Quick “New Policy” Observation
Tell A Friend About This Post.
Stumble it!
Linden Lab stated that “Since the collapse of Ginko Financial in August 2007, Linden Lab has received complaints about several in-world “banks” defaulting on their promises.”
Now, I realize that the point has been argued, but in the basic sense, didn’t the fact that Linden Lab banned gaming “instantly and definitively” at the end of July 2007 “cause” the run on Ginko and other banks, in effect, causing them to default, or not be able to pay their depositors?
Since this is only a quick observation, and a post about something that just sort of hit me as “something to think about”, I haven’t really thought much about the cause and effect of these different “events”. I’m still trying to imagine what the effects of the bank banning will be.
I suppose it will depend on how many (if any) SL banks will be allowed to remain after January 22nd. After seeing the “cashout” effect after the gambling ban and the amount of users that “downgraded” from premium accounts, I’m guessing that the same thing will happen, again.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
You’re right, the gambling ban did start the beginning of the bank run. Ginko’s could afford their interest rates in part because they invested in casinos, and when they went, so went the investments. It wasn’t immediately obvious until people started attempting to withdrawl and started noticing that their deposits weren’t growing with interest. Thus began the massive rush to withdrawl while the going was still good, and we both know how the story played out.
From the general trends so far, some banks are defaulting, some are offering to return all deposits, some are offering the same service sans interest (the language of the ban concerns only interest payments and not simple “I’ll hold your money” deals), and some might go underground (which some casinos did after they were banned). The interesting thing is that unlike gambling, LL announced this policy some time before they actually implemented it which should put to rest this debate other whether it’s better to suddenly enforce or give prior warning. Judging from the relative, and I use that term loosely, calm concerning this so far, I think either people don’t realize what exactly is going on or it is being handled by people in a surprisingly adult manner.