Currently, you can make listings on the marketplace whereby the price can be changed by as little as $1. 

I would like to suggest that we introduce a limit on how much/little you can outbid/undercut another listing by.

This isn't a big issue by any means, but it is a little tedious how small the increments can be. Perhaps making offers adjustable to the nearest $10,000, $5,000 or $1,000 would alleviate this problem.

I actually like that idea...it is rather annoying being undercut by only 1$ 

I agree with this idea. Krytical has explained.

If that's not a good idea...then atleast charge a fee to post. to minimize the cancel and re-posting...

Anything to reduce the amount of undercutting etc.

I can appriciate the logic of this concept.

Based on Squishy's reasoning, I believe Option 3 would be best.

Options 3 and 4 make the most sense to me. I think i'm going to say i'm more in favor of option 3

Option three would just lead to people continuing to undercut by one dollar just to make sure that theirs get sold first.

I think that option 1 is probably the best way, although I'm not sure if any of these options will stop the tiny undercuts either way.

I don't really mind if someone is prepared to undercut it by a worthwhile amount, because that is ultimately their prerogative. It just annoys me when I see 10 different offers all within $1000 of each other. If we limited the minimum amount you could undercut the previous offer by, at least people would have to work a little to get their offers made and compromise by taking a smaller profit. At the moment, it seems one just reduces their offer by tiny amounts until it is top of the list.

I echo Northman's sentiments in terms of none of those options really solving the problem. Of the choices, I would say option 1 or 4.

Just putting it out there but has it ever been considered that we hide the listings?

Buyers put in I would like to buy X credits for Y $ value

Sellers put in I would like to sell X credits for Y $ value

Then the market place matches any compatible offers.

A kind of silent auction system?

Is there a glaringly obvious problem with this I am missing? Would fix all the undercutting at a stroke.

HarryMorgan, I see a few issues. One, there would be no frame of reference for either group. If all numbers are hidden, how would anyone know what $$ to put in? The sellers would sell at $500,000, and the buyers would buy for $250,000, and no matches would be made. Two, there are 250,000 possible prices to select between $500,000 and $250,000, so the chances of two matching exactly are very small. Undercutting would disappear, but so would any transactions.

I think the minimum price increase is a good route, as it would force you to be a part of the bulk at the current price or go more than $2,000/credit (or any other number) above/below that price.

If a buyer wasn't managing to buy for 250,000 or a seller sell for 500,000 they could re-list. Which is exactly what people are doing now but without the annoyance of being undercut by a single $.

As for exact matches I meant more of a best execution system. IE Buyer wants to buy for 250,000 seller has put down to sell for 249,000 then the seller gets a extra $1000.

Just re-reading this thread by chance and I think HarryMorgan's suggestion is solid.

Adopting a system similar to DFPs in that the game tells you if you're waaaay off with your offer/sale price. So if you tried to list for $500,000 but the highest offer on the table was $300,000, the game throws out a message saying you need to sharpen your pencil to something within 10% of the highest offer.