Price Suggestion
The Vaccinator
Submitted by Stryder
~0.33 ref
Unique Vaccinator
Advertisement
Related Suggestions
Item Snapshot made
Classifieds
  • 1.22 ref
    Unique Vaccinator 8 Timed Drop 12836031505 12639545696
  • 1.22 ref
    Unique Vaccinator 8 Timed Drop 12823932063 6434162603
  • 1.22 ref
    Unique Vaccinator 8 Timed Drop 11916333502 11916333502
  • 1.22 ref
    Unique Vaccinator 8 Timed Drop 12640570299 11563650990
  • 1.33 ref
    Unique Vaccinator 8 Timed Drop 11968941423 11968941423
  • 1.33 ref
    Unique Vaccinator 8 Crafted 12816073352 12816073352
  • 1.44 ref
    Unique Vaccinator 8 MvM Badge completion reward 12623801848 12580210795
  • 1 key
    Unique Vaccinator 8 Timed Drop 12831532863 11721323911
  • 1 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 1 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 1 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 0.88 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 0.88 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 0.88 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 0.88 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 0.88 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 0.55 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
  • 0.55 ref
    Unique Vaccinator
n/a
0 sold recently
You need to sign in to comment on this suggestion.
Comments

Sold:

Past 7 days

1 @ 0.88 ref

5 @ 1.22 ref


Bought:

Past 7 days

1 @ 0.66 ref

8 @ 0.88 ref

1304 @ 1 ref

While there have been buyers and sellers for lower and higher, the sheer number bought at 1 ref gives it a very defined price.

https://gladiator.tf/sales?item=Vaccinator&at=2023-03-26T23:25:04.576Z

    Previous suggestions attempted this already, im not sure if this will be possible, but i appreciate the effort.

      maybe a range of 0.88-1? not only do sales match with that, but also the buy orders support that range. not my place to comment tho

        So, because I'm hosting a giveaway regarding keys from the amount of vaccinators I purchased, this price suggestion cannot pass based on my sales. All my sales are considered invalid until all my giveaways have finished.

          2 Months later, here are current glad sales

          https://gladiator.tf/sales?item=Vaccinator&at=2023-05-14T04:51:28.872Z


          Past 7 days

          25 @ 1.11 ref

          1 @ 1.66 ref

          1 @ 1 key


          Past 7 days

          9 @ 0.88 ref

          1678 @ 1 ref


          Still a huge bulk @ 1 ref.

          Sales at 1 ref have been consistent for a decent period of time.

          This means that this is solely a market manipulation issue, not a pricing issue.

          Mods will have to weigh in here, as I'm sure that they are currently discussing privately.

            Yes but the majority of these sales are mine. And as long as i have giveaways running, my sales are invalid.

              Yeah I'm upvoting this. This is for the meme.

            Here's my take, I am upvoting this. What is my reasoning? Because right now there is a double standard going on, for a bit now I've been buying so many bonk helms for a collection going on. I've caused the price to go up on the bonk helms, the price suggestion created for it was accepted despite me being the only reason it has gone up in price. Even though Lucy is the reason for the vaccinator going up in price it has made lots of people be willing to pay 1 ref for them. If you take a look at Lucy's price suggestion on the vaccinator along with others they were denied. The problem I am pointing out is the double standard that me buying a bunch of bonk helms caused them to go up and the price suggestion created by someone was accepted, yet Lucy's and other's price suggestions are being denied with better evidence. Also take a look at how it is indeed currently priced at 0.22 - 0.44 ref, if it was able to overcome the hurdle of being half a scrap, then there is no reason it should not further go up in price if indeed they are highly in more demand. Take a look at scrap.tf, you won't ever see any vaccinators there in the trading section to buy weapons because it's worth more than 0.5 scrap. I want to say that either both price suggestions for things like bonk helms or vaccinators for example BOTH get denied and accepted, one can't get accepted with less evidence then another with more getting declined. Just my take, if you look at buy orders for the bonk helm they have gone up also, they used to be 1.6 ref but went to 2.3 ref, because of me collecting so many.

