What are Ginko Bonds worth?

The quote you gave only fully paints the scheme more clearly. It does not specifically state any pyramid scheme is a fraud. I am not wrong there. It is different to say a particular case of a pyramid scheme is fraud. There are legit pyramid schemes, like commonly found commission based systems, which heavily appear in-world and in real-world. Be aware that pyramid schemes can be tossed out of SL by the TOS and Ponzi scheme, based on being like pyramid schemes, can also be tossed out.

There is still the risk factor involved: "including the hope of an extremely high rate of return." That a point that shouldn't be ignored, especially when only stated "wrong, and wong" over a quote that doesn't support your view as easily. You left me with only a guess to why you stated it was wrong.

If any point I'm convinced about, it is there is movement to discredit the future of this Linden dollar economy by nay-sayers. It is obviously not a conspiracy, but it is real-life competition.

i notice three kinds of people posting in this thread.

1 people who did not invest, being very forward about their stance

2 people who invested and have accepted the outcome as grim, realizing they made an error

3 people who invested that are desperately trying to sound positive so that NP doesn't throw his hands in the air with their money, never to be see again and still not admitting their error of trust.

to #1 you are smart and lucky, but you need to be gentle to the #2's and #3's
to #2 you have a very fine attitude. i'm sorry about your loss. chin up.
to #3 i'm sorry about your loss, but you ain't ever ever getting your money back. you need to be gentle to #1's, not NP. your loyalty is misguided, and your fear has been realized. move on. i look forward to the day you become a #2.

Good post, i agree whole heartedly.

I'm a #1 and i promise to gentle to the #2's and #3's.

Not sure if there is a strawman there or here. There could be one if it is true of a pump and dump, but if it is a pump and dump it is not being done inside. It would have been done and over with by now if it was from inside.

Ginko has stated its goals. It wants to move from a non-scalabe business to one that scales. It appears it is being more transparent than before.



I did say "fact," and the only appearant fact is one of a loss that may have a chance to recover if people let it.



"Non-sequitur," um... more like avoidance to save time it takes to dig up links throughout this thread to point out implicit references. If you want to dig up references to your argument there, go ahead, but I understand if you want to avoid it, also.

I don't see a Ponzi scheme. What I have seen is a mutual investment (not striaight up bank!) that was not scalable slowly lose its interest as members were added. When all of the sudden a) Ginko makes a deal to secure higher interest and b) people do a "bank run" partially due to the gambling ban we then see c) a business unable to recoup a sudden loss of income. Hmm, now Ginko doesn't directly invest in gambling (like another bank I know), but why do you think it had such an impact (or more precisely, loss of impressions)?

Ginko doesn't invest in gambling? If you check the June 2005 post quoted here, Ginko was heavily involved in gambling, in both SL and RL. There is no moral high horse here for Ginko.

I would imagine that its troubles probably extend far just because of the gambling crackdowns in the real world.

And as for transparency? Ha! He's continually obfuscated everything, running down tangents to try to keep people from seeing the big picture. His investments are dogs, and there is no money to be seen for years. Oh, and he'd like a 90% discount on what he owes you in principal.

But that's okay... be positive... you know what they say about fools and money...

Yep.

"When we're in a peak, we make a ton of money, and as soon as we make a ton of money, we're desperately looking for a way to spend it. And we diversify into areas that, frankly, we don't know how to run very well." --Bill Ford

In response to the thread title...

Probably no more or less than the pixels they're printed on.

yes, and they are also soon parted.

Actually, you ARE wrong in that it DOES say that "a pyramid scheme is a type of fraud". It doesn't distinguish between things that look like pyramid schemes but are not. Actually, it does, but not in that particular quoted paragraph. In the terms used, ANY pyramid scheme IS a fraud, and if something that is not a fraud looks like a pyramid scheme, it isn't one.



Multi-level marketing is one example of a kind of "scheme" that looks like a pyramid scheme, but isn't, as long as the products sold actually have a value beyond simply their right of resale. If it fails that litmus, then it IS a pyramid scheme, and not a multi-level marketing scheme.



I have no idea how you relate a pump-and-dump scheme to a Ponzi, but OK, whatever. You were talking about a rationale behind why transparency/disclosure of any significance would be bad in terms of "competition"; to which I have pointed out repeatedly that such is not a valid excuse for avoiding transparency, since other banks do FULL disclosure, and are doing just fine. As such, I call those excuses and others like it the strawmen they are.



Sure, it has stated its goals all along. That's nothing new. What IS new is that it is now failing to meet those stated goals in a particularly grandiose and odious manner, and now is making more with no real attempt to demonstrate how it will meet them. Converting balances into junk bonds is not what I would call a "positive demonstration" of said goals.



