JacksonBollock

Worth a punt, if for no other reason than it's a topic they seem to be very focussed on at the moment. Also, there's that big Thunes windfall happening.... isn't there?

This is the Intentional Circumvention issue, but investigation can be undertaken on a much more substantive basis. The idea with this is to get away from the subjective perception of age based on appearance, which appears to be causing problems.

The issue of adults using child avatars in virtual environments like Second Life is complex and involves balancing the principles of freedom of expression with the need to protect against harmful or illegal content. The following is a proposed strategy to bolster user safety and content appropriateness in this context by implementing immutable age demographics and enhancing the visibility of these demographics on avatar profiles and within the virtual environment. Please use this thread to discuss, trash, or completely ignore - whatever you feel most appropriate. Personally, I can see potential issues around Freedom of Expression, Potential for Stigmatization, Impact on Community Dynamics, Unintended Consequences, and of course intentional Circumvention. However, given the discussion and debate around this area, it might be good to attempt some sort of consensus from the forum around a structured and practical approach. Proposed Approach: 1.Immutable Age Demographic Selection: Initial Setup: During account creation, users will select an age demographic (Child, Teen, Adult) that is permanent and unchangeable to ensure consistency and appropriateness of content and interaction. If a customer wishes to participate in multiple age demographics at different times, then this would be facilitated by use of Alternative Accounts (Alts). 2.Enhanced Demographic Visibility: Profile Visibility: Each avatar’s age category will be prominently displayed on their profile through intuitive icons and color codes, ensuring it is immediately apparent to other users. In-Environment Indicators: Beside each avatar’s floating name, a universally understandable icon indicating their age demographic will be visible, ensuring all interactions are age-appropriate. 3.Zoning and Access Control: Geofenced Zones: Implement strict geofencing based on age demographics, allowing avatars access only to designated zones that match their age group, enhancing both safety and compliance. 4.Content and Community Management: Content Filtering: Systems will adjust content visibility and interaction possibilities based on the immutable age setting. Community Interaction Protocols: Encourage engagement within age-similar groups to foster a safer and more relevant social environment. 5.Policy and Compliance Framework: Clear Communication: Users will be thoroughly informed about the importance and permanence of their age selection during the setup process. Legal and Policy Compliance: Regular reviews and updates will ensure alignment with global legal standards and adapt to evolving user and community needs. Benefits: Safety and Security: Ensures a secure environment by aligning users’ interactions strictly with their age group. Regulatory Compliance: Meets stringent global standards for online safety and child protection. Enhanced User Trust: Builds user confidence through transparent policies and clear, visible age demarcations.

I don't normally respond to this sort of posting, but I will here because it's important to me and has been for the duration of a 30 year career introducing technology to African and South American communities - in what I hope was a sympathetic and culturally appropriate way. Sadly your grasp of the realities around Africa, the developing world, and indeed the issues around unbanked and underbanked communities, is slim to none. Certainly things have moved on for the Maasai and Africa as a continent since the last National Geographic documentary you watched back in the '80s. I suspect there is little point in discussing things with you in a constructive manner, however I might at least point out a little perspective which you might take on board for the future. The presence of a sophisticated banking infrastructure does not help the communities who for whatever reason are not able to access that infrastructure. I'm assuming you'd agree that the US has a relatively modern financial and commercial infrastructures, and yet approximately 4.5% of US households are unbanked (around 6million people) and 14% are underbanked (around 19million people). And yes, hotels all over the US process credit card payments on a daily basis - just not for those of the 19million mentioned above. The correlation between access to technology and access to financial infrastructure is nuanced and complex and as such requires a nuanced and sophisticated approach - just one of which might include facilitating more open access to a digital marketplace like Second Life.

