I think that's based on your interpretation of the language. If you feel that there is a better way to phrase it we are open to suggestions.
Money really isn't a matter of interpretation, and I am asking you what the specific flow is. This is what I meant about transparency. So if I have it wrong, please tell me what is correct.
The Balance Details page, as pictured above, has 3 columns that deal with dollar amounts. Amount, Estimated fees, Creator's share. In the second column, clicking the question mark expressly states that those fees are both the transaction fee based on where the ink was purchased and Tapas' share.
So with that set up it goes as follows:
Amount - Fees = Share
Meaning the entire flow is simply:
Purchase >> Give = Amount - Fees = Share
But by what you have said that is incorrect and it goes:
Purchase >> Give - Transaction Fee = Amount - Tapas Fee = Share
No, I'm pretty sure what's being said is that, even though the initial 30% is taken out immediately when the transaction is done in the app (ie, the user giving ink to an artist). the amount that shows up under "Amount" shows the full amount given from the supporter to the artist. Then, what's taken by both the app store and Tapas is shown under the "Fees" column in one go. the 100 ink being bought is worth a full hundred when it is purchased, but when it is spent, it becomes worth less than 100 ink because that is when the fees kick in.
It can't be taken out immediately then also show at the end. That isn't how math works.
Either it is taken out immediately, impacting the value of the ink itself and therefor the creator never sees that fee, OR it is taken out at some point when it is in the creator's possession.
It cannot be part of person A's transaction but show up as being deducted from Person B's transaction.
If I get prints made, any fees I'm charged for additional processing or taxes isn't going to appear itemized when I sell them. Just like when the prints are made they don't itemize fees they were charged on the paper and ink. That isn't how financial transactions work.
This was my belief and also what I have tried to say.
And If this is the way Ink works, then yes, it is not transparent.
This is the main question that shows up every year and the main reason that we keep getting on each other wrong feet.
Please confirm this @michaelson before this debate will rant on again.
I think I agree with @rainbowolfe about the flow of transactions and with @michaelson about how there might be a language issue here...
One issue seems to be how the Balance Details page should be read. I would propose that, despite the way it looks, it isn't set up like a spreadsheet with one transaction type per column. Instead, two transactions which show up at different times in the financial flow are logged in a single column and, in fact, a single number. That's where the math / language disconnect seems to stem from...
This is how I perceive the Balance Details page given the information provided in this thread:
- Amount = the monetary value of the total amount of ink a fan gives to a creator.
- Estimated Fees = the 30% fee that is incurred when the ink is given plus the 15% fee that is incurred when monies are withdrawn by the creator.
- Creator's Share = the estimated value after both fees are incurred when and if money is withdrawn. The take home profit for the creator.
The part I'm not certain of is whether the 15% incurred at withdrawal is 15% of the original total or 15% of the total after the initial 30% fees are deducted. Either way, if you think of the 2nd column as containing information for two separate transactions which occur at two separate times, then it should be easy enough to reconcile the math.
Estimated fees are either up to 45% of the original total over two separate transactions, or up to 40.5% of the original total over two separate transactions.
Unless my math is wrong or I'm totally missing the point of the question. In which case, I apologize for further muddying the waters. 
You are indeed missing the point. What Michaelson said is “up to interpretation” and what no one is clear about is when in the process the app transaction fee is taken out.
It’s now been said immediately upon purchase, in the transfer of ink, and at the end.
My concerns here have been since the beginning is how the figures in the “amount” column are calculated and the lack of transparency involved. That is the only reason the transaction fee is part of the conversation: is it given in a misleading place or not?
Michaelson said there's no fee taken out upon purchase, only when it is transferred to an artist.
I wouldn't consider it misleading, as the fees taken out show ALL the fees, and the amount given shows the FULL amount given. Even though the fees are being applied at different times (30% to the app store when it's initially given to the artist, and 15% when the artist transfers it to Paypal), what really matters is the total amount taken out, right? As was said above, the figure in the "amount" column is the full amount given.
Whether or not the 30% taken out has it's own column (after the amount, but before the Tapas fees), the amount taken out would be the same. What's happening on the back-end is the 30% being taken out first, and then the 15%. What we see on the balance page is what was and will be taken out, showing the artist the true amount they're getting put into their Paypal account.
Your question has already been answered: The 80K Ink you're hypothetically buying is worth the full 80K, up until it is transferred to the artist.
If that is the case, then there is still a considerable amount that is missing in the beginning of the transaction.
Michaelson said there is no published value for Ink because of various factors. But give the information people have stated it is at least roughly somewhere around $1 being 1250 Ink. The furthest variance from this I have seen is roughly $1=1200. Yet at purchase it can go as far as $1=800.
Using your reasoning, Ink will just lose value ranging from 4-35% with the person who purchased it. Then fees are taken out, on top of that.
That is my concern. Not whether or not both fees are taken out at once. Because like some many others you have decided what my meaning is. So I will say it over and over again until everyone understands what I am asking:
I understand that two different fees are taken out. I accept this as part of the process. But that does not change that there is a painful lack of transparency in the process, and there are many things not accounted for within the system.
The only reason the 30% app transaction fee is even part of my concern is whether or not it comes out earlier on and therefor affecting the overall value of Ink when it is in the creator's possession.
I know there are fees. Stop telling me there are fees. If without a doubt they come out at the very end, then that is not part of the conversation anymore. My concerns are only about everything lead up to what ends up in that "amount" column. The pre-fees value. Michaelson's statements seemed to imply the app fee was part of this value. That is the only reason that's involved.
Is there any other way I can phrase it so everyone will understand my questions?
NO you have done your part.
