1. Daily Transfer Limit (Soft Cap)

Each player can only transfer a maximum amount per day (e.g., 5,000,000 in-game currency).

This cap resets every 24 hours at a fixed time (e.g., midnight server time).

Optional: Credit Perk or high-ranking players may have a slightly higher daily transfer limit.

This system prevents excessive money movement while still allowing normal transactions.

Possible Variations:

Instead of a strict cap, allow players to increase their limit through achievements, or rank.

Implement a scaling limit where new players can transfer and receive only a small amount at first.

2. Progressive Tax System

A tax is applied based on the size of the transfer:

Additional Enhancements:

Players can use special "Banking Perk" to reduce tax rates for a limited time.

A portion of the tax revenue could fund in-game events, rewards.

3. Transfer Cooldown System

Each player can only transfer money once per hour or X times per day (e.g., 3-5 transfers).

Once a transfer is made, a cooldown starts (e.g., 60 minutes before the next one).

If a player reaches their transfer limit, they must wait until the next day.

Optional Modifications:

Instead of a flat cooldown, introduce a dynamic cooldown that scales with the transfer size.

Example: Small transfers (< 100,000) have a 10-minute cooldown.

Large transfers (> 1,000,000) have a 2-hour cooldown.

Banking perk players could have shorter cooldowns or an extra transfer slot.

4. Tiered Banking Privileges

Returning Players must earn their transfer privileges rather than having unlimited access.

Banking Tiers Example:

How These Systems Improve the Game

Implementing these banking restrictions can enhance game balance, prevent abuse, and create a more rewarding economy. Here’s how each system benefits the game:

1. Daily Transfer Limit (Soft Cap) → Prevents 

Without a limit, players can move unlimited money between accounts.

A daily cap slows down activities, making it harder to game the system while still allowing fair transfers, players must consider more tactical decisions in times of war, rogues etc.

Game Improvement:
Prevents instant wealth transfers that break the economy.

Encourages players to earn money naturally rather than depend on external sources.

2. Progressive Tax System → Adds Risk & Strategy to Transactions

High-value transactions will cost more, forcing players to think strategically before moving large sums.

Encourages in-game spending instead of hoarding wealth in personal accounts.

Game Improvement:
Creates a money sink to regulate inflation.
Makes transferring money a calculated decision, adding depth to the economy.

3. Transfer Cooldown System → Stops Rapid Wealth Transfers

Game Improvement:
Encourages fair play by preventing rapid, large-scale weath redistribution.
Keeps the economy stable by limiting instant wealth redistribution.

4. Tiered Banking Privileges → Encourages Progression & Deters Abuse

New accounts can’t instantly send and receive massive amounts of money, preventing them from being used as disposable transfer accounts.

Players feel a sense of progression, unlocking better banking privileges as they engage in the game.

Game Improvement:

Gives a clear goal for players to work towards, increasing engagement.

Implementing these banking restrictions can enhance game balance, prevent abuse, and create a more rewarding economy.

How does it balance the game, and please don't say it " Stops Rapid Wealth Transfers".  

How does it prevent abuse, more importantly what abuse?

How does it create more rewarding economy? To me it looks like people will lose money to tax and unusual restriction on using our own money how we please.

Can you explain how does rapid wealth transfer affect the player base. The only case I think someone transfers a hefty sum is to buy the BGs or put hits.

And can all this not be bypassed by simply using credits (which is what people mostly actually do) And don't say we tax credits too.

How does it balance the game?

Balance isn’t just about stopping transfers, it’s about controlling the influence of extreme wealth while ensuring all players realistically have fair opportunities. Here’s how I see it:

Wealth disparity: Right now, if a player joins a family and instantly receives tens of millions from a CL, they skip the entire economy loop (earning, trading, competing). It removes the progression and effort that gives a significant part of the game meaning.

If money can’t move freely and instantly in infinite amounts, multiple family members need to build their own financial power, rather than relying on a few to inject unlimited money when needed.

If money has transfer limitations, players have to plan their purchases and investments, leading to more competition in the marketplace rather than instant transactions dictating everything from BGs to Flights. They also have to choose their future families with a little more thought.

Without restrictions, the richest players dictate everything. With restrictions, the economy becomes a game of strategy, not just wealth dominance. 

What Kind of Abuse Are We Preventing?

Abuse is probably the wrong phrasing, it's a dangerous word that suggests cheating, which I'm not, I should've phrased it better but that's on me.

Since I've used the word I'll run with it, the most relevant being;

“Sugar Daddy” Power imbalance - returning players should progress naturally, not be handed millions instantly by a veteran. If they do, it kills engagement, they just become mute pawns content to idle in public, often in positions of a hierarchy.

I know this is broadly speaking but in the spirit of keeping fair competition alive. Families and cities should be competing through skill, tactics, and economy, not just who has the richest sponsor.

With limits, families must manage their war funds carefully, balancing offense, defense and recruitment instead of just dumping infinite resources. It prevents cities from being ruled by a few wallets rather than strategy and effort.

How Does This Create a More Rewarding Economy?

