I'm sure andrew lowered the price and discount as he was experimenting on the impact on the economy.

 

But if the booster was say $40 for a 66% discount, surely a lot less people would buy it than $20 for 50% and the effect on the economy would be lessened if any.

 

Of course I, as anyone, would prefer a higher booster (like it was not too much ago), but nonetheless I don't get why this comment got 2 potatoes: the booster was higher before and only after it was lowered, so the comment makes perfect sense. It was deliberate, not casual, so there's not a great chance of influencing andrew on this I'm afraid.

 

I fail to see how an increased booster for a largely increased price would adversely affect the economy. For five years, no money was taken out of the economy with feature purchases and we did fine. And actually, if this option were given, more people (me for example) would buy features which would mean more money out of the economy. And more donations of USD to keep the server running.

 

I see your point, and it's sound. However experimental data is the final judge of every theory, and we don't have that. Andrew does have that, and the fact that he decided to make this change might indicate that your (sound) theory is contradicted by facts. Or maybe not, I really don't know.