Yeah, come to the rescue of Ginko so we can have more stories like this:

In the RL stock market you invest money with a real company with a real address and real assets. The company is required to provide huge amounts of information about all aspects of its business. The Board of Directors is listed in that information. And its all regulated by the government.

Investing in SL is like giving a complete stranger your money with the hope that he'll keep his word. If he does, great. If not, you're screwed. He can disappear at any minute. The defenders of Ginko have given us only three reasons to invest.

1) The company has been in business for a year or so
2) The customers are satisfied with it
3) Anshe Chung is evil and hates Ginko and wants to destroy it in a secret plot

The questions that should be asked are:

1) Who in RL owns Ginko? Is there a contact name or address or phone?
2) What is his/her/their experience in investing?
3) What investment strategy is Ginko using?
4) Even though Anshe Chung is Satan, is it possible that her criticisms have any validity?

Instead we see attack after attack. Accusations of "calculated efforts" and nefarious plots and more nonsense. The funniest part is when Ginko's defenders say incredibly stupid things like "how is this different than the stock market" and "does your bank tell you how they're investing your money?" If you're that ignorant in real life financial matters, then go ahead invest your money in SL.

I know its impossible for me to prove that we aren't going to "cut-and-run", but I hope I can clear some things up and try my best to prove that is not our intention. Ginko is really just a group of people who like having fun. We started out as just a bunch of nerds that liked building things, things that did stuff. We always wanted to make a city or empire, but never had the funds to do it. The bank idea was the thing that could give us our goal.

Ginko isn't about profits at all, and we as employees don't even get paid. All profits go into our city sims so we can continue to have fun. We are getting to the point where we don't have to depend on the banks profits, and use the sims and other plans to help maintain the sims, and continue to build are little gizmos. If we "cut-and-ran", we would lose everything we have worked for, which would be darn silly. Ginko has never been about profits, and I doubt it ever will.

Huh? So the business is in world?

Do you sell content or something? rent land? Is that really so hard to say?

Who the fuck is the idiot who's been necroposting?

Rise above.

We are renting now, and are getting to the point where we can sell content again once we get a good base under our feet.

They did blaze, i dont know anything about ginko before this and if you had read the thread you would have learned they have 2 islands which they are renting, and about to sell content, they are also planning a shopping website, now do you see why there is suspicion in why anshe is posting?

Don't start, Nolan.

We're on the same side of this issue.

The trouble is Michael that some of those questions shouldn't be asked. Anshe doesn't provide us with her RL name, address or contact details beyond clicks on websites etc. which we also get from Ginko: SL is very particular that we don't have to provide such information.

AnsheChung.com is still in business because people are satisfied with it and she and others work hard to do so. If we're going to ask what their experience in handling savings and investments are outside of the last year of satisfied customers, can we ask what Anshe's experience other than in SL of renting and buying and selling real estate is? Personally I don't care - Anshe has a reputation for being rather hardnosed about her business, but sticking to what she says she'll do. I might moan about her prices, but I don't moan about her reliability. I agree the trading I've done with Anshe is a little different to that I do with Ginko, but ultimately it comes down to the same thing, I deal with them both because I've made a choice based on reputation and my (possibly flawed) judgement.

Can we, therefore demand Anshe tell us her investment strategy? Or Hiro, Prok, the successful club owners, entrepreneurs etc? SL is still a small enough community that we operate largely on word of mouth and reputation of the people involved. There are certainly people who have said they will never trade with Anshe thanks to her reputation, there are others who will only deal with Anshe.

Despite ALL the regulations investment banks in RL mess up, or did you never hear of Nick Leeson? My point being that if they're crooked, they'll still break whatever rules are laid down, so more regulation and revelation doesn't mean security. Lloyds insurance very nearly died recently because of the unusual number of claims on it and some oddities in how it does it's business - because the business model relies on personal and now professional reputation. Lloyds, of course, has a 300 or so year history, but 299 years ago it only had a one year history on which to base it's track record. Should we therefore damn Ginko because it's only got a 1 year history?

I've said in each of my posts that Anshe might be right, it could be a ponzi scheme and I'm being duped. Since you keep appealing that IRL all these things are regulated by the government, maybe it's time to also say that all the investigations etc. that you're asking for are, beyond contact details and some bare minimum reporting a privilege and not a right. There are special parts of the police force that deal with such investigations, with expert running them, and the need to persuade the courts that they have sufficient cause to demand access to investment strategies and the like.

We're seeing accusation after accusation, subtly shifting point of attack, but we're still not seeing any credible evidence to support them to my mind. You are still asking questions, trying to put the onus on them to prove that they're innocent, not demonstrating guilt. That doesn't mean the accusations aren't true of course, but it doesn't make them compelling or true either.

