Vote how much you would invest to obtain an LA

[John B Knight]

Sorry to sound like a party pooper but at least in the USA & most first world countries, this scheme would be illegal unless the entity is registered with the SEC (regarding Americans) and the individual State equivalent as you would be selling unregistered securities. Anyone promoting the scheme or enticing people to join would be guilty of a felony. There are private fund options but they are limited to 50 investors and are governed by a different set of regulations.

I'd love to be able to invest in a share company in order to own at least a slice of a mall or LA but unless there is some specific MA ingame contract mechanism and it follows U.S. Securities Law, I would be breaking the law by participating.

Not that the Feds would be breaking down the doors to bust people but they could if they felt so inclined. I believe they have much bigger fish to fry unless something like this scheme got to be real big and people got burned.

In other words, unless the organizers have researched the law in their country and exclude people not governed by that set of laws, it's a bad idea.

Would be interesting to know how this applies to anshe 'shares' ;-)

I have just created a concept of 'partownership' of shops without actually selling 'shares' but rights of usage.
See my sig for the link.
I would like to hear your opinion about this concept too, Strangelove

Same concept could be applied to LA's, in fact i already have some ideas prepared if the concept works for shops

 

[GoNi]

That idea of building a fond to own a LA isn´t really new, as already said.

How much I would invest depends on the background of that fond.
How works management.
How works payouts.
How often there will payouts happen.
Presentation of the business modell, very important!

So I vote 10 PED Olympic Spirit, as I haven´t seen any concept that sounds real good to me.
Maybe that changes sometimes, then my mind will change, too.

 

[Dollymaus]

i would invest 100 k if a rl friend obtain the other part and if the LA made us a income around 500 ped/day

but LA with price around 200 k dont give 500 ped /day and i have no rl friend who want to spend so much money on a computer game

 

[Strangelove]

Would be interesting to know how this applies to anshe 'shares' ;-)

I have just created a concept of 'partownership' of shops without actually selling 'shares' but rights of usage.
See my sig for the link.
I would like to hear your opinion about this concept too, Strangelove

Same concept could be applied to LA's, in fact i already have some ideas prepared if the concept works for shops

Perhaps I took your idea out of context. It was too late last night. I reacted mostly to the link to www.eifund.net which was posted in response to your idea. If you follow the link, you will see that Eifund quotes buy & sell prices for their shares to the public. This is clearly governed by Securities Laws. People cannot just set up a share company and sell shares to the public without the proper regulatory permits. Real share companies trade on exchanges which have member requirement. Eifund just sell via their website.

If you are just selling "rights of usage", like a co-op, to a shop you may be ok. But I am curious who's going to pay for the rights to use a shop. I thought the poll was for shares of a LA. Presumably, a part owner of a LA would be entitled to their percentage of the profits, which smells very much like what Eifund is doing. Am I wrong?

As for "rights of usage" to a land area and selling shares without selling shares, the SEC usually does not make a distinction. People have been trying to get around the securities laws for decades. Basically, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the SEC says it's a duck. You can't even "give" money and have someone "give" it back later. It's all under Title 18.

Like I said, I'd like to own part of a LA and be able to buy shares. But I will wait until MA incorporates it into the game, if they do. If so, I will make sure it's legal were I live.

Lastly, I am not a lawyer. If people need legal advice they should talk to a lawyer where they live. I just want people to think things through and ask the right questions before they jump in. Eifund doesn't seem to have done their homework. Just my thoughts. Good luck.

 

[Strangelove]

I am curious about how you would structure this.

IRL, I used to own a shop. 100% my shop. I did have people consign items. I sent them a check for their percentage of their items sold at the end of each month along with a statement.

With your shop idea, why not do the same. If people are entitled to 10% of the shop space, you could charge a per item fee or take x percent as a tax but you would retain 100% ownership. If you hold 50% and some else owns 50%, then it's a partnership. Partners (as I understand the law and I am not a lawyer) are limited to a certain number and then it becomes by definition a share company which is much more complicated especially if partners can sell out to others at a time of their choosing.

What's your specific structure?

 

[John B Knight]

After 156 votes we have possible investment capital of:
1.156.530 Peds in the hands of small to medium budget investors
+
5.500.000+ Peds in the hands of high budget investors

-> thats a total of 6.656.530+ Peds looking for land and a secure system of shared ownership.