Please @michaelson this Ink thing is confusing and not even your answer did cleared it up.
The question is:
Steps
1 Purchase 100 ink cost x $
2 The reader has 100 ink
3 The reader gives 100 ink
4 The creator gets 100 ink
5 WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE 100 INK
6 The creator see in column 1 a given amount of $ (Where did that calculation came from)?
7 The creator see in column 2 some fees that need to be paid. (Exactly what fees are paid in this step)
8 The creator see in column 3 the share.
Please answer what is going on between step 5-7
Yes, now you're getting it. This here is a nice summary of what I want to know.
Even if there is no published value in the moment for one Ink, we should still told how those values are being calculated. Real life exchange rates vary quite a bit every day. But I can still say with confidence that on any given day $1USD is worth .75-.80GBP.
So even if a set amount cannot be given, we should still be able to know how the value is being derived. Even if it isn't based on USD. Just a statement such as "1 Ink is worth $X in Y currency, the values to each creator may vary depending on exchange rates at the time." will suffice.
That still doesn't answer everything, but it removes that seriously questionable point of not giving the value of ink.
The thing is. I always understand you, and I have this believe that i was trying to tell you. And if I'm right then you are right that this is not the way it is presented in the creators sheet.
This is my belief of what's going on:
Steps
1 Purchase 100 webink(w)/appink(a) cost x$ - w/a fee= Ink value w/a
2 The reader has 100 ink value w/a
3 The reader gives 100 ink value w/a
4 The creator gets 100 ink value w/a
5 THE VALUE OF THE 100 INK DEPENDS OF W/A
6 The creator see in column 1 a given amount of $ (Translated in the w/a value)
7 The creator see in column 2 some fees that need to be paid. (This is only the tapas fee)
8 The creator see in column 3 the share.
But if this is the case, then there would be absolutely no reason for the web/app fee to even be mentioned to the creator or shown in their balance at all.
Let's see what the official will say before more speculation. I'm just glad that we understand each point of view now.
The thing is from my POV is the value of webink is higher than appink and we earn more before tapas share fee on webink. And that's why I kind of rant agains appink (but sees that as an investment in having app users)
Peace
I think the reason the "fees" question cannot be answered clearly because the fees likely change depending on where the person bought or earned the ink. And it's likely in a contract somewhere where the actual amounts cannot be disclosed (say apple takes 29.5% but google takes only 28.7%, but on paper to keep their own contracts in tact, it needs to show 30% so both companies feel they're getting the same amount).
I think it might have to do with some app clarity laws. Such as the gacha (random lottery draws) in app games that are from Japan are required by law to state the % chance of getting the character you want. Like the "pretty blond princess" is a 2.8% chance because she's a level5 character, where the level3's are 5.8%, and so forth - lower rarity has a higher chance to appear. That such law, so far as I've ever seen, doesn't really exist in US apps. You click a banner in a Japanese game and can see the %'s, but in a US app, it'll just give the list but not the % chance.
The fees might be small %, and might or might not be applied. Like if someone buys from Tapas directly through the desktop then, I suppose it could be possible, that even then Apple and Google require a minimum of 0.8% given to them as "upkeep" on each transaction for their services.
Once again, that is not the question I am asking.
I am not asking about fees apart from clarification on when they occur. If they occur at the end of the process, they do not matter at all to my question.
Once again, I am asking about the numbers that go into column 1. Amount. Not columns 2 or 3. JUST. COLUMN. ONE.
If in @jensrichard77's model it occurs at steps 7 or 8, it does not matter. At all. In this question. Period. End of story. That is not what I am asking about.
The only reason the app fee would matter at all is if it came before. Otherwise, stop talking about it.
And once again: THIS IS ABOUT THE VALUES IN THE AMOUNT COLUMN AND HOW THE ARE DERIVED. Not the fees that are then deducted from THAT amount.
Been a little wondering about this myself, since Ink seems kind of like a game token in a way (really wish it was just in plain money but it's 2020 so woooo game currency). But like it's not straight up cryptocurrency, since you can only use it within tapas, so the value won't increase or decrease really at all since it lives in a really controlled market.
@michealson already said he cannot disclose the value of 1 ink, and that's probably for legal reasons. Like I don't know if any apps and games 'officially' disclose how much worth a base unit of their currency is compared to the dollar (I don't keep up with it though, so maybe some do.)
So, I assume that the amount you see in your accounting is a rough estimate of what an inks value should be (since in a very controlled market that value should never really change). It's not World of Warcraft money so like...there's no real fear of inflation by bots mining stuff. But, it may vary a little bit from the actual number.
Overall though, I agree with how I wish it was just straight up cash. But, since a lot of kids use the site, maybe it's a way for kids to have their parents buy the ink tokens, so then they have a allowance of what they want to spend on the app throughout the week?
I agree with you on everything but this.
Game currencies don't need a set dollar value as once it's in the game it doesn't come out again. the same as buying straight items rather than in-game currency. It's not being converted back to real money.
And this is all why the game currency pricing model frustrates me so much. It is being used in place of real money, for even the ad revenue that is given to creators. So it must have an intrinsic value in order to become real money again. So the fact that the price can vary greatly at purchase is what I'm concerned by.
Even if he cannot give the exact value of Ink, he should be able to tell us definitively what goes into calculating the values shown in a creator's dashboard. As it stands right now, no one can say with certainty even when the app fee is taken out. The simple fact that multiple people have given vastly different answers is evidence of that.
The reasoning behind using Ink vs real cash doesn't really matter. What matters is the transparency to the people being paid with this pseudo currency.
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?
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.
Yes, it does. Ads and support are all Ink and all roll into the same account balance.