Do L$ have value or NOT??????

Would make a really wild Forums' experience if people held guns to each other's heads and made them read threads.


----------------------
Speaking of which.

My friend has a Russian roulette table.

Of course you had to wager to play .. so I guess thats outlawed now

I don't necessarily disagree with you. The problem is that these questions have already been answered over and over ad nauseum, and all recently not in the past. The same individuals seem to think that if they keep posting the same lengthy arguments over and over again that people will agree with them.

It's not seeking answers to questions they want, it's a refusal to have acceptance and move on.

The question isn't if they have value, the question is what is the value.

Doesnt this sound familiar:

"Federal Reserve Notes are fiat currency, which means that the government is not obligated to give the holder of a note gold, silver, or any specific tangible property in exchange for the note." Still many people confuse USD to beeing an asset of value, in fact the value of a USD is negative value (it's backed by so called "Treasury bonds" wich in fact are debt) it's only reason for value is because we accept the fact that USD is the "official international currency" so it floats back and forth and changes hands more often than anything.

In sl theres this famous TOS secion 1.4 wich prety much says same, LL will not back L$ for anything of value just like us govt wont back its USD, the value lies in the market forces, and in sl we're prety much forced to accept L$ as the currency, just like in rl if you sell oil you sell it in USD.

So the conclusion is, if L$ has no value then USD has no value, if USD has a value then so does L$.

Excellent post and excellent point.

Well no, they were expecting Ginko to add more L$ to the L$ depositors put in, not that the actual L$ would increase in value, as shares of stock can do. I guess the bonds that have been issued might count, but even then, those are strictly in the context of SL. LL didn't issue them, they are backed by nothing but hope, and they are worth zero to anyone not taking part in SL.

As for people setting minimum prices to sell, I suppose that may possibly be a similarity, but again, that same thing happens with everything else. I have a bushel of peas to sell. I bought it for $8.50 and I will not take less than $10.75 for it. Is it a security? Is it currency?

Sorry if I didn't get to your post expeditiously. I've been here responding all day and I needed a short break for sustenance. I think I am getting caught up now.



Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Section 5 -- Transactions on Unregistered Exchanges

It shall be unlawful for any broker, dealer, or exchange, directly or indirectly, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce for the purpose of using any facility of an exchange within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any transaction in a security, or to report any such transaction, unless such exchange (1) is registered as a national securities exchange under section 6, or (2) is exempted from such registration upon application by the exchange because, in the opinion of the Commission, by reason of the limited volume of transactions effected on such exchange, it is not practicable and not necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors to require such registration.


a. Definitions
18. "Interstate commerce" means trade, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between any foreign country and any State, or between any State and any place or ship outside thereof.

22."Issuer" means every person who issues or proposes to issue any security, or has outstanding any security which it has issued.

34. # "Sale", "sell", "offer to sell", or "offer for sale" includes every contract of sale or disposition of, attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value. Any security given or delivered with, or as a bonus on account of, any purchase of securities or any other thing, shall be conclusively presumed to constitute a part of the subject of such purchase and to have been sold for value.

36. # Security" means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security (including a certificate of deposit) or on any group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a "security", or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.

38. # "Short-term paper" means any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance payable on demand or having a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof payable on demand or having a maturity likewise limited; and such other classes of securities, of a commercial rather than an investment character, as the Commission may designate by rules and regulations.

40. # "Underwriter" means any person who has purchased from an issuer with a view to, or sells for an issuer in connection with, the distribution of any security, or participates or has a direct or indirect participation in any such undertaking, or participates or has a participation in the direct or indirect underwriting of any such undertaking; but such term shall not include a person whose interest is limited to a commission from an underwriter or dealer not in excess of the usual and customary distributor's or seller's commission. As used in this paragraph the term "issuer" shall include, in addition to an issuer, any person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by the issuer, or any person under direct or indirect common control with the issuer. When the distribution of the securities in respect of which any person is an underwriter is completed such person shall cease to be an underwriter in respect of such securities or the issuer thereof.

Yes no doubt they were expecting Ginko to pay a return, but I only used them as an example of people who hold $L as an investment. And yes the bonds add an additional element, but not with respect to LL.

On buy and sell orders for $L you can select either a minimum or a maximum rate at which you are willing to trade. Again, $L is distinguished from a bushel of peas because it was specifically created as an in-world currency. LL now stipulates in writing with respect to a Linden dollar that:

"...It is a virtual medium of exchange that has real-world value associated with its ability to be traded with others, for real-world currency. While Linden Lab does not guarantee a demand for the L$ or that residents will be able to trade at a consistent rate, a healthy Linden Dollar economy is critical to the health of our service and as such Linden Lab has a strong business interest in maintaining the stability of the L$."

