Second most common reason for people to tell me I'm full of it? Tech moons are risky because if you take one, you risk losing it and a lot of ships when the inevitable fight over it spawns. This concept struck me as really funny, since the very nature of tech moon use in most alliances that have them is to mitigate or flat-out eliminate risk. In other words, most alliances that have tech moons use them as fodder for their ship replacement programs. As a result, if you lose a Maelstrom (say) in a fight over a tech moon, profits from other tech moons will be used to replace your Maelstrom. Even in my short stint in Pure Blind, I took advantage of this twice. It's quite common. As a result, the essential risk to the individual pilot drops close to zero.
Even more, though, the argument that "tech moons are risky to hold" is a straw-man. My concern and my post was about individual pilot risk. Show me the kill-mails! Every other commodity, from ice to ores to minerals to wormhole loot to data-cores to L4 mission reward tags and implants gets suicide-ganked before reaching market. Why doesn't moon-goo get ganked? Show me the kill-mails! Show me the risk! Nobody could, or at least nobody has so far.
Ender summed it up in a way that made me smile:
Riskless vs Rewarding vs Effortless. Choose two.Yep, that's a pretty good way of putting it, all right. Is that the way it should be, though?
It can be risky and rewarding with no effort.
Keeping a tech moon and managing logistics does take lots of effort.