At first glance, it feels like a loss, taxes, restrictions, but in reality, it creates depth and incentivises actual economic activity.

Market Engagement: If moving money costs something, players will look for smarter ways to generate and manage wealth, leading to increased trading and competitive pricing.

Supply & Demand Dynamics: If CLs can’t just move millions or even billions freely, they must manage wealth instead of just bankrolling everything from a central pool.

Risk & Reward Thinking: Right now, large transactions have zero risk, if you have the money, you spend it. But if money movement has costs or strategic elements, players must actually think about the best way to use it, making money more valuable than just a number.

It’s about meaningful decision-making. 

You said you only see large transfers for BG purchases contracts, so let’s break down why real time unlimited transfers affect gameplay beyond that.

Market manipulation - Extremely rich players can hoard resources, then suddenly flood the market and crash prices.

War imbalance - If one side gets instant war funding, the other side can’t react competitively, wars become who can pay first rather than tactical battles.

Rapid wealth transfers (Sorry DP) don’t just impact buying BGs and bounties, they allow players to manipulate every financial aspect of the game.

Can’t People Just Use Credits to Bypass Everything?

Short Answer: Yes, but that’s a feature, not a bug.

Credits are the preferred method of wealth movement, but in my limited mathematical understanding, the taxes will actually increases their value, making them a more valuable currency/commodity.

If money movement is taxed, but credits remain stable, players will seek out credits through gameplay, encouraging effort and interaction.

There are currently one hundred and sixteen thousand credits total in game at the time of writing, ninety-two thousand circulating in the last 30 days. 

Cost of 92,000 credits? If 1 credit costs $420,000:

92,000 × 420,000 = 38,640,000,000

So, 92,000 credits would cost $38.64 billion.

At what point do you see these volumes becoming a problem? I'd say it was a while back.

Instead of generating credits artificially, some tax revenue from transactions could be recycled back into the game economy to fund lotteries, prize pools, and player incentives. This creates a self-sustaining system where players fund their own rewards without admin interference.

Bottom line, it’s about strategy, not just restrictions.

Your concern that this just takes money away is fair, but the real aim is to make wealth matter instead of being something people throw around with zero consequences.

By adding friction to transactions, we make money valuable, strategic and competitive rather than just a raw number with no impact.

Maybe there are ways to tweak it so it feels more engaging rather than restrictive.

it’s about controlling the influence of extreme wealth while ensuring all players realistically have fair opportunities.

Why though. How do you think they got their wealth to be that wealthy. Either they spent a shit ton of time through years grinding and making that money, or maybe they purchased credits. Either way why are we restricting on how they use that money. If they wanna help their friends so be it. If they wanna give it away in main be it.
I think we need to remember this is a bit of pay to get advantage kinda game. So what's next, to take away advantage of some persons who are rich in rl shall we ban buying of credits too?

Wealth disparity: Right now, if a player joins a family and instantly receives tens of millions from a CL, they skip the entire economy loop (earning, trading, competing). It removes the progression and effort that gives a significant part of the game meaning.

 Let's assume you are saying this about a new player, then yes I 100% agree with you, if they are given 10s of millions of $$ they will neither learn the game nor will benefit from the handout in the long run.
But lets be realistic, who gives out a brand new player 10s of millions. The money is usually ONLY given by CL to his Hands specifically for BGs.

Moreover, what is stopping a brand new player from swiping a credit card? Nothing right, so I think it's a moot point again.

If money has transfer limitations, players have to plan their purchases and investments, leading to more competition in the marketplace rather than instant transactions dictating everything from BGs to Flights.

How? I don't need to plan my purchase. I am free to do so, I might need to plan my investment, and by investment I mean transferring my money to my crew mates for private flight, BGs etc. And this does not sound like a good thing to me. 

Let's take an eg. with the money limit you suggested which is 5,000,000 a day.

IWP BGs cost appx 350 mil. If my hands or two other big crew members are broke and I am funding 100%. I need 70 days to fund just one of their BGs. And 140 days for the two of them. And that's if I don't make ANY other transfers to anyone else for any other reason whatsoever.

It just helps people who rogue. They dunt have to build up a big enuf gun. They can rogue way sooner and hit high level targets.

Now about the latter part, YES money does dictate. Money talks bro if not in game money then real life money.

And marketplace already has enough competition, I don't know how putting a limit on the $$ transfer will help marketplace but feel free to enlighten me.

“Sugar Daddy” Power imbalance - returning players should progress naturally, not be handed millions instantly by a veteran. If they do, it kills engagement, they just become mute pawns content to idle in public, often in positions of a hierarchy.

I know this is broadly speaking but in the spirit of keeping fair competition alive. Families and cities should be competing through skill, tactics, and economy, not just who has the richest sponsor.

With limits, families must manage their war funds carefully, balancing offense, defense and recruitment instead of just dumping infinite resources. It prevents cities from being ruled by a few wallets rather than strategy and effort.

Again, WHY? Why can't I have a sugar daddy if I want? It'd be wrong if some people were prevented from having a sugar daddy/mommy and others weren't but it's a level playing field for now.