Being a person interested in self-regulation and emerging order from natural chaos, this continued "attack" in Ginko raises some interesting side-issues.

First and foremost that the forums are not the "media", which should be clear and self-evident. You can do and say things in the forums that would be simply forbidden in the media — like making accusations without proof. Still, the forums do influence public opinion in SL. They are a "media" of a sort without the responsabilities of one.

Secondly, that the forums are not self-regulated. We need a good moderator (mostly Jeska ) to keep us focused in simple rules. Alexa has been very so often saying out loud that we should start behaving like the adults we supposedly are, and, as adults, make our own options and choices. Apparently we need Jeska as baby-sitter to keep the forums civil and orderly. I, for one, am glad for that — but it also shows that we can't always trust just on ourselves to keep civility and an ethical atitude.

If we can't do it in the forums, it follows that we can't do it in SL as well. Thus, we also "need" Linden Lab to moderate us in SL as well. Here we come to a significant issue: how deep should we "allow" LL to moderate SL? (we all know how reluctant they are to do so beyond making sure that ToS is not overly violated)

So, if we could for a moment pretend that we were truly self-regulated, how should this proceed? A group of residents, for some reason or other, "suspect" that Ginko is a fraudulent operation, based on conjecture (not hard evidence). Many present a quite good and convincing argument list to support these claims. Ginko, on the other hand, has a flawless track record in SL — so far, there is not a single customer that left Ginko for having been scammed (although many may have left because they thought it was one — again, being an adult supposedly also means that's up to you to make your own decisions based upon your judgement). Who is right? Who is wrong? How can "the public" judge based on conjecture and not hard evidence on either side?

The dilemma is complex and look very suspiciously like a not-so-far-away-removed attempt to discredit a certain resident banned from the forums by posting false claims upon their RL identity.

In that case — as it looks like is happening in this one — the crux of the matter was on a single point: how can we, in SL, regarding ToS, demand and receive "proof" and "evidence" that supports our claims, if there is no regulating body, no active "SL User Group", and no "appealing court" (except for Linden Lab who is ever so reluctant to step in)?

Nicholas has now been put into a borderline issue of ToS violation. By never directly accusing him of being a "RL con artist living in South America", the wording of the accusations against him tend to make readers of the forums to believe that this is exactly what he is being "accused" of. Without proof — but with logic, conjecture, reasoning, and very good arguments. Nicholas replies to that with his flawless business reputation in SL, but he's not willing to provide more than that, since he isn't required to do so.

There are two possible answers to that accusation, of course: either Nicholas is a con artist or he isn't. In either case, it seems he has no choice than to provide RL data to prove or disprove that accusation. But my point is, independently on Nicholas' ethical conduct, he was subtly "forced" to submit to a borderline ToS violation: revealing RL data which we allegedly cannot be forced by others to reveal without our wishing to do so. All this based upon the presumption that, if you're innocent, you should be able to reply to all claims of the contrary (ie. the presumption that everybody is guilty until they can prove they're innocent).

Legally, this could be interpreted as a "conspiracy to force revelation of RL data". Well, the ToS is not a Body of Laws, neither is LL a Court, but I hope you see my point. What is being done to Nicholas is very, very borderline behaviour, no matter how well-intended it was (some people are genuinely afraid that others are being conned by Ginko; others are simply using the opportunity to enter the financial market with one less competitor; others still may have their own agenda; and a few, of course, are just doing it because in this lawless world it's fun to ruin other's reputations without suffering consequences).

Now I'm not sure if Nicholas would have an argument against "being forced to reveal RL data". In truth, no one is using "force". Thus the words "conspiracy", which has a slightly different meaning in this context (it's not a secret meeting in dark caves to mumble and grumble against someone; the "conspirators", this time, are very open about their claims and accusations, we know their names and in some cases their real intentions as well), just means that people are pushing the line here. Just to make it clear, I don't really believe that Nicholas has some sort of "protection" in terms of ToS/CS. While he certainly can AR the people who are part of the "conspiracy" — just copy & paste their posts and present them to LL as evidence, they're public — I guess LL will simply dismiss the case saying that residents are free to emit their opinions and that in this case Nicholas is not being "forced" to do anything.

But his reputation has been diminished by these attempts (even if slightly, as you all know, almost nobody reads the forums anyway). Under the ToS/CS, Nicholas cannot ask for compensation for his diminished reputation, i.e. he can't sue anyone for that.