When we reach more then 200 votes i will forward it first time to MA support, please keep your votes comming



@Strangelove this poll is indeed only about the shared ownership LA question, but since i am trying to come up with possible solutions that could work i just wanted your feedback on selling rights of usage.
You are right shops are still very different then an LA but even on an LA you can place ads or a shopkeeper of which you could sell out rights of usage.
Paying a percentage of the monthly income may classify the invested money as 'shares' but on the other hand - i dont think that it is forbidden to buy unsecured 'shares' ingame as long as all action about them is within EU.
Its just like trading virtual items, which isnt forbidden in EU.


Kind regards
John

 

[Strangelove]

@Strangelove this poll is indeed only about the shared ownership LA question, but since i am trying to come up with possible solutions that could work i just wanted your feedback on selling rights of usage.
You are right shops are still very different then an LA but even on an LA you can place ads or a shopkeeper of which you could sell out rights of usage.
Paying a percentage of the monthly income may classify the invested money as 'shares' but on the other hand - i dont think that it is forbidden to buy unsecured 'shares' ingame as long as all action about them is within EU.
Its just like trading virtual items, which isnt forbidden in EU.


Kind regards
John

MA used to have stock market terminals a few years ago which were inactive. My presumption was that they were inactive because MA had not worked out the legal issues. I would have loved to have put my RL daytrading and swingtrading experience to work to make a few ped.

Actually, as regulators are becoming aware of what goes on ingame, they are starting to treat "ingame" as an extension of RL, especially as they see virtual worlds growing at 15% per month. The U.S. Congress has commissioned studies on how to tax them. Personally, I hope they just tax withdrawals as misc income & forget about the rest but I doubt that happens. As the RL value of ingame items increases there will be disputes that are handled by RL courts and it seems that sooner or later ingame == RL. That's my opinion.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/system-addict-taxed-to-death/66843/

So please choose one option and comment on it if you want to go in detail.
Try to keep realistic - for example if you invest 5000ped which would be 1% of the total value assumed above your return on invest could only be 1% of the earnings minus the costs to keep that LA healthy.

Sounds 100% like a share company to me.

As my peds are limited at this point, I would very much like to find a way to put them to work as they grow. At some point, I will have have better options as I will be able to afford a hanger, shop or LA myself but that's a long ways off.

Like I said, I am not trying to be a jerk, I just prefer to ask the hard questions up front. It has served me very well in RL & ingame is no different.

BTW, nice gallery screenshots, I will go take a visit when I get the chance.

Cheers.

SL

 

[Nicole]

you left out a option for nothing..

after seeing how things can go wrong and with so many investors, I have to agree with others like Akoz on this one.

 

[Jimmy B]

At the moment, unless I could afford a full LA, I wouldn't take part in a multiple-ownership scheme, except perhaps if it was with a group of people I know in real life. There's no way to guarantee your part of the asset is safe from whoever is holding the deed at the moment. Even if it was someone I trusted completely from in-game or conversation from the forum, there's practical issues such as if that person became unavailable due to RL issues that make it difficult.

However, the new promised contract system may change all that, so for me its more a possibility for the future. If the contract system comes and is good, then I may consider it then.

 

[Pheonyx]

Sorry to sound like a party pooper but at least in the USA & most first world countries, this scheme would be illegal unless the entity is registered with the SEC (regarding Americans) and the individual State equivalent as you would be selling unregistered securities. Anyone promoting the scheme or enticing people to join would be guilty of a felony. There are private fund options but they are limited to 50 investors and are governed by a different set of regulations.

MA used to have stock market terminals a few years ago which were inactive. My presumption was that they were inactive because MA had not worked out the legal issues. I would have loved to have put my RL daytrading and swingtrading experience to work to make a few ped.

Just to clarify, PE is governed solely by Swedish law. As a result, there are no problems with this form of activity/business.

Sadly, as far as i know, they gave no real explanation of why the stock market was taken out of action, although did state that it would be re-introduced. I seriously doubt they ever will now, they stand to loose far too much as the current market trends are far too easy to predict. It's just a second free proffession for people to make a decent amount of free peds{trading being the first}.

 

[Strangelove]

Just to clarify, PE is governed solely by Swedish law. As a result, there are no problems with this form of activity/business.

Sadly, as far as i know, they gave no real explanation of why the stock market was taken out of action, although did state that it would be re-introduced. I seriously doubt they ever will now, they stand to loose far too much as the current market trends are far too easy to predict. It's just a second free proffession for people to make a decent amount of free peds{trading being the first}.

Regarding your first point, I am not up to speed on Scottish or British law so I can't comment regarding your situation. I specifically know (I have friends that are U.S. state banking regulators and friends of friends who work for the Securites & Exchange Commission which regulates securities) that your first point is 100% false for Americans.

A few examples may illustrate the point.

