🚀 go-pugleaf

On 3/06/2015 11:10 PM, Catriona R wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:04:23 +0930, | || ||| ||||| || |
> <|||||||||||||||||||||> wrote:
>
>> Well, I am out again probably for a while.
>> At least for a few months, can't say forever ever but right now not much
>> interest.
>
> I'm fairly low on interest myself, back in ironman challenge mode
> lately, which is generally what I do at the end of an expansion in the
> long content drought waiting for the next one.
>
>> I have tokens bought but have let subscription lapse.
>> Bought some at start for 27K, then more at around 18k on 3-4rd may.
>> https://wowtoken.info/
>> NA realms, oceanic seems to still run as NA
>> It looks like there was a bit of adjustment in the pricing algorithm on
>> 9th and a greater one on the 14th May.
>> Either price is dirt cheap, not even 2 days gold.
>
> Lucky, it's 40k+ over here, and that takes me a week or two to get,
> I've not bothered buying any yet as I'm saving up for the ZG tiger,
> should it ever appear on our black market.

Having something with a trend from day to day was just begging to buy 
low. I was very suspicious of the trends, the input was way too 
responsive. If it was a machine it would have been building resonance to 
destruction.
  Not so much an error, they corrected it , and can't have know the 
push-pull force (price-demand) before hand. Still suspicious of what was 
actually being sold and if it was 1-1. I don't think they actually 
reflected token being bought for $ initially and suspect a bit of 
salting was going on. Okay , be kind and call it pump priming :-)
   I am not even sure what the pricing and zone comparisons mean. Not 
many markets where the seller will sell below their cost. The gold cost 
is something they mostly create from nothing and the buyers may be 
pouring the gold straight into gold sinks.
   I think it probably should be 70k, but have no access to blizzards 
numbers, maybe they make sense but then again....blizzard...no flying ever.