HI Everyone, As I prepare to take a break from the forums, I would like to share a few reflections with you based on my short time here. In reaction to what might only be charitably called my “blue sky” thinking, I was perhaps rightly called out for some naivety and perhaps a smattering of unconstructive technological determinism. To be honest, I hold my hand up as guilty to both charges. I do believe technology has and will continue to change the world for the better, and I am still hopelessly naïve. “Naivety” however, although sometimes used in the pejorative by individuals made weary and cynical in the face of “how the world works”, can actually be one of our greatest assets. It empowers us to dream big, challenge the status quo, and pursue paths that others might dismiss as unrealistic. Consider the incredible journeys of entrepreneurs (good and bad!) who started with nothing but a bold idea. Many of these individuals were told their visions were impractical or foolish. Yet, it was their naivety—their ability to see the world not just as it is, but as it could be—that led them to build empires, reshape industries, and reshape society. Many of you have been citizens of Second Life for decades, for much of your adult lives. What was it that brought you here in the early days of a platform older than Facebook and Twitter? Was it “common sense”, or was it a certain naivety, a vision and belief in something not yet tangible, a dream which many of your “RL” peers would have sneered at as strange and stupid? So why not believe again in the "naïve" ideal that Second Life might still change the world for the better in ways which aren't even possible yet? Forget my ideas, they don’t have to be yours, and shouldn’t be yours. I’m just an interloper here, but I feel a little sad when I read some your posts which communicate a certain fatalism and powerlessness in how the future of SL might be shaped. So, I’ll just leave you with this "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." – Margaret Mead (I think) All the best, Jackson

Thanks Zalificent for your pointed critique and for highlighting the significant disparities in technological access across different regions. I completely agree that the picture I painted might seem overly optimistic or disconnected from the reality faced by many, particularly in less developed regions. In response to these valid concerns, I want to emphasize that the goal is not to overlook these realities but to actively work towards bridging these gaps. For instance, my reference to the work with Thunes is part of a broader vision to leverage existing infrastructures, no matter how minimal, to extend digital reach and hence opportunity. Thunes, by facilitating transactions in places with limited traditional banking, represents just one of the ways it might adapt to the diverse capabilities of different regions. Moreover, I mentioned the mobile platform development in recognition of the trend towards cheaper and more accessible technology. While this does not solve all problems immediately, it is a step towards reducing hardware limitations that can exclude potential users. While I understand a cynicism in the face of what might appear technological determinism or even what might be called neo-colonialism, it’s also wise to guard against a tendency to stereotyping any one group of people in order to make a point. In terms of the Maasai, to explore your example, the technological realities, as for many indigenous and rural communities, are complex and vary significantly between different groups and locations. However generally speaking connectivity and access to technology is increasing and adoption is accelerating within the Maasai. In fact, they have themselves often been cited as model by which a people may maintain their cultural identity while also adapting to modern technologies where they see benefit. As an example, while they continue their traditional practices such as pastoralism and rites of passage, they also integrate technologies that can help manage their businesses and communicate with the wider world. A mobile banking service called M-Pesa for instance have become a vital part of economic transactions for the Maasai, allowing them to send and receive money without needing access to a traditional bank. This service is particularly valuable for managing finances related to livestock sales and other forms of trade.

Hi Zalificent, Thanks for sharing your concerns, and I appreciate your candid perspective. I understand the skepticism regarding the financial management post-acquisition and the challenges of reaching new markets, especially in underbanked regions. To address your points: First, while the possibility of using funds to manage buyout debt exists, strategic investments in technology can also spur long-term growth, as seen in other tech sectors. Expanding our user base isn't just about finding 'untapped markets'; it's about making our platform more accessible and inclusive, which aligns with broader trends in technology adoption globally. Regarding Thunes, it's important to clarify that their network supports a variety of transaction services that could facilitate easier access to platforms like Second Life even in regions where traditional banking infrastructure is scarce. Finally, the point about hardware limitations is well-taken. However, global trends in cheaper and more accessible technology are rapidly changing this this landscape. I appreciate the hardware requirements for SL can be prohibitive, but perhaps with the advent of the mobile platform we might see the barriers to participation reduced. As an example, one business I'm involved with competed in the Global Learning XPRIZE a few years ago. I appreciate there are some criticisms of the XPRIZE organisation, however several entrants had great success and did facilitate marked improvements in remote communities by a combination of software and inexpensive hardware innovations.