Let me give you another example. Some of you may have noticed that I sell some animated/scripted packs of cigarettes and cigarette holders in SL, using the e-Commerce sites and a handful of vendors online. I did so because a very simple market analysis I did early when arriving in SL showed to me that two population groups are overly represented in SL (when compared to RL): smokers and Mac users. I decided to address the smokers' population in SL first and do some cute devices for them. Now imagine that tomorrow someone either from the anti-tobacco lobbies (or a competitor to my products!) starts a new thread on the posts, accompanied by a campaign in-world, claiming that what I'm effectively doing is promoting smoking in-world as a way to show how cool it is and defending myself that smoking in SL is not dangerous, but giving a bad example that may induce people to smoke more, contrary to the current public opinion. Someone googles for some data, and concludes that someone called "Gwendolyn Lawrence" has a column on a website somewhere, promoted by Philip Morris, to show that the risks of dying from lung cancer due to smoking are actually lower than from dying from radion emission in buildings made of concrete. They see a resemblance in the names and start doing a very agressive campaign in the forums, asking what my ulterior motives are, and if this "Gwendolyn Lawrence" is none other than "Gwyneth Llewelyn" (some may even start to claim my IP address is "similar", and that traceroutes to my home machine go through the London hub, or that my writing style is similar, etc.). I may start defending myself saying that I have nothing to do with that person, I have done animated cigarettes just for fun, but the conspiracy will slowly force me to reveal some more RL data to make sure I'm not that hideous "tobacco-hugger" from Philip Morris. Even if I would put up my ID card, signed and stamped by Linden Lab to show it's legitimate, one thing I would never get back: my good reputation. There would always be some people claiming that the ID card was fake, or that I had deliberately used a partner's or roomie's ID card, etc.

You see how this can be fully exploited in SL without anyone having the power to stop it. In RL, we have legal rights that would prevent this kind of thing to happen, and to demand compensation from damages due to loss of reputation because of libel & difamation.

In SL we have nothing and no one to appeal to. It's not satisfatory to know that LL may eventually ban or just suspend someone who has hurt your reputation (assuming that they would ever do that). Well, it would show some justice, of course, but would it really change things? I don't think so. A good reputation takes months or years to build; a bad reputation just takes a single act and a few seconds to earn.

Back to Nicholas and Ginko, unfortunately, in this virtual world, you're guilty unless proven innocent. Like Eloise so correctly pointed out, there is absolutely no proof that Ginko is not a legitimate business — but that doesn't mean that anyone can claim the contrary without proving anything. Being forced to prove your innocence publicly is a completely tweaked legal system that I abhor — we supposedly have left the Middle Ages quite a while ago. Nevertheless, that's what is happening here. Nicholas loses either way.

Still, it's our own choice to live in this virtual world, and submit to its rules, no matter how alien they are. Of course I would also recommend Nicholas to show proof of his legitimate business to a third party — probably Ginsu Linden, who seems to be LL's expert in legal and financial matters — and ask them to kindly post a single, one-paragraph message telling the community not to worry, that as far as LL is concerned, none of Nicholas' schemes/acts are either a violation of ToS or the Community Standards or any laws of the State of California (under which SL operates).

Things like this should definitely not exist in SL without proof: picture that appeared this morning on SL's homepage.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm overly defending Nicholas. For my argument, it's irrelevant if he is or not guilty of the accusations. What is important here is that people have to prove their innocence, instead of the accusation having to prove guilt. This is totally against the moral, ethical, and legal guidelines under which I have been brought up — no matter how "right" the accusators may, after all, be. If Ginko is found to be a scam after all, my points will still be valid.

This is incredibly appalling... I don't have any other words about this. Something must be done, free-anarchist society or not.

Excellent post, Gwyneth. And I have to admit that its hard for me to understand the fervor of Anshe's crusade against GOM. And the style obviously leaves something to be desired. With the very personal attacks she is doing the issue a disservice, making it easy to dismiss it all as a personal attack.

On the other hand it is definitely hard for me, too, to believe that Ginko can be anything else then a big scam. Interest rates like the ones promised by Nicholas can't be guarenteed in a sustainable way with a legal business. There is only one mechanism by which this can be achieved ... and no, I won't use the P-word.

The question remains how such a concern can be presented and the ongoing discussion can be handled in a fair way. And honestly I don't have any answer to that. We have no laws, no courts, no judges, no lawyers. Many will rejoice in these facts mistakening them for "freedom". But, while a basically lawless society may have its advantages you can get away with nearly anything - and I mean both sides of the conflict in this case.

How can you agree with me that only explanation for Ginko is Ponzi, then say that me trying to point this out is one "personal attack"?

I have nothing personal with Nicholas. But I do believe scams need to be stopped.