Actually all that is necessary to ascertain that $L have value with respect to USD.
Clearly, if you trade $L for USD and then use that USD to pay any RL expenses, there is value.

L$ already stipulates in writing:
It is a virtual medium of exchange that has real-world value associated with its ability to be traded with others, for real-world currency. While Linden Lab does not guarantee a demand for the L$ or that residents will be able to trade at a consistent rate, a healthy Linden Dollar economy is critical to the health of our service and as such Linden Lab has a strong business interest in maintaining the stability of the L$.


While LL will not buy your $L they do own and exchange and facilitate your ability to trade it for USD and they further regulate the rate of exchange at which $L is traded.

The problem is not that the answers have been so oft repeated. It is that the questions and same comments are repeated over and over without bothering to read up on the issues. It doesn't help to just jump in and take a wild guess.

I'll repeat my stance as often as necessary in response to the comments and questions that require it.

I am not so easily bullied off the forums by people who come here to flame.

I'm sorry for not getting to your posts as quickly as you would like. There are quite a number of posts to respond to in addition to yours and as I mentioned I've been doing that all day. I did manage to take one short break, but I think I am caught up.

Someone else requested the same information, and I happened to answer theirs first.

You can access my response in post number 155

Gisela, your post was #158 in this thread and there is at least one other lengthy thread on this forum on the same topic.

I don't see anybody flaming you. I do see a lot of people remaining unconvinced by your argument despite all the repitition. Flaming and disagreeing are not the same thing.

Why is that? Because no one ever takes the time to back up any opinion they may have?
Or that I do?

Internet gambling is not illegal. There is no Federal law anyway that makes internet gambling illegal. The UIGEA only made it illegal to fund internet gambling with USD. That's why USDOJ and the US Attys General crossed international lines to prosecute both Canadian based Citadel (an online processing company) and UK based Neteller (also an online processing company).

If $L had no USD value, we would just be using an in-world currency much like monopoly money.

You underestimate the power of fear.

SL doesn't have to BE a gambling site. All that is necessary is for enough credit card providers to THINK SL is a gambling site, or even think it is too close to one to be safe, and much of the ability of people to pay LL could go away.

Frankly I think you are really overthinking all this. I think LL took the step of banning casinos just as a guard against the possibility of nervous credit card companies deciding to play it safe and stop paying.

It's simple, logical and doesn't depend on hypothetical suppositions about what L$ "might be construed as."

Ok Gisela, I've read the law as you've posted it. I still don't understand, in that definition, how we could define a Linden Dollar as a 'security'. It doesn't fit any of those descriptions.

Each one of these (below) is a separate flame either directed at me or someone else posting on these issues along with me. And that's only from ONE single individual. There are many many more. So if the numbers get a little too high for ya, this might be a good reason why.

It doesn't matter to me really how many threads there are or the number of posts they contain.

I believe strongly in what I have to say and am willing to do whatever it takes to respond appropriately to posts regarding it. I don't require anyone to agree with me, but I do expect people to at least make an effort to know what they are talkin about before they respond. I made the effort to know what I am talking about and have continued to answer appropriately as needed without flaming or reacting to the slice and dice treatment which altogether too common on here.

I made a committment to support this issue and have made considerable sacrifice to fulfill that committment. I am articulate and able to locate information to back up what I have to say. There is no reason for me not to post as needed. That's what forums are all about.

If people are not interested in the topic they will eventually stop posting and my responses will no longer be expected. My responses are not being made to thin air. They are in responses to posts. When that stops, so I will I.

And yes you are correct, there are many many who either disagree or remain unconvinced. That is their choice. It still does not change why I'm here.

*******************************************************************

PLEASE LL! Make another major policy change! Please make the gambling topic go away!!!!!
The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling! Chilly,...

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!

Chilly, there's lots of gambling sights out there. Go to those, enjoy, and get on with your life.
Thank you Cheyenne. I was thinking the same thing. Yes, there's lots of bitching and moaning in these threads but I get a kick out of the same people coming in and bitching about all the bitching. ...

Now you're back to customer service again, Chilly. Which is it? Service or fraud?

You said it's not about the money so your decision should be easy. Close your account now BEFORE they take the...

You almost had me there for a bit Chilly but no more. You've proven to me this has nothing to do with poor service or lack of fun or whatever. You made a bad business decision and you're refusing...

You did nothing illegal? Oh, then I think we all must apologize. Apparently you weren't actually referring to gambling then when you used the hair analogy.

To help us have an intelligent...
Can you prove to me that the games weren't rigged? I know I can't prove to you that they were.

There's less whining about gambling. Beyond that I can't think of anything else.

The casinos will be in the clear and absolutely none in existence. Seriously? Do away with all linden to dollar conversion just for the sake of bringing casinos back? That would be one quick way...

