NOTE: This post is entirely hypothetical- I do not condone, and I am not encouraging the acts in any way- It is merely to make a point.

These numbers are also entirely not to scale. Merely to be used as an example:

Scenario 1: Buyable, tradeable Crysta
Player A has plenty of Dollars, and wishes to buy gil without getting banned, aka "legitimately".

Player A discovers that Crysta, currency only used in paying for subs, can be traded freely in game.

Player A buys up enough crysta for a year worth of subscriptions, and set the price for each crysta.

Player B considers the price for a subscription to be worth his time in farming gil, so he purchases the equivalent of one year worth of subscriptions.

Player A takes that gil and purchases goods and services to improve his standing in the game.
Scenario 1: True RMT
Player A has plenty of Dollars, and wishes to get gil just by paying cash.

Player B has a way to produce the gil, and is willing to sell it for a set price.

Player A buys up as much gil as he can afford.

Player B uses the profit to further his efforts of generating more gil and more sales.

Player A takes that gil and purchases goods and services to improve his standing in the game.
Both scenarios, at face value, have the potential free market appeal to them, one managed more by the present gil value of a subscription, the other by the dollar value of gil.

True RMT has an additional factor, that of encouraging gilsellers to use players and accounts by "camping" areas designed to be shared for profit. This issue, however, is largely preventable in present MMO game design, by isolating the activities between players, such as the leve system or a large selection of camps with similaly valued drops.

Apart from the above factor, very little is different between the two concepts. The above differences certainly cannot be the only reason why RMT is such a stigma, so I ask you what you think makes RMT so bad, and this so good? Please be specific.