws]

So 1600 ink = 1.33$

Then why are we paying 1.99 $?

That's exactly what I'm wondering.

Based on what @michaelson said about Ink being meta-tagged with the source and origin and other factors making Ink from different sources out to be different values, at the very least Ink that was paid for and Ink that was free should have yielded different values once given to someone else. Yet they came out to the exact same value and the only thing different was the presence of the transaction fee.

It's all highly suspect.

[jensrichard77]

And here is the app ink test.

100% 1600 app ink giving to me from a new account.
And I got the value of 1.33$
(I paid 25 Swedish KR ~ 2.6$ Include ~23% Local tax)

[phoenixrenaissance]

I haven't been able to read through every post, but aren't taxes some of this loss?
And I'm sure they come out at the transaction stage and after they've been tipped.

[jensrichard77]

but aren't taxes some of this loss?

Oh! Your right. That’s the Swedish tax playing in.
~23%

But we still need to figure out why the free 1600 ink has the same value as the paid 1600 ink of 1.33$

There are still a drop from the webink from 1.99 to 1.33$ at 33% BEFORE FEE

[michaelson]

I will investigate this issue and get back to you all.

[colinmooredraws]

No. Where I am there is no tax for something like this. And look at what you just said. It can’t come out both in the transfer AND at the end.

You can’t just say “no, you’re wrong” and just throw out a flimsy, baseless idea.

3 different people have tested it, and 1600 ink cleanly came out to $1.33. Whether it was paid for or earned free. No tax would account for a loss of 1/3, as the purchase price is $1.99.

And as @jensrichard77 pointed out: if there is tax, it’s paid outright by the purchaser not secretly deducted from the transfer, as they paid higher that $1.99

Where do you live that taxes are secretly removed rather than added on?

[phoenixrenaissance]

Hope your question gets answered to your satisfaction.
Muting this topic now.

[Larslaustsen]

Hi @colinmooredraws thanks for getting into this, it is a big issue.
Sorry I get in the way with no humour in the top of this thread.
Please keep fighting, I have followed this thread.