The U.S. Congress outlawed Internet gambling. They arrested a few Brits who happened to change planes in Miami on their way to their offshore operation in Costa Rica. Those Brits were top execs of publicly listed UK Internet gambling companies. The stocks tanked by more than 50%. The problem was that those companies did not take reasonable steps to exclude Americans from participating and wound up in hot water when they entered the U.S.

When Congress acted, they chose to effectively cut off Americans from Internet Gambling by targeting funds transfers. Visa, MasterCard, etc were the preferred options of transferring funds. The CC companies took notice and cut off funds from Americans to offshore gambling companies. More than a few closed up shop.

I am not endorsing this just stating that people need to be up to speed on the laws where they live. Personally, if I invested in a LA which was set up as a share company and attempted to recruit another American, I would be committing a felony. I know this as a fact. Not that anyone would come knocking at my door unless the money involved was substantial & got the attention of the authorities.

A second example. Recently, Second Life, based in San Francisco, CA killed the ingame casinos causing a huge nerf in the value of goods ingame. A Brazilian was running an ingame bank and was issuing loans backed by virtual items. When the casinos were banned, items dropped by a great deal and there was a run on the bank. The bank stopped paying out withdrawals and now RL regulators are involved. The ingame regulatory committee had no RL power.

There's also the problem that the bank was paying out over 100% a year in interest on accounts which is unsustainable in the long run. RL ingame money laundering is also a concern of regulators. Real life intrudes on ingame again.

Regarding your second point. MA would make money if they charged a brokerage fee like the auction fee. Unfortunately, it would be way, way too easy to manipulate the market with only a few 100k peds which is peanuts IRL. A few people working in concert could clean up if they know how markets work. Until MA gets the auction shills under control and find a way to legally run a stock market, I doubt MA will reintroduce the ingame stock market. Lots & lots of regulations to comply with.

 

[Kay-T]

With this idea zero. If MA set up a formal and secure way of having shared ownership maybe 5000-10,000

I would however be willing to sell everythign i own to get a land area of my own (that i have the deed for and control)
Unfortunitely i dont own much with my EU avatar being the most valuable possesion i have (worth $2k+)
I do have some r/l collectors items such as a rare enterprise class server and a rare bicycle but they would maybe get and additional $1000-$2000
with the bicycle being worth the most.
If i sold everythign else off in yard sale fasion i might get another $1k.
Unfortunitely i would only try to do this if i knew forsure i would be able to get the L.A if i did.
I see a future of pigs flying and hell turing into a winter wonderland before this happens though, but then again EU is dynamic maybe the prices will drop to an alltime low and affordable level.

 

[Pheonyx]

Regarding your first point, I am not up to speed on Scottish or British law so I can't comment regarding your situation. I specifically know (I have friends that are U.S. state banking regulators and friends of friends who work for the Securites & Exchange Commission which regulates securities) that your first point is 100% false for Americans.

EULA
11. Governing Law
This Agreement is to be governed by, construed and enforced according to the laws of Sweden. You agree that any future dispute that might arise between you and MindArk is to be governed by the laws of Sweden and that any principles of conflicts of laws will not be applicable with regards to this Agreement.

Firstly;
As you can see, it's actually completely true.

A few examples may illustrate the point...

The U.S. Congress outlawed Internet gambling. They arrested a few Brits who happened to change planes in Miami on their way to their offshore operation in Costa Rica. Those Brits were top execs of publicly listed UK Internet gambling companies. The stocks tanked by more than 50%. The problem was that those companies did not take reasonable steps to exclude Americans from participating and wound up in hot water when they entered the U.S.

Secondly;
All charges against these peole were dropped.

Lastly;
PE/EU is not listed as internet gambling.



I know where your coming from with your assumption that PE/EU is concidered gambling, and your far from alone in it. There have been countless threads with arguments on this subject, but both MA and the ink on the paper say that PE/EU is solely guarded under Swedish law and is not gambling or even a game, but rather a virtual universe.

Stating that it is not a game was possibly the smartest thing they could have done, because if it was, the letigiously enclined would have had a foundation {even if it would have been weak} to build an argument of it being addictive and gambling, but thanks to MA's eagle eyed legal team this possibility has been nulified.


As i said before, it's not hard at all to see why you expected it to see where your coming from, and it may make more sense for it to be concidered to be gambling and have it applicable to the laws of other countries, but after all, this "texan lawyer speak" is designed to disorientate and confuse everyone so that they can't figure out what's going on{sort of like a pre-emptive defense mechanism}.

 

[Strangelove]

Firstly;
As you can see, it's actually completely true.