Also, Don't you think this way if the rich players decide to go make up their own crew then the plebs will never be able to win a war with them unless they spend RL money.

Market Engagement: If moving money costs something, players will look for smarter ways to generate and manage wealth, leading to increased trading and competitive pricing.

I think marketplace is already pretty competitive. Whoever trades there regularly knows the insane undercutting that goes out there. But people still manage.

Supply & Demand Dynamics: If CLs can’t just move millions or even billions freely, they must manage wealth instead of just bankrolling everything from a central pool.

Again, how will you stop people from swiping their card.

Risk & Reward Thinking: Right now, large transactions have zero risk, if you have the money, you spend it. But if money movement has costs or strategic elements, players must actually think about the best way to use it, making money more valuable than just a number.

It’s about meaningful decision-making. 

Whoever sits on even 100 mil knows they risk loosing it all in the blink of an eye if they die. Don't say there's no risk in moving large amounts of money.

Market manipulation - Extremely rich players can hoard resources, then suddenly flood the market and crash prices.

Yes this is prevalent, and there is nothing your suggestion does to change it. Many players like crashing the market, many like keep prices high. Whoever has the bigger pockets wins. Money transfer doesnt have much to d with it, if anything at all.

War imbalance - If one side gets instant war funding, the other side can’t react competitively, wars become who can pay first rather than tactical battles.

Rapid wealth transfers (Sorry DP) don’t just impact buying BGs and bounties, they allow players to manipulate every financial aspect of the game.

Okay you keep saying words like "instant" funding, "instant" wealth. Do you not realise there is a banker bank rolling it? The wealth doesn't materialise out of thin air. Someone either paid for it with real money or worked VERY hard to amass the wealth.

Short Answer: Yes, but that’s a feature, not a bug.

Then what's the point of this suggestion. People don't keep the billions in cash we have it in credits. I you wanna tax credits too then that's not something I like. And if you dun wanna tax credits, then we are just adding 1 hoop to jump thru when transferring the money to someone.

Cost of 92,000 credits? If 1 credit costs $420,000:

92,000 × 420,000 = 38,640,000,000

So, 92,000 credits would cost $38.64 billion.

At what point do you see these volumes becoming a problem? I'd say it was a while back.

I don't understand the point you are making here.

Instead of generating credits artificially, some tax revenue from transactions could be recycled back into the game economy to fund lotteries, prize pools, and player incentives. This creates a self-sustaining system where players fund their own rewards without admin interference.

Izzy already said that the tax will not cover the huge expenses of the event prizes.

just a raw number with no impact.

If it was just that then you'd not be making a suggestion about it. Money is power. Some have it others want it. You want to make the transfer or sharing of this power difficult.

I think if you let go of the transfer limits and just keep the tax on sending the money we may discuss it. But even then People don't like taxes in RL no way in hell they gonna like it in here.

While none of this would change anything dramatically it would be nice to see some money changes that can have some effect on wars/ the insta capping of gangsters. No bank roller in MR history worked for it in game. Its all paid/gambled you can make an argument for gambling being "working hard" I guess. 

Can you explain how does rapid wealth transfer affect the player base. The only case I think someone transfers a hefty sum is to buy the BGs or put hits. 

Yeah i think OP is trying to suggest a 1 day old account should not be max bgs, maybe im misunderstanding that but it would be nice to have bgs and rank be one in the same.  A Don should be able to go IWP , a gangster should be capped at SP. Iv always thought this was weird and made our rank pretty useless outside combat. 

While in line at the soup kitchen to get my only meal for the day, I was struck in the head with a crumpled-up piece of paper. I immediately forfeited my place in line to run back here. We now have the important document Rethcir was holding when he was gunned down!

Very carefully, making certain not to tear any part of the document, Zipper opens up the document for all to see. 

Gasps echoed into the still of the night

Guys we another avenue to pursue now. This is not the document Rethcir was holding.

Bill are you on your way to digging up that grave?

Please excuse the above. Wrong topic mistake. :P

I get where CC is getting with this. And I agree with him but like Izzy said there are multiple lenses to look thru. Perhaps sharing a bit of my lineage on her spendings. 

Often when I reached in my pocket to spend on the game, I was generous too. You see when working for a CL I knew the importance of sending up donations. I did not BG up. My CL's were busy getting their BG's in order than their hands. Moe times than not I was given funds to start my BG building and to stop donating and invest in my own BG's. 

When I was bold it was the same format. Donations came and when the time came my crew started investing in their BG's with the help from me and my hands. 

I was generous with credits and perks. I've been called Santa quite often. But my crew and city always came first. And I always remembered the rest of the site by raining credits. With no strings attached at any given time. 

In all my years I have not seen as many as the same lineage a day old, 2 days old ect. going IWP as we have in the last year or so. Yes, it is by far more affordable to grab 180 BG's at that age. It must be a new trend. 

If you want to hinder the game play, stop kicking up you cash on the market for credits. And since this has been become a purging game theme, shoot the IWP while they are young. :P