Gisela, as has been mentioned. Just because people don't agree with your cause doesn't mean that it's flaming. I have seen numerous responses that are very intelligent and well thought out. I don't see that anyone could possibly add more. Unlike you I think most of us don't see the point in repeating ourselves until the end of time.

You want people to read your posts more thoroughly? Well, then pick a cause that people care more about. It's obvious that most of us are pretty sick of it. So continue to flame the forum with your posts but expect "flaming" in return, as you call it.

I am inclined to agree.

Whith one added comment:

When it IS necessary to repeat over and over , its usually a good idea to use less words so that people's eyes dont glaze over.

Yes the power of fear is strong. I don't underestimate it at all. CC companies don't have the luxury of abiding by the law only when they THINK there might be a problem. they have laws to follow too. The fear of legal consequences is an operator for them as well.

Perhaps I am over thinking it, but I really don't think so. If LL took the step of banning casinos just as a precaution rather than a legality, think of the implications. They cost a lot of people a lot of money and we aren't just talking about the gaming industry. Lots and lots of RL incomes are made here and from one day to the next, the USD spent here dropped from 1.2 million to less than a million. Just one day! Land values dropped drastically and people who paid 18L sqm for their land are now looking at land prices around 6L sqm. One casino owner I know, traded his business on the stock exchange. In a single afternoon his stock went from went from $1.90L per share pre-announcement to $0.11L per share post-announcement. What about all those investors? Look at the runs on SL banks it caused, resulting in the Ginko fiasco to the tune of almost 2 million L$ in losses to the depositors. These aren't even near the loss that some people suffered. I just find it hard to believe that anyone would make such a decison just as a safeguard.

The fear of lawsuits resulting from such a careless and reckless act would be a primary concern. Many people think they did act for reasons other than legalities, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

At any rate, the consequences for whatever reason the decision was made, affected more than just the gaming industry. LL should be accountable to its customer base and should not just roll over at the expense of the people who got them where they are. It's pretty clear that LL is unconcerned about anyone here. I think they are making bad decisions based on bad advice at the expense of good people and if they can't or won't change things to make it better, they will lose them. To me that is simple, logical, and not based on hypothetical assumptions. Corporate greed most always changes a company's vision don't ya think?

I'll do what I think I need to, and then I'll be done. Its just a process like any other. Maybe things will work out for the better. Maybe not. We have so little say so about it to begin with and even less with no great numbers of people who really care about it.

Just my two cents.

yes I guess there are more than a few short attention spans here

The term "security" is broadly defined and is open to interpretation by the judiciary. It can include all of the readily recognizable investment vehicles, such as stocks, bonds, limited partnership interests, and notes, as well as novel and unusual investment arrangements that are referred to as "investment contract" securities. In general, any transaction that involves an investment of money in an enterprise, with an expectation of profits to be earned through the efforts of someone other than the investor, is a transaction involving a security.

That's about as close as I can get to what you are looking for. Laws don't necessarily state things in black and white and their language is mostly tedious to read. It could go either way I would think, but most likely would fit somewhere between a note and a novel investment if I had to guess.

It further states, "In General..."

Lots of room for legal interpretation.

As an aside, as you stated the definition of commodity could also apply - More generally, a product which trades on a commodity exchange; this would also include foreign currencies and financial instruments and indexes.

It would certainly depend upon a legal argument one way or the other.

Brad, just because you aren't interested in the topic does not make my posts flames. Your motive for responding to posts just to say you don't want to hear about them is questionable.

Why would anyone pick a cause based on how many people care about it? Why not one that you consider worthy of effort?

People who interested in reading the posts or participating won't, unless they have some ulterior motive. It's pretty simple to me.

You're welcome.

I agree with you, but also add that the customer base is screwed as well.

Responding to comments and posting to provide my opinion and viewpoint on these forums in response to actual posts regarding the issues, may in fact be pointless with respect to motivating anyone here, but it certainly isn't hectoring.

The forums are the only medium allowed any of us to communicate and discuss opinions and viewpoints with one another. I agree nothing really substantive can be accomplished if there are few supporters.

Yes we can only hope, these forums inspire people to address anything at all.

And I never piss up a rope.

I dont know

I usually dont read the same novel over and over again either.

<snip>

LL updated their Blog today to discuss the SL economy. In case you missed it, you can find it here"
http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/08/14/the-second-life-economy/

They specifically state as of today that $L

".... is a virtual medium of exchange that has real-world value associated with its ability to be traded with others, for real-world currency. While Linden Lab does not guarantee a demand for the L$ or that residents will be able to trade at a consistent rate, a healthy Linden Dollar economy is critical to the health of our service and as such Linden Lab has a strong business interest in maintaining the stability of the L$...."