Secondly;
All charges against these peole were dropped.

Lastly;
PE/EU is not listed as internet gambling.



I know where your coming from with your assumption that PE/EU is concidered gambling, and your far from alone in it. There have been countless threads with arguments on this subject, but both MA and the ink on the paper say that PE/EU is solely guarded under Swedish law and is not gambling or even a game, but rather a virtual universe.

Stating that it is not a game was possibly the smartest thing they could have done, because if it was, the letigiously enclined would have had a foundation {even if it would have been weak} to build an argument of it being addictive and gambling, but thanks to MA's eagle eyed legal team this possibility has been nulified.


As i said before, it's not hard at all to see why you expected it to see where your coming from, and it may make more sense for it to be concidered to be gambling and have it applicable to the laws of other countries, but after all, this "texan lawyer speak" is designed to disorientate and confuse everyone so that they can't figure out what's going on{sort of like a pre-emptive defense mechanism}.

Point 1: Violating a Swedish EULA may get an avatar kicked out of EU but does not trump U.S. law. The EULA has NO bearing. You simply cannot offer securities to Americans unless you are registered with both the SEC and relevant state agencies. The Chinese bank in EU has offered up 3.2 million shares. Americans cannot buy these shares legally. The shares must be registered with the SEC and State Securities and Banking Commissions. Even if a security is 100% legal in the jurisdiction where it is issued, it must be registered in the U.S. and any American promoting an unregistered security is committing a felony.

I would urge Americans that are considering investing in EU related share companies to contact their local State regulators. Personally, I would be willing to invest....but I can't legally.

As I stated, the law may be different in Scotland. Are you telling me a Swedish EULA trumps Scottish and British Law? Does this make sense to you? Call a regulator and see whether the Chinese EU Banking shares offered for sale on a website are legal. Who regulates the shares? Nobody.

Point 2: Regardless of whether specific charges were dropped in one instance, UK gambling companies took quite a hit and more than one went out of business. All of them are now taking steps to ACTIVELY exclude Americans. Try signing up with an American address and using a Visa, MC, etc. You simply will not be permitted to do so.

I agree with point 1. Too many people have been cheated and have no recourse to recover funds. Not that registered securities do that much better. The average recovery is less than 10% of lost funds. The lawyers always get paid.

Regarding point 2, I think that Congress isn't as against gambling as they are against not getting a cut in tax revenue even though the "protect the children" flag run up the pole. Las Vegas, the Indian Tribes and State Lottery interests were probably behind the ban.

 

[Pheonyx]

Point 1: Violating a Swedish EULA may get an avatar kicked out of EU but does not trump U.S. law. The EULA has NO bearing. You simply cannot offer securities to Americans unless you are registered with both the SEC and relevant state agencies. The Chinese bank in EU has offered up 3.2 million shares. Americans cannot buy these shares legally. The shares must be registered with the SEC and State Securities and Banking Commissions. Even if a security is 100% legal in the jurisdiction where it is issued, it must be registered in the U.S. and any American promoting an unregistered security is committing a felony.

I would urge Americans that are considering investing in EU related share companies to contact their local State regulators. Personally, I would be willing to invest....but I can't legally.

As I stated, the law may be different in Scotland. Are you telling me a Swedish EULA trumps Scottish and British Law? Does this make sense to you? Call a regulator and see whether the Chinese EU Banking shares offered for sale on a website are legal. Who regulates the shares? Nobody.

Point 2: Regardless of whether specific charges were dropped in one instance, UK gambling companies took quite a hit and more than one went out of business. All of them are now taking steps to ACTIVELY exclude Americans. Try signing up with an American address and using a Visa, MC, etc. You simply will not be permitted to do so.

I agree with point 1. Too many people have been cheated and have no recourse to recover funds. Not that registered securities do that much better. The average recovery is less than 10% of lost funds. The lawyers always get paid.

Regarding point 2, I think that Congress isn't as against gambling as they are against not getting a cut in tax revenue even though the "protect the children" flag run up the pole. Las Vegas, the Indian Tribes and State Lottery interests were probably behind the ban.

To: "Point 1" - #1
Since the EULA has never been in a courts presence{or any other legal dispute}, there is no evidence at all to suggest it doesn't stand. Anything suggesting that it does not stand, is merely speculation until proven otherwise. But until such a case is brought up and proves the EULA is null en void, it stands.

Too clarify what i meant; Yes i agree and it also makes perfect sense to me; and until proven otherwise in a court of law, the EULA does indeed trump Scottish and all other countries/principalities laws.
Why?; We agree to an EULA everytime we play, this is a contractual agreement, and as long as we agree, while knowing the terms and conditions, we are bound to adhere to it.

