I suggest we make DFPs a bit more involved.

• DFP ownership is transitioned into shares which can be transferred privately or on an exchange (similar to how credits are done now).
• Shares will be equal to the number of units the DFP produces.
• Investors can only own their level's worth of shares in given city (Level 40 can own 40 shares in NY, 40 shares in PH, 40 in CH, etc.).
• DFPs have a manager who is responsible for setting the price and keeping the FBN away (this will be the current owner of the DFP when the feature is implemented). DFP's maintain the same manager for their entire existence.
• DFP production can be increased by releasing new shares at a set cost (use the existing formula for upgrading DFPs just divide it by # of shares) every three days. If the manager's shares would exceed his/her level, he must put the new shares on the exchange.
• Each district's total share count (the limit on all DFPs) is proportional to their Forum VIP stats (not sure exactly how they'll relate).
• The value of the share on the exchange would be player-driven and based on the drug produced (Cocaine > Barbiturates), quality of the manager (Active & Smart Pricing > Inactive), and the district it resides in (more active districts will have more room for growth).

Thoughts?

I agree, it looks like a very promising program.

Now that I've had a bit to think on it; I'd like to provide what I think are the pros and cons:

Pros

• The profits from DFPs are no longer restricted to only DFP owners; the district limit on DFPs will only crowd out those uninterested in purchasing shares. Plus, one would not need as large of an initial investment in order to benefit from the DFP production. This lets the "little guy" in.
• DFPs can now scale up to larger sizes, providing more income but at a serious risk (lose a DFP with 40 units, no big deal; lose a DFP with 100 units and 5 different investors, pretty big deal).
• DFP production growth provides a financial incentive for increasing and maintaining BD and Streets activity (though I think it would be wise to prioritize BD activity in the formula).
• The feature introduces another dimension of interaction to the game; if one city is heavily invested in another, they'll be less interested in removing them. If cities start dropping shares, it may mean something big is happening. 
• Provides the first real investment mechanic that is built on a wealth-earning feature (drug sales).
• Keeping track of drug prices and what price to sell the DFP units becomes a very lucrative skill. Bad managers would lose funding.

Cons

• With the prevalence of DFP perks, this may increase the reward with little to no risk.
• Danger of losing investments because of another player's mistake may create friction where there otherwise would be none.
• People may attempt game the VIP system in order to reap the additional shares.
• If people hold onto their shares instead of selling them, the gains from this feature may only go to the upper ranks of the game.
• People may be unwilling to buy shares in other cities.

I think the best way I can explain my conclusion there is by comparing it to other options for establishing the share cap.

Fixed Amount

A universal fixed # of shares, like 200 per district. In this example, I feel there's no competition between the cities. A city's profitability is entirely out of their hands (Chicago/DT would do better, simply by virtue of having higher prices overall). Additionally, growth would be impossible and the system would stagnate relatively quickly with no reason to buy/sell shares. A VIP-based system would allow growth and would be entirely in the hands of the district members as they maintain their VIP status.

Calculated Amount

Derive a cap based on # of crew members, their ranks, or # of crews. This bugs me because it may result in keeping IAs around or setting up duplicitous (not in reference to the GF) crews. And I don't see how having more IAs in your crew or unnecessary HQs would expand your ability to produce drugs. I also think this would create a revenue-generation gap between large and small cities that would never realistically be closed as large cities keep getting bigger and would have a financial incentive to not split up. A VIP-based system would provide incentives for quality over quantity, and give you a reason to bump off IAs. Plus, when cities split, they can take their success with them as the forum VIP points would stay.

VIP System

I think the VIP system makes sense RP-wise; the district that is best known to the criminal underworld has the highest demand for drugs and therefore the need for greater production. That being said, this system is the easiest to abuse. Switching a few highly vocal members briefly between crews to spike one's VIP rankings could be done every three days to capitalize on new shares. Plus, we've seen how VIP ranks can shoot up when a crew has very few but very outspoken members.

Which is why I'd actually entertain altering the shares cap to include some kind of BD evaluation instead of just using forum VIP. That way, you're saying "if your business district is full of frequent illegal activity (posts), you'll have a better infrastructure for producing and distributing drugs." That goes hand-in-hand with the idea that "the best known district has the highest demand for drugs". And, as always, you'd want CLs cracking down on spam to ensure the BD system isn't being abused.

I think the VIP/BD system provides a second dimension to the feature: sure, you have to maintain your DFP with tips and keeping the drug prices at the right spot, but you also have to invest time into your BD if you want to become more profitable. So there's a macroeconomic component (BD maintenance and VIP rankings) and a micro component (managing prices and keeping the FBN away).

Sorry for such a lengthy response. I hope that's cleared up my thoughts on the matter. I think expanding the DFP to become more profitable but at the same time require more hands-on maintenance gives crews and districts a means of increasing their revenue generation via the Business District. And that's a hell of a win-win in my book. 

Derive a cap based on # of crew members, their ranks, or # of crews. This bugs me because it may result in keeping IAs around or setting up duplicitous (not in reference to the GF) crews. 

It's been awhile but I thought IA's provided no bonus to a CL? That same no bonus could apply to "# of crew members" by using ""# of active users.

BD's are virtually dead. Tying this to the BD activity without including VIP would work. VIP's get other bonuses. Not sure they should have any more than they do. 

My only concern there is the fact that BDs are city-wide. Meaning, the DFP share cap would be tied to the whole city rather than just one district.