Except you blame them for the drop in stripent and that they are in competition in rentals and will soon be in competition in the website market with slexchange, and you will also freely break the disclosure rule of the community standards at your free wish, by posting in your initial thread the banking information of nicholas.

So willing to stop scams if thats what it is and willing to breaks rules to do it.

This question has cropped up a few times in this and other threads but

The comparison does not make that much sense. Nobody who is buying anything from these people (or renting) is giving money to an institution presenting itself as a bank or investment house. When I sell you a product or service, I can see no reason why you should have any right to ask what I am doing with the money. I can buy anything with it, throw it away. This has got nothing to do with the deal between us two.

If you give me your money under the promise that I will be investing it for you, I would understand and expect a much more detailed interest in my business practices and especially in the way I will invest it. You would not have any "right" in SL to demand such information - because "playing bank" is not regulated. And Ginko obviously can conduct its business without presenting this information to its customers - even stating that it is part of their business strategy not to give it out. So under the (mostly non-existing) rules of SL such a way of "playing bank" is "legal".

But there is still a huge difference between giving me money as a payment or as an investment.

I believe removing value from the SL economy indirectly contributed to this. This is what Ginko did by collect money in SL and "invest" in RL. I did not blame Ginko, but point out my observation of this effect Ginko's activity IMHO had.



They do? Maybe. I think they also bought one sim from me.



I did not know that when I posted. But even if they *try* to compete, I should rather be flame SLB, shouldn't I?



I did not post banking information nor did I post the private information from IMs or such. Nicholas told in public chat (not in IM) in world that banks in South America would not lend him money. He also did not ask me treat this confidential. This is very relevant to issue discussed and not violating any rules.

What I intended to say (and still think, I said - maybe I did not choose the perfect words) was, that you present your concern in a way that makes it easy to dismiss it as a personal attack. Not, that it is a personal attack.

And I think that you are doing the whole issue a disservice with that style. It is a legitimate concern - and deserves to be discussed in a cool and serious way. I admit that this is hard at the forums. But we should try.

Oooh, I like that argument: "I haven't attempted to crush every competitor so therefore I must not be attempting to crush this one".

I'm sure that makes sense in some system of logic, just not one that I'm familiar with.

GinkoTec has islands. Ginko Financial does not.

I can safely say I made more profit buying and selling land to/from Ginko and Ginko employees than I did with my 30% share in SLExchange since I invested.

Truth is that that almost every business in SL in some way compete with something I invested in and at same time often also I am their customer or they are my customer.

Actually, just to stress this point, there are many, many financial mechanisms to create valid, legitimate, and sustainable high-risk investment services that provide 60 or 70% return yearly.

However, to be able to do so, you definitely need a pretty good background in financial aspects. Hedge funds, for instance, are a possibility; running a complex system of trading across currency exchanges all around the world is another one. Doing it successfully, however, is quite hard and definitely not for a "newbie", but possible for a talented and knowledgeable financial consultant.

The problem, of course, is to trust that Nicholas Portocarrero (and not his team; we already know his team is not involved in the financial aspects) is a RL financial consultant with years of practice and a sold knowledge base to be able to handle a perfectly legitimate business that does yield this kind of profit. There is no other option than:

a) Have a long-term tracking record in SL (so far, a year has gone by, and he still delivers his promises);
b) Present his RL credentials, thus revealing RL data which Nicholas should definitely not be "forced" to do by his peers (we residents).

The argument that "all investments that yield a 70% ROI in a year is a scam" is simply no true. These kinds of investments do exist in RL. They're simply not commonly offered to everybody, since they are so high-risk. Especially after the "New Economy" days, most banks reverted to low-risk investments again, but you still have many financial institutions operating on high-risk businesses. The question, thus, is not if Ginko can or cannot be a legal, legitimate operation — it certainly can be, it is very possible to be, there are many many others who do this kind of thing in RL and are absolutely and completely government-controlled/audited and definitely legal. The question is how Nicholas can prove that he is operating an absolutely legal and legitimate operation without either revealing his business plan or his RL credentials, which, as I pointed out, he should not be "forced" to reveal.

Excuse me? I'm not being forced by anyone to do anything at all. I do have a choice. I can say "No".

One form of very high return investment with 10000000% ROI but also very very high risk is investing in lottery tickets.

Placing ATMs and letting people "deposit" on savings accounts with one "bank" is clearly not the way to offer one "high-risk" investment to newbies, even assuming we not talk about one Ponzi scheme here.

Nicholas does not even present us any records or proof of profits or losses he might have generated during past 12 months. Why would you think he would need to hide that?

Tell your wife we send our love

For the first time i've been to get the notecard and all the risk information is clearly shown in the notecard at the top even before the instuctions on how to deposit and open an account