The problem is that history has shown that when someone violates the public trust in a gross way, giving them a second chance often just isn't in the cards. This is a natural and healthy defensive mechanism in a healthy society. When you screw up, you have to put some skin in and explain yourself a HELL of a lot better to earn that trust back and to earn the privilege to be given that second chance. So far, there's no evidence Ginko is making any sincere effort to do either, so you will have to excuse those of us who remain dubious about giving it one.

Ponzi himself believed that he could make everything all right after his scheme blew apart, too.



Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse? There's nothing to avoid. SL doesn't make claims of fabulous returns on my money that I put in SL; in fact, they don't tell me that I will make ANY returns at all. They don't pay out dividends from money they collect from other people. As such, I don't even remotely see how you can even hold a straight face and call SL a Ponzi scheme, yet believe that someone who DOES fit the criteria cannot be considered one.

I have the foggiest clue why you are so set to prove me wrong than to, perhaps, try to clarify an understanding. Just saying 'your wrong' is quite rude. If you weren't so concerned to prove wrong, you would be more interested to find what is actually true here.

I did happen to do the google thing, type in "define pyramid scheme." I see several sources that define the pyramid scheme and state very specifically when it is illegal. That is, it is illegal when the only source of income is from that pyramid scheme.

If anything, I ask that you (or anybody else that claims ponzi/pyramid scheme) the proof that the only source of income is so likewise illegal.



I didn't claim either. =p

Although this quote seems to make sense, Quoting Bill Ford on his business sense is a little bit like Quoting GW Bush on Elocution.

I was working at a Ford Property when they started spining off some of their "non-core" business. The period that quote is refering to.

The Associates spin off , in particular, was a lame move - it was at the time the most profiitable division of the company.

Considering all of us who are not employed rather directly due to decisions of Mr Bill Ford .. I am not entirely sure he knows how to run the areas he thought he knew well either.

I think the truth of the situation is readily apparent. Granted that there is still room for doubt, it is VERY small, and getting smaller by the minute as more of the facts of the matter are exposed to the light of day. The rabbit hole does indeed run deep, but it is still a rabbit hole.

I have nothing invested in this discussion beyond having the discussion itself. You make patently incorrect, false, misleading statements, and I point them out. You use logical fallacies in your arguments, I point them out. You say "I am not wrong because X", I refute X, and simply lead to the natural conclusion which follows. If that is rude, I am sorry, but the truth often hurts. It doesn't recognize feelings, beliefs, or any silliness people want to put themselves through to avoid it. *shrug*



Maybe the panopticon returns different results for you than for me, or maybe you're including ones with dubious quality of source material, but all the ones I see on the first page of that query quite distinctly identify ANY pyramid scheme as "an illegal form of fraud". Most especially that document by the Federal Trade Commissions, who I would consider the /de facto/ authority on the matter.



I've never claimed the source of income is illegal. That is irrelevant. The point I have made is that there was insufficient income to pay the promised dividends AND repay the principal, because the investments were nowhere near as lucrative as the promised payouts. THAT is what makes it a Ponzi. There are quite a few examples of both FAILED investments as well as questionable investments which were given. What is ironic is that our reaction to them was pitted as a reason to avoid disclosure, as if they were the BEST investments the owner could showcase. Otherwise, the reaction doesn't make any sense.



These are your words:





One is a valid substitute for a declarative statement, the other is an (illogical) implication.

By the way, I didn't mention it, though someone else did. You also claim Ginko was not invested in gambling operations, something which has already been shown to be false, by the owner's own admissions.

Please understand that nobody would be trying to prove you wrong on this point if you hadn't first made the specious claim () that someone *else's* post was wrong. With a "*sigh*" no less.

The above includes vague metaphores, blantent (bliss?) ignorance, fixation to be right, and lack of logic. The above quotes pretty much prove to me you aren't really interested in the truth. You wouldn't waste time on petty accusations if you were.

I'm here for a solution, not just the discussion. If you want discussion, I suggest to read the Austrialian news.



Oh! First the argument of lack of transparency and than there is that argument over admission. You confused me I think, but it's ok. I know how people can say evidence exists and then doesn't exists, or the other way around.



Oh? Nah. It never was existentially qualified, or I felt like there was no need to make such step-by-step evident conclusion for which does not exist. As noted above... "Q.E.D."

Now, let's get back to a solution about the bond. There is a slim chance ro rede... of a change of heart.

The bond is worth about L$2/one, at least. Those who are buying it less than L$1 are really a shame. It's a way out.... I suppose... heh...

*sigh*

Here is the solution. Sell your bonds at a fraction of their value and reinvest with someone else who is hopefully more competent. That, or wait 8.5 years or more and hope you'll get your money back. Those are your choices. That is what was put upon you by the man you are defending. There is no other solution unless you want to attempt to involve law enforcement, but you don't think it's a ponzi scheme, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, and have no credible foundation upon which to say it is not a ponzi scheme. So be it, so that's not an option.