The only example that comes to mind right now is this hypothetical{but still common} situation.

A tourist goes to another country. This person partakes in an act which is illegal in this country, but not in their own. This person will therefore be tried by the country they are visitings laws and not their own.
MA have essentially set up the "virtual universe" to be a fictional version of a country in the real world, and we have agreed to follow their rules while within by clicking that "i agree" button.
Like it or not{i'm often in two minds about it aswell} it really is that simple.

To: "Point 2" - #2
This was the only example that you provided, so it was the only one i answered.

To: "point 1" - #3
The circumstances and examples of those cheated or otherwise who lost out in some way or another are far too many and varied to be generalised in a response, but i will single out a few of the most common.
{If you will be responding to this post i'de appreciate your view on the same, but if your bored of this thread then no problem, there will be other threads of this discussion in the future most likely where we can continue }

"I lent a friend my items and he sold/tt'ed/didn't return them" Scenario.
This one is pretty simple; the "all trades are final" line in the EULA covers their end, and means that they don't have to lift a finger to help. The argument in court above this would also be fairly simple:
The items are worth a set amount of *** in trade terminal value. This is the real worth of the item, and therefore the true amount that the player has lost. Any value above and beyond this, was risk taken on by the player, in a player made market valuation.

"My account was hacked" Scenario.
Also simple:
Player: My account was hacked.
MA: How did this happen.
Player: My e-mail was hacked/key logger/trojan {or} my friend knows my password and username.
MA: We can not protect your computer and any risks with your information which you take, this is why we provided you with the option of a Gold Card.
MA: Did you have a Gold Card?
Player: No.
MA: Then you chose to take the risk, the fault was on your end, and you ignored an option for protection which could have prevented this.

"I tt'ed something valuable/was scammed in some other misc. way"
Again, simple.
Player: Help i tt'ed my limited gun with a tt of 10K
MA: We have the record of this. We have no obligtion, however we will be kind and return it to you. However, the tt value will be reduced to 0, to assure that you are not attempting to scam us into providing you with 10K.
Player: WHAT?! But im loosing 10K now!
MA: The 10K is still there, just on your ped card instead of the gun. All trades are final.

Player: Help, i was scammed in some misc. way.
MA: All trades are final/provide evidence.
Player: Here are the screenshots and msn chat logs "linktoforumwithevidence"
MA: While we will act out of our kind hearts and lock this user, we are not able to return your items/peds/ores/enmatters/etc. as these items have passed through other avatars and we can not reverse all of their trades/etc which were lawfull. Just be glad that we are acting at all.

To "point 2" - #4
I'm not sure how to respond to that to be honest lol.
I'll leave that to the other Americans to have a laugh with as i'm sure it's an inside point/blow to the govt.
Who was behind wanting these things banned is of little concern to wether the ban affects PE/EU at the moment though.

I can't remember what this thread was about atm - probably cause its...DAMNIT, it's 6:03am - but i'll take a guess at what it was, and say that my overall point is that PE/EU is not listed as gambling, and is not illegal in any country as a result.{well, any "free" country}. And also that we are under the EULA in conjunction with Swedish law from the moment we click "i agree" till the moment we click "exit".
As i said though, i cant remember for the love of me what this thread was about. I would read back but after seeing the time im gonna hurry to bed as i'm currently trying to break the cycle of only requiring an hours sleep lol.

P.S. Thanks. Your the most mature person i've had a discussion with in quite some time.

 

[John B Knight]

Thanks Strangelove and Pheonyx for your very thoughtful and deep explanations about the EULA and governmental rights

I can see both of your points and agree with Pheonyx on the validity of the EULA - i for myself think of EU being like another country and i dont think external governments of states where nothing of the infrastructure of MA resides will have it easy to claim their rights within this environment.

But i have to agree with Strangelove as well - americans are special since their government has more power then most would think


But back to the maintopic of the thread - sitting at 186 votes now - how much would you invest and under which circumstances ?


Kind regards
John

 

[Pheonyx]

But back to the maintopic of the thread - sitting at 186 votes now - how much would you invest and under which circumstances ?

So that's what it was about.

Well, i'de say that there is no cap on what i would invest, provided i handle it the way i do with any investments and minimise my risks so they become calculated risks.

I'll go and vote aswell now. Currently im under $10K but above $5K{the exact number escapes me for the moment.

 

[Zib Black Onyx]

jeez you guys are prepared to invest this much... you should invest in something good

PM me if you want to hear about something big.