In my previous posts I articulated a view of the strategic context of the Thunes acquisition. While these analyses present a fair view of our current state, I think it’d also be valuable to start a community conversation around the potential opportunities for Second Life over the next few years. My belief is that, while any financial windfall provides opportunities for technology and platform innovation, more importantly this move also provides a real opportunity for Second Life to engage with a new global audience, and be seen as a new model for global financial inclusion. The idea that Second Life provides a model for financial inclusion isn’t new, at its core it has always been a platform which uniquely supports creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity. By leveraging Thunes' global network however, Second Life now realistically has the opportunity to expand its user base in new geographic areas that were previously limited by payment processing infrastructure and cultural inclusion constraints. Specifically, by enabling easier, more reliable payment methods for users in unbanked and underbanked regions, Second Life can become a more accessible platform for users worldwide to engage in creative and economic activity. Thus contributing to the global movement for financial inclusion. In my view this expansion not only grows Second Life’s market but also enhances the diversity and richness of the virtual world’s economy.

This has been a really interesting thread, so I'd like to contribute a bit more if I may. Please note, these are just opinions. 1. Why does Tilia even exist? Since 2020, Linden Lab has been focused on a portfolio strategy to enhance value and focus on its core competencies. Tilia exists as a byproduct of this strategy, primarily to leverage the specialized needs of a digital payment platform which includes secure payment processing, compliance with financial regulations, and enabling real-world value transactions within virtual economies. By adopting what’s often called a "carve-out strategy" and “carving out” Tilia, Linden Lab aimed to create a focused entity that could not only serve Second Life but also offer its services to other digital platforms, thus tapping into the broader market of digital economies. This move aligns with common private equity strategies where non-core businesses are spun off to improve operational efficiencies and unlock additional value. This strategy intentionally and successfully geared Tilia up for acquisition by a larger financial service provider interested in a low-friction licensed entry point into the lucrative US digital payments market. 2. What's in it for Thunes? Thunes is primarily interested in expanding its global payments network and likely views the acquisition of Tilia as a relatively low cost strategic entry point into the U.S. digital payments ecosystem. The deal with Tilia allows Thunes to bypass many regulatory and market entry hurdles, thus speeding up its capability to operate in and capitalize on the U.S. market. The association with Second Life as a customer, while notable to us, might be seen as less critical and in all likelihood as an undesirable but manageable overhead, not a primary driver of the acquisition. 3. The "5 Year Contract" The five-year contract was almost certainly stipulated by Linden Lab as a post-acquisition stability measure. This duration is crucial not just for ensuring uninterrupted service but also provides a buffer period for Linden Lab to potentially reorganize or find alternative strategies for Second Life. Such contracts are often used to mitigate transition risks and ensure continuity in service, which is vital for maintaining user trust and operational stability during the transition phase. 4. What it means for Second Life In the context of the much-cited BCG matrix, Second Life could be at best classified as a "waning Cash Cow" — a unit that once generated significant funds but now faces challenges in growth or profitability. A more realistic perspective within the wider market likely represents Second Life entering "Dog" territory at this point. In this context there are a few common strategies to be potentially adopted: 1. Investment to Revitalize: Sometimes, it might be worthwhile to reinvest in a Cash Cow to improve its competitive position or enter new markets, thus extending its life cycle. 2. Efficiency Improvements: Reducing costs and improving operational efficiencies can help sustain the profitability of a Cash Cow even as revenue potential declines. 3. Harvesting: Gradually reducing the level of investment and taking out as much cash as possible, maximizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term presence. 4. Divestiture: Selling off the business unit before it becomes a financial drain, ideally while it still has some market value. The adopted strategic direction for Second Life, given its classification in the BCG matrix, would largely depend Linden Lab’s perception of its ability to transform or find new market niches. Without significant reinvestment or strategic shift, maintaining its relevance and profitability will be challenging. 5. Final Thoughts We can only hope that Linden Lab views the imminent financial windfall from the Thunes deal as an opportunity to invest in Second Life and pursue a meaningful transformation strategy over the next few years Either way, this is not a foregone conclusion, and the Second Life community holds significant power in influencing this decision. It's crucial, however, that community efforts focus not on opposing the Thunes deal—which is already pretty much a “Done Deal” —but on persuading Linden Lab to use any potential profits as a catalyst for innovation. This could include the development of new features, the integration of advanced technologies like AR and VR, and even a comprehensive platform overhaul to enhance user engagement and attract new users. While opinions on these technologies vary within this forum, the overarching goal should be to ensure that Second Life is perceived as relevant and engaging to the widest possible prospective audience.

