I prefer to keep discussions on suggestions to remain on-topic, but since multiple different topics are recurring themes in this comment section, I will address all of them. The last few lines are the relevant ones for the decision, the rest either serves to support, or to address problems brought up.

You keep bring up that we "shield" people, but not accepting this suggestion is not shielding anyone. His trading business has nothing to do with this suggestion. Personally, I have very strong opinions on people that actively shark, but to deal with price suggestions, we as moderators have to remain objective. Not every sale that is lower than a similar effect is a shark; not every item bought form an unboxer is sharked. We are not here to judge on what people pay, we're only here to report data points. There used to be a time where we would not accept suggestions based on single sales because it is statistically impossible to determine whether or not that sale is an outlier. Over time, we've decided to allow them so long as they are the only usable sale, or there is clear and objective evidence to rule out one sale as the outlier while ensuring the other one is not. "The trader buys hats from unboxers" or "He has paid low prices for other hats" is not an objective argument against the trade. Similar to how we cannot rule out collectors purchases for being too high by default (even though most - if not all - are statistical outliers), we cannot just disallow the purchases of profit flippers.

These nuances should make it clear that it is very difficult to deal with price suggestions with one set of rules. We try to take everything into account, but we have to remain objective. One important point that is completely overlooked here is that we should not only check if the other sale is low, but we should also ensure this sale isnt high. You compare it with MG, the sister effect, and while such a comparison means little in a suggestion like this, it is the perfect example for me here: MG being 700 does not mean 460 is low for this. If it was, would it not also be a similar indication that 1100 is high here? The hat examples provided here are not meant to compare hats with miscs, they are meant to point out that DaD =/= higher than MG by default, which is more fair than the subjective claim that it would be. Do not mistake any of our statements as lack of knowledge in the field; your claim that it must be incompetence or "shielding" is preposterous. Again, we're not here to judge on whether or not something was a good trade, or whether or not someone paid enough/too much. We're not here to price items at what traders think they should be priced at, nor are we dictating the market. The only thing we do is report sales that occur to give people an impression of what items sell for. If people wish to take it as a 'bible', then that's not on us. If people refer to our prices in discussions, that's only logical. It has nothing to do with causing the downfall of trading or (ab)using power. This remaining unpriced does not change this item's absolute value, nor should it change your appraisal of it. For you, it is clearly worth 1100, and if that is as low as you claim it is, you should have no issue reselling it when the time comes, regardless of whether it is priced now. With that, we are not disrespecting you, or punishing your trading practices (or "allowing the opposite", whatever that means).

Anything said about sharking here does not serve a purpose on the suggestion. Many of the points you make actually solidify why we cannot call things outliers based on percentages. "Normal quicksales are 60-70% depending on the fluidity" - the last 4 words say it all. It varies per case. There is no default for when something is a 'quicksale'. Similarly, you cannot say that if someone paid "40%", that they are a shark. 40% of what? of what YOU think the item is worth? of what it could potentially resell for? Of its old price? There are plenty of items that have wildly discrepant sales (more often than not due to collectors paying much more than anyone else would actually). Should we ban every trader that has ever sold an item at 40% of an items listed price, or - even more ridiculous - of what other traders think an item should be worth for being sharks? Discrepancy happens, and it is our task to determine outliers.

That brings us to the only relevant part - determining outliers. As said, this needs to be done objectively, and in this case I see no solid arguments to prove beyond question that 1) 460 is an outlier, and 2) 1100 is not. Keep in mind that 460 being low is no guarantee that 1100 isnt high, and if sales are as discrepant as this, there need to be strong arguments to prove both the aforementioned points. As they lack here, this should remain unpriced for having two sales that are too discrepant.