A simple remedy for that, I think, would be to let businesses declare what district they're built in. The BD listing for a given city would include businesses from all districts, but they'd have the business's location displayed something like this: http://i.imgur.com/UUPkLPK.png.

So when businesses are created, there will be a little drop-down with each of the city's districts to select where the business is built. That way, districts will only get points for maintaining their own share of the Business District.

I don't see that as a problem. Overall, I am not keen on a DFP share globally. DFP are meant to be limited and to each district. If it was tied to each city I'd be more for it. I'm not for making it global. This would only make the fat cats fatter as they would monopolize it should it be global.

I'm confused. I didn't mention anything about a global DFP share. I'm saying the limit on DFP shares for a given district would be based on the BD thread activity from that district (which is why I suggested adding the location field for BD threads, so the system can differentiate between businesses by their location).

For example, South Philly and Bella Vista currently share the Philly Business District. How could you give SP or BV a fair DFP limit when one may be doing more work in the business district? If the BD threads had locations, you could evaluate the districts individually rather than as a whole city. There would be no "global cap," it would be entirely calculated on how much work has gone into the BD threads belonging to your district.

• People may be unwilling to buy shares in other cities.

• The feature introduces another dimension of interaction to the game; if one city is heavily invested in another, they'll be less interested in removing them. If cities start dropping shares, it may mean something big is happening.

Please explain how this does not involve other cities when you listed these as a pro and a con

Ohh, now I understand. I thought you meant a global DFP share limit. As in, there would be one global limit for all DFP shares. Hence my confusion.

DFPs can only be created/managed by someone residing in the DFP's location. So if the owner chose to, they could theoretically never release shares onto the exchange and retain all profits (which is how it currently functions). Or the owner can choose to upgrade and sell the shares and make some money for himself, which provides a financial incentive for DFP growth. Or the owner could just transfer the new shares to a trusted friend and keep all the profits in the family.

I don't think people will be able to dominate them across cities the way you're predicting. The manager has too much control over where his shares go and how profitable his DFP is.

There is no point to opening the door for someone outside a city to hold shares. That is my problem with this. Just because you "don't think" something doesn't mean it won't start happening. Cities often have connections and friends in other cities.

This can also lead to people "buying off" the DFP owners in other cities for shares. I just don't like the idea of it being available to people outside a city.

I get that you don't like it, but you're basing it a hypothetical scenario that is only likely with poor management. Shares start out in the possession of the manager at all times; they can decide to keep them (up to a point), transfer them, or sell them. To me, it seems like an unnecessary restriction to require those transactions to only happen within a city or district. To me, there are good reasons to open it up.

1. Wealthy districts can buy shares in younger cities, giving younger districts a means of building up cash faster than letting the DFPs earn for them. Plus, cities that have money but poor BDs can pay for DFP shares in other cities; making it an option to work on your own BD or invest in someone else's.

2. Cities with awesome RPers can sell DFP shares as they expand to provide an RP-based revenue. If the money comes from within the city, it's just changing hands and the city wouldn't have any net gain.

3. Cities can invest in each other to provide a financial incentive for cooperation and peace. Or they could prohibit it so the cities don't get too inter-woven. The players decide.

4. Cities can compete in non-violent ways by having an exchange for very competent and lucrative DFP opportunities.

5. This is the first and only inter-personal investment feature. I think the fewer restrictions the better; let the players decide what's good and bad for their own businesses.

Let people make mistakes and sell to the wrong people. Let people choose money now over money later. The more freedom of choice, the better the feature.

Your hypothetical, my hypothetical. It's too easily abused outside your own city. Freedom of choice? This will lead to more control by the ones in charge now not freedom. They will quickly regulate it and find ways to abuse it.

I've said what I think. I clearly will not be agreeing with you. I think this is a dangerous idea if it is done globally but a good idea if it is done by city. Weaker cities can easily be extorted by stronger cities. Not good.  That is my final word on this.

That's like saying the Corrupt Agent feature is a "dangerous idea" because players from LA will gift them to players in LV then force them to pay the earnings back to them. Sure, they could do it, but it's idiotic and the LV CA owners could just say... "no, we won't pay you back". Plus, CAs are guaranteed past-death so they'd be an even less risky investment than trying to do that with DFP shares.

The DFP owner has absolutely no reason to sell shares to anyone he doesn't want to in the same way that even if you gift someone a CA they have no reason to give you the earnings for it except perhaps out of good will. Plus, similar to CAs, no one would even know who the DFP owners are, unless the shares for the DFP are put on the marketplace. And by that point, the DFP owner has committed to selling shares, and very clearly hasn't been "extorted" to do so.

The idea that "it can happen so it will happen" could apply to every feature in the game. "If players are allowed to duel players in other cities, they'll be forced to duel against their will and killed." "If players are allowed to sell credits to players in other cities, they'll be forced to sell them against their will and they'll never have any credits." "If players are allowed to transfer money to players in other cities, they'll be forced to give up all their money."

Sure, all of these things could happen. But it would be a pretty bad idea and they'd make enemies really fucking quick. Which is why these things haven't happened, despite each of those features allowing interactions between cities.

I have provided precisely with arguments, examples, and analogs why your apprehension is unnecessary and nonsensical in the hopes that future readers of this suggestion can understand. I am well aware that you can't. Please don't feel like you need to repeat yourself when I make your position irrelevant, its purpose is for any willing to contribute to the suggestion rather than parade useless and baseless concerns.

Last thing we need is you busting that last hard-working brain cell trying to figure out how to formulate thoughts instead of repeat them.