>>6013268I do the F.U.C.K. reports every day, and I'm also a tabletop game designer by trade. I work with a lot of numbers on a regular basis, although I'm no good at coding. MOST of the time I can tell that something is going to go up or down, but things like this week's massive bog are a complete mystery to me. I usually end up relying on anon explanations for unexpected adjustment directions and values. This was one of the main reasons I spoke up about concerns with the anti-overbuy mechanic, since looking at the stats doesn't give any real indication that something is "overbought" unless it's so far gone that it's painfully obvious. My initial concerns were offset by the statement that was made about how it still has a net gain over the "projected" price, but then we had the massive bog. I'm not sure those are related, but I'm willing to bet some anons have their suspicions.
Also, keep in mind that I see everything after the fact, and I do the report when the market is "closing" for the day and new data no longer counts. I can tell when anons have thought collectively "okay this coin is worth buying into now", but those usually match with the dips for that day.
That said, I don't think it's necessarily a problem for the formula to be unclear. Trust me, I get wanting to keep mechanics obscure to prevent people from gaming the system too hard. That's not what this game's about. But, implementation of a mechanic that requires you to understand what makes a coin adjust in a specific way feels concerning when that is a very much obscured mechanic from the players.