            Bonk helm classified:

            https://backpack.tf/classifieds?page=2&item=Bonk%20Helm&quality=6

            Scrap.tf weapons trade section:

            https://scrap.tf/buy/weapons

            Bp.tf Bonk helm page:

            https://backpack.tf/stats/Unique/Bonk%20Helm/Tradable/Craftable

              Good thing no one likes vaccinators other than one person

                The numbers don't lie.

                its just regular weapon its worth maximum 1 scrap

                This is still being unduly influenced by one user essentially subsidizing the market and unduly incentivizing users to sell at these prices with the key giveaways and whatnot. These sorts of suggestions should not and have not been accepted. Downvote

                downvoting this, 1 person making artifical scarcity shouldnt up the price of a item that can be crafted(?) and dropped, there will always be nearly an infinite supply of this.

                We love a little market manipulation

                  Itd be market manipulation if ibwas making money off it.

                    Who told you that? You are probably thinking of a pump and dump. Market manipulation can be described as "creating and/or maintaining an artificial price and/or interfering with the supply and demand forces." Just because you aren't making money doesn't mean the market hasn't been changed (manipulated).

                      By that definition, "interfering with the supply and demand forces" would mean any sort of trading could be classified as Market Manipulation.

                      I'm not affecting the demand.

                      I AM the demand.


                      What is the market manipulation?

                      Market manipulation may involve techniques including:

                      -Spreading false or misleading information about a company. This doesn't apply here.

                      -Engaging in a series of transactions to make a security APPEAR more actively traded.

                      Yes, this applies here. But again, I'm not making it look like its more actively traded, because I AM 95% of the trades. It isn't a red herring, its a fact.

                      -Rigging quotes, prices, or trades to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE there is more or less demand for a security than is the case

                      Once again, yes, this applies. But I'm not making it look like there is more or less demand. I repeat. I AM THE DEMAND FOR VACCINATORS lol.


                      The entire goal of this collection never sprouted the idea of raising the price. But with bots, I do have to beat other peoples price. If I disappear for a couple days, the vaccinator price WILL fall back down. I've seen it happen when I disappeared for a bit after I hit my 99,999 mark.


                      Market manipulation is a term for deception. I am not deceiving anyone.

                        I don't know why you're trying to force a comparison between buying tens of thousands of something and every day traders buying 1 or 2 of something.

                        I'm going to ignore your breaking bad monologue moment.


                        I'm going to also ignore that entire middle section because nobody in this thread between me and you is accusing you of deceiving anyone.


                        Also, it's just a lie saying you are the demand, implying that you are the only demand, buy orders tell me a different tale.


                        Market manipulation is a term that has many different applications. It is not limited to deception.

                          "I'm going to ignore the entirety of what you said"

                          Okay. I'm not going to argue with you further.

                            Well nobody said you were deceiving anyone, why would I entertain it? I gave my reasoning for ignoring the parts I ignored. Also I wouldn’t consider this an argument. Just helping out a fellow trader.

                              Idk if you are just troling but in Case you are not well... Unlucky

                                I imagine you have no reason to type this other than you disagree and can't formulate an actual reply?

                                  Just wanted to say that your arguments dosent make any sence. Also if you ignore others than gl winning. Also I thought you were troll cuz bp forums

                                    How does it not make sense? Market manipulation is a broad descriptor. The fact is buying tens of thousands of a single item messes with the supply and demand, it artificially creates a price. I told him just like I’m telling you now, I ignored his “points” about it being malicious or deceptive because I don’t think what he is doing is malicious or deceptive. What I said and will continue to say. Market manipulation is not limited to deception and malice. If that “doesn’t make any sence” then I really don’t know what to tell you.

                                      Well until she's buying them it's not. The demand is there and if she doesn't sell off her's vaccinators it's not a market manipulation. For example when Elmaxo did a similar thing with lolichops a lot of people made a profit and others lost. Here no one loses or profits.

