Ok...let me level with you here SE...

[Mahoro]

Opportunity cost for each activity is objective. X-hours doing X-thing produces X-gil return. People are smart to group up if and only if the amount of gil per man-hour they are able to obtain in X-hours doing X-groupThing is greater than the amount of gil per man-hour each could make solo. You keep using the word subjective, as if the numerical values change based on how you look at it. That is not the case. If time in Dynamis is worth 500k/manhr, then time in Dynamis is worth 500k/hr. If time killing ADL is worth 200k/manhr, then ADL is worth 200k/manhr. That is objective.

You are trying to argue that the value of someone's time can be lowered if they choose not to participate in some events. This is not the case. Their time is still worth 500k/hr. They are simply underpaying themselves, and/or being underpaid, if they choose to earn less. This is a video game. The worth of your time can be consciously determined by the player, as they are capable of freely generating goods at market value.

Saying that someone may not use their time does not make their time worth less. "Some profit is better than no profit" only applies so long as there is no higher profit that can be obtained with the same or fewer resources. Some profit is better than no profit, but 500k/manhr profit is better than <200k/manhr profit and both constitute the exact same allocation of resources - they both require entering Dynamis and killing shit. Settling for less money when doing the same work is stupid and no one will want to do it.

It is stupid in your eyes because you have boiled down anybody's actions in Dynamis to 500k/hr. You have made the opportunity cost choice for them. You have pre-decided what their time is worth based on what your time is worth and what you do in Dynamis (likely farm for a relic or HMP's).

Our argument here is well-trod ground. Do a Google search using the terms "opportunity cost" and "subjective." Here's what you will find on the first page of results:

Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative foregone (that is not chosen). It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice available to someone, or group, who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices

Opportunity cost is subjective. Only the chooser can determine the most attractive alternative for itself from its special point of view. We each have a different list of things valued in decline from top to bottom due to our different aims of life and philosophy. Even for the same activity or good or service, different individuals take it with different opportunity cost.

Like beauty, opportunity cost is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. Only the individual making the choice can identify the most attractive alternative.

To obtain a satisfactory solution to the economic problem of the nature of costs, Professor Wiseman urges a “return to consistent development of the subjective cost tradition.” By contrast, the dominant “orthodoxy” treats opportunity costs as essentially “objective.” This belief in objective costs leads to a misunderstanding about the nature of the resource-allocation process and to inflated claims by economists as to their competence as “social engineers.” A better approach is to see opportunity-cost decisions as the subjective valuations of individuals.

Ultimately, I see no reason to argue any further as our viewpoints seem to have been debated by economists for years. I will agree to disagree. As Raksha said above, the people who hardcore farm Dyna gil will continue to do so, and the people who don't will likely help the relicholders. Don't make their choice for them.