ArsNova

The early economy broke so hard that they wiped accounts over a certain amount of quanta because people made billions in a few days, but that wasn't a true fix, as it didn't touch any wealth in the form of elements, ore, voxels or constructs. The buying power was still wildly concentrated. That is probably what they were referring to.

As for your multiple arguments about ore being income? You realise, you can use the ore to craft things, it's not just there to be sold for quanta. And if it's so cheap that you can't make income out of it, then it is cheap enough to buy with your 100k allowance and craft things with.

And the low buy orders? You only sell to them if you either:
a) click on the button for selling to that order, and then click the confirmation window without reading it, or
b) click on 'instant sell' and then click on the confirmation window without reading it.

As for alts? Yeah, feels like cheating, especially if you're one of the people who can't afford it, but how would you suggest they stop it? How would you prove that an account is an alt, without tracking data that everyone would be outraged at?

When transferring items from one inventory/container to another, and you have both inventories open side-by-side, the notification about transferred items/failed transfers covers up the Mass readout of the left inventory and the Volume readout of the right inventory. I feel the simplest solution would be to move the Mass and Volume readouts to both be on the bottom left of the inventory, one above the other for left or singular inventories, and on the bottom right when there is a second open. I have added pictures of the current layout, of the readouts being obscured, and a mock-up of my suggested layout.

Why would you not just keep both systems?
Expensive reusable single-part blueprints, and cheap single-use part-range blueprints.
Also, a central schematic database unit, which you can connect to machines so that you can manage all the blueprints in one place, and share the blueprint across multiple machines (but only 1 using it at a time) would be really nice. Especially if you can pick it up and retain the blueprints inside.

Why would you not just keep both systems?
Expensive reusable single-part blueprints, and cheap single-use part-range blueprints.
Also, a central schematic database unit, which you can connect to machines so that you can manage all the blueprints in one place, and share the blueprint across multiple machines (but only 1 using it at a time) would be really nice. Especially if you can pick it up and retain the blueprints inside.