                                        It’s like what I just typed to you didn’t register. 🗣️ MARKET MANIPULATION IS NOT SOLELY DEFINED AS SELLING OFF AND MAKING A PROFIT. I don’t know the entire Elmaxo situation but I imagine he didn’t buy and then sell a bunch of lollichops. Whether he did or he didn’t the Lollichop market was affected and he was messing with the supply and demand factors like I said. He also inadvertently created an artificial price. THAT IS MARKET MANIPULATION. You don’t have to make a profit you just have to do something to a certain degree that changes the market. And you can’t tell me no one here loses or profits, of course there are people taking advantage of this moment, there is absolutely profit and loss going on, just like Lucy mentioned earlier, the price dies down when they stop buying. What about the people who bought their vacs already when the market was “high”. What is stopping someone from paying a low price when Lucy isn’t buying from an unsuspecting trader and then selling it for essentially 18x the price they paid? Even if we’re talking fractions of a penny it matters to some people.


                                        Also, I just want to clarify. I really don’t care what Lucy is doing. At the end of the day I do like to do a little bit of trolling. The only thing I care enough about to still be in these comments is the fact that this is market manipulation. Whether the person who started it is profiting or not, the market has been manipulated. A normal weapon is not normally this valuable, Lucy is buying tens of thousands of these weapons and while there is nothing wrong with that, like I said I don’t care what they spend their money on. A biproduct of it is less supply, it leads other buyers to increase their prices, it leads sellers to ask for more. The market is being manipulated I don’t understand what is not clear about that.


                                        I see your points, yes market manipulation can be pumping and dumping, but it can also be this, and it can also be many other things.

                  Even after 2 months, gladiator sales support the raise. I think this should work. Worst case we can do .88-1 ref

                    The situation here has not changed since this was last attempted:

                    https://backpack.tf/suggestion/63d34d432ba82623040c1836


                    That suggestion contains a detailed description of why this does not work and why suggestions based on this particular collector are not suited for price suggestions. The first part of my comment there is situation-specific, and the example given might be different in terms of numbers here, but the general issue remains.


                    I've checked to verify, and this also coincided with a giveaway, and 2 additional ones were hosted in succession, and as long as they remain collecting, the effective price paid per vaccinator on average, compared to the suggested value, is much much higher for the collector and much much lower for the suppliers respectively.

                      i tried saying that :sob:

                        Once the giveaways have passed, with appropriate time passing, would this suggestion be able to proceed?

                          no

                            That's gonna be very difficult for two reasons:


                            1) even when the giveaway itself ends, people might anticipate its return in the future, causing the value increase to lag behind a fair bit, substantially longer than the span of a suggestion's validity presumably

                            2) This is actually the main reason - if you remain collecting, its going to take innumerable vaccinators to offset the amount of 'fees' (from the giveaways) in comparison to the amount of ref actually paid for the vaccinators, as even if you buy 10 times the amount you bought this year, the value of the giveaway keys will still be significant.

                              Do... outdated sales not fall into account here? Im talking 3-4 months down the road.

                                I'd just like to understand how you're reading this.

                                  Normally that matters, but given the eccentric nature of this situation, it is very difficult to govern it according to a general rulebook. Even the guidelines for exceptions made to satisfy collectors purchases fall short here, mostly because they are designed for unusuals or unusual-tier items that sell infrequently. This particular case is therefore not really treatable with a successful suggestion as outcome for a couple of reasons:


                                  - First (and most notably), the method of collecting; as described in the comments here, but more in detail on the previous suggestion (for reference: https://backpack.tf/suggestion/63d34d432ba82623040c1836 my comment here). As mentioned, the additional payment in the form of giveaways adds to the average price paid per vaccinator, and they outweigh the listed price significantly. Let me stress here that this is not against our rules, and that this is no way an allegation against you; you are well within your rights to collect the way you do, and have nothing to worry about in regards to the price manipulation comments mentioned above. It just poses an issue for price suggestions as there is no accurate way to reflect the real price here (as you basically pay much more than 1 ref each, and the people that buy for you - on average - pay much less).


