[Discuss] About gold transfers

[Tom Vogt]

Thomas Dalton schrieb:
> A gold piece is an enormous amount of money.
>
> A bit of research tells me the first Pound Sterling (I'm British so am
> going to be biased and use my currency - it doesn't make much
> difference) coin was introduced in 1489 and weighed half a troy ounce.
> And, apparently, £1 in 1489 is worth just over £450 now. I know it's
> not possible to pin an exact date on BM (seeing as it doesn't take
> place in England, it wouldn't help much anyway) and the site I got the
> inflation details from says it's very approximate, but it gives a
> general order of magnitude for the amounts of money we're dealing
> with.
>
> (Quick check: Soldiers get paid about 1/10 gold a day (very roughly),
> which is 36.5 gold a year, which in current terms is about £16k which
> is pretty close to a realistic value for a soldier's salary today. It
> seems Tom has the value of gold about right in his calculations - well
> done!)
>
> So, having the smallest amount you can transfer being over £10k seems
> a little excessive.
Good research and argument.

We could solve this by adding fees to banking transfers. Something 
small, but rounded up for smaller sums. Say 1% for 100+ gold and 2% for 
anything under 100, always at least 1 gold. Then sending 25 would be 
more economical (24 would arrive, a 4% loss) than sending 10 (9 would 
arrive, a 10% loss).