Your2ndPlace

What I will say is that you make good points (I even said so!) - but when I make these judgements within Second Life, I consider the peers of the business in question as well as their track records.

That Ginko is not transparent is not a mortal sin. Linden Lab is not transparent, either. The abuse reporting system, among other things, lends itself to a level of inconsistency which a lack of transparency is necessary for.

That some businesses claim transparency is all well and good - but at the end of the day, we only have their word. Take WSE, as an example: While things may appear above board, there's no way that anyone can say that insider trading is not involved. Let's look at other banks. One, which I will not name, supports itself by ad spam extortion. Others speculate on venture capital within Second Life, as well as land speculation. But anyone who has dealt with land in Second Life knows deep down that the market is implicitly flawed.

To put Ginko on trial, we really need to put everyone on trial. A jury of peers in banking would probably not even blink at Ginko's actions.

And, as far as Ponzi schemes - a hard look at the real estate market would be interesting to consider, especially in light of Linden Lab proclaiming itself as a service provider in the context of Bragg. Land reselling in Second Life is de facto reselling of a service which has a service charge, thus making all land resellers affiliates in what could be considered a scheme. Think about it.

Where Ginko has been right is in being there through all the scandals and not screwing it up. I think you may be right, poor management decisions were made - but then, let's talk about doing an upgrade of a service and not giving people access to any of their money for 5 days. That's what the WSE recently did. At least Ginko is allowing withdrawals.