                                  - Another factor that plays a role here is the quantity of the item. As stated, many exceptions to the regular suggestion standards are made for 1/1 in existence unusuals, or unusuals with only one in circulation. In these cases, its impossible (or almost impossible) to get other data, making it impossible to approach them in a statistical manner. In this case, its an item with so many in existence that it is possible to look at a larger market (that has transitioned smoothly for years) to see if the data makes sense, which makes it very clear that the collector's data falls outside of what this should realistically sell for. This is offset slightly by the percentage of the market that you are buying, bringing it closer to the situation where you buy an 1/1, but it also means that we can already predict that once you stop collecting, the price will fall back. This is something that could be overlooked, had it been the only issue, but in conjunction with the other issues pointed out here it forms a reason not to do this, which will become apparent in a moment.


                                  - There's also the fact that the item in question can be readily produced for much less than the suggested amount. This means that the item in question is inherently not worth 1 ref. This by itself is already a strong counter-argument to the suggestion, but combined with the other points it brings forth additional problems. Because it can produced for less, its value at 1 ref (or the influx of possibilities to receive 1 ref for it) will basically create infinite supply, in turn offsetting an exempt based on the 1/1 unusual analogy alluded to above. It also creates the potential to create value out of nothing, which won't necessarily matter as the market will restore once the collection stops, but it weighs in underlining that the value here is unrealistic.


                                  If we combine these factors, it eliminates the time-sensitivity of the sales: the additional payment of several hundred keys is not something that loses its influence over the collection. If you buy 20000 vaccinators now for which you pay additional keys for a giveaway event and then buy 100 vaccinators in, say, half a year, then you paid those additional keys for 20100 vaccinators over a larger period of time, even though following our traditional guidelines, it might imply that those 100 sales (which will no doubt be significant during that time frame, especially if it doubles through having people buy the vaccinators first) are the market at that specific point in time, but in reality its still the same collection for which the same amount of additional keys was given away. Even if you do not give away more keys for the collection, adding a few more to the collection later is insignificant in the grander scheme of things, despite the fact that a suggestion based on those 100 sales might potentially satisfy the standard suggestion guidelines. And even though there is no theoretical limit to the size of your final collection, there is also no (reasonable) theoretical limit to the amount of vaccinators sold this way, as there is a virtually infinite supply of them. This makes it impossible (or at least unreasonable to assume) to buy out the entire market, which voids the collectors clause we use for unusuals, as well as provide us the guarantee that the value will drop, since more will appear after the collection stops, and the intrinsic value of the vaccinators (or rather, the intrinsic value of its production) is lower.


                                  The summary above should also show why this case is not comparable to the bonk helm example provided above as the situations are in fact very different, but more importantly, it should summarize why the suggested value here is not realistic for this item, and ultimately inaccurate/unsupported as per the first rationale (the one already provided on the previous suggestion). For these reasons, suggestions based on this collection will not pass, not even if you wait and then buy more. This has nothing to do with price manipulation, and does not mean you're doing something wrong (you're not; what you are doing is perfectly fine); I know I already said this, but I feel like you might be worried that I'm criticizing or not condoning your methods, or might have any other problems with you or your collection, and I want to reassure you that this is not the case; its strictly that this does not work for suggestion-related purposes.


                                  This is probably a long read; I hope I've addressed your concerns here, as well as answered your question(s); if you wish to have any further information, or have any further inquiries , feel free to ask me or any of the other pricing staff.

                                    Thanks for the lengthy reply, I appreciate all your info. Wasn't aware of the majority of this, and it does make a lot of sense. We have already seen the price diminish when I did disappear for 2 months to sort out the macaw sniper rifle ordeal, so yes. I do agree with you completely. Thank you.

                            💀💀💀

                              the cringe-o-meter is off the charts in here, well done!

                                i believe this is rather silly

                                  mental illness