In the meanwhile, the rest of us naysayers will continue to disparage the unethical dealing of the person that put you in the situation, in the hopes that no one else walks in with their eyes wide shut. You have lost sight of the forest, because it appears that you actually think you'll get your money back. Talk about no logic...sorry for you, in more ways than one.

What is illogical is the assumptions being made about my position and those arguments made, which are based on things I never said.

I'm sure there is some thrill to prove someone wrong who looks like that they are defending Nicholas, but my position is neither to defend him nor you or anybody else at this point.

There is no evidence of a ponzi scheme because that was prevented. Was it possible, yes. Could it still be done, yes. Is it being done right now, no. Just because there are argument here that it is possible doesn't make it true that it was done! That is the onus you and others have to prove.

What is being done now is people selling an investment short. We have those saying the bond is worth almost nothing, and that completely destroys all prior investments. If the bond is valued below L$1 and NP buys them for less than L$1, that will only satisfy the immediate demand on those bonds, but it completely wipes out any chance of liquidation to regain funds for prior investment.

If the bond is valued greater than L$1 and NP trades at market or on discount at that point, it may be fair. If the bond is valued greater than L$2, it will be much more fair for a discount (if still needed). At that point, everybody wins.

Is the bond worth more than L$1, yes. There is real L$ to back-up the investment, but to short it just destroys the value.

Anotherwords, while the bond is valued less than L$1 -- that is the only evidence you and others have to say anything that it looks like a ponzi scheme. The continual bad hype doesn't help the value of it being raised back up anytime sooner.

In that sense, Luke made a smart move to lock NP at L$1, but that is "to good to be true" because of this continual bad hype keeps it devalued to where not everybody will win. NP offers the more immediate return, which is also "to good to be true" because not everybody will win.

If anybody wants to claim I'm being illogical and demand for me to give every detail out so you can understand, then just simply ask for clarification on a particular point rather than rudely telling me I'm being illogical, especially when there is no mutual details to show how I'm being illogical. I just look at it as someone blowing steam, otherwise.

Okay, I'll just try to understand what's being claimed in the section above. (I don't mean to take things out of context, but this seemed like it was trying to make a point, so...)

First, *is* anybody shorting these bonds? (Does the WSE permit an investor to take a short position?) This is the first reference I've seen to short sales, so... does this really mean what it says? If indeed there were uncovered ("naked" shorts on the exchange, then some unfair market manipulation might be going on; on Wall Street, the SEC gets involved when that happens.

The other thing that I'm not understanding is the evidence for the claim that GPBs are worth more than L$1. That's really the subject of this thread, so: how is that figure calculated? The market isn't pricing them there, so is there an accounting of "real L$ to back-up the investment" in excess of L$1 per share? Or whence did this evaluation arise?

No.

As a matter of disclosure: I have 0 involvement with Ginko, don't own bonds, and belong to the crowd that believes it's a big scam (Ponzi or otherwise) Strictly speaking, we don't know for sure since there's been very little transparency here, but this is beyond looking like a duck - it tastes like duck too.

To those complaining about the torch-and-pitchfork crowd undermining the value of the GPB: I think that's a bit of a red herring. One might ask "what's it matter what the GPB is worth" on the market? The answer is that it only matters if a current bondholder wants to sell it to someone else - meaning that while they themselves may have doubts about the redeemability of the bonds, they benefit from someone else believing the opposite. In that regard I think it's really, really important to keep hammering the point that this "investment" is suspect. We don't want any more people taken in my this scam, afterall. Any sophisticated investors will have to see past the hype and evaluate the value of the bonds based on other evidence of value (which appears to be close to 0 anyway.) Sorry, I don't see much of a "winning scenario" at all for the depositors at this point.

If one really believes that Ginko will recover however, then they should be happy with a low valuation on the bonds because they can buy them up cheaply. Of course NP shouldn't be allowed to do so because he, more than anyone else, has the ability to manipulate the value of the bonds. Now if NP consistently makes his new interest payment dates, and regularly and consistently buys back those outstanding bonds at face value, the value of the bonds should rise.

Strictly speaking, the value of the bond is a function of the a) interest stream, b) how much NP is buying them back for, and c) the ifs and whens of a) and b) happening, the caveat being that the time liimit on b) is pretty much infinity at this point.

Edit: quick addition - there's exactly 1 person to whom each bond is worth $L1. That's NP.

To make it more clear: there is no (broker) spread that can close short.


Can investors short a trade based on given open orders, yes.

Really?

How, Dzonatas?

There is enough evidence to say it could happen. There are only a few people right now to say if it actually happened.

I see a lot who want to say it happened, but they don't provide the evidence that it happened. I understand this is how you feel, and I don't deny how you feel about it. If you (anyone) can provide the evidence, go create a wiki page and list the details.

Use this link: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Ginko_Financial

What I do see is evidence of people that want to devalue the potential fund. Is it the best way to create a fund, no.

Only thing backing the bonds is Ginko's promise to pay 12% interest. Period.

Send me an IM in-world, and we can discuss that.