Tilia, as a sister company under the Linden Lab umbrella, likely provided services to Second Life at discounted rates. With the emergence of Thune as a separate entity, it’s reasonable to anticipate that the costs incurred by Second Life (whether absorbed internally or passed on to customers) may rise to align with market standards. Despite the existence of a 5-year contract, market dynamics could necessitate adjustments to pricing strategies to maintain profitability for both Thune and Second Life.

I'm not sure what you mean Qie. The definition of profit is widely accepted and yes, in this case, any profit available for reinvestment in SL would be NET of any returns contractually agreed with investors such as Randy Waterfield et al, JP Morgan, and Dunamu. JP Morgan and Dunamu alone invested $22million (at my last reading) and they're expecting a return on that investment - it wasn't given as a 0% interest loan (I'm guessing). As stated however, assuming a profit is made, only a proportion will be reinvested in SL. The Waterfield crew as investors need to eat too, in addition to any salaries they're also pulling obviously - which ironically are costs affecting available profits.

Profit is what's left after you pay everyone you owe - which in the case of Tilia is quite a few people. Once you decide what your profit is, you decide what to do with it. Do you take it in the form of dividends as return on risk, or do you leave it on the table for another spin of the wheel? It all depends on whether you think SL is a good bet or not.

Thunes would require Financial Regulatory Approval at both federal and state level, as well as Consumer Protection and Anti-Trust Regulatory Approval. Given the fact that both companies have officially announced the acquisition, it's typically safe to assume that a significant amount of preliminary work has already been done, including engagement with the necessary regulators at Federal and State levels. Other aspects would include things like Due Diligence , Legal and Compliance, and Stakeholder Communication Strategy. Companies don't usually go public with announcements of this magnitude without a high degree of confidence that approval will indeed be received.

It's been a few years since I last visited Secondlife but, having seen the recent announcement, I thought I'd swing by and see what the Forum thought of all this. As an objective observer and somewhat analyst in this space, a possible view of this is as follows: Tilia Timeline (my recollection - so possibly not 100% correct - particularly around timings of JP Morgan and Dunamu) 2019: Tilia officially operational within Linden Lab, handling financial transactions and managing compliance for Second Life. This setup allowed users to buy, sell, and cash out Linden Dollars seamlessly, integrating real-world financial transactions with the virtual economy. 2020: Linden Lab was acquired by an investment group led by Randy Waterfield and Brad Oberwager. This acquisition aimed to support continued growth for Second Life and expand the financial services of its subsidiary Tilia. 2022: Tilia was spun off from Linden Lab as a separate company, focusing on providing financial services tailored for digital economies, including gaming platforms, virtual world publishers, and NFT providers. After its spin-off, Tilia secured strategic investments from J.P. Morgan. 2023: Tilia received additional strategic investment from J.P. Morgan Payments and dunamu, aiming to help Tilia expand its services and support a broader range of transactions in the digital economy My Overview: The Thules move appears to be the fruition of a 5 year strategic plan initiated in 2020 by Waterfield and Oberwager. One common misconception (in my opinion) might be viewing Second Life as the primary value asset in Linden Lab’s portfolio. In my analysis, since 2020, Tilia has emerged as the segment with greater growth potential, increasingly recognized and cultivated by Linden Lab and market observers alike for its promising future and exit value. Tilia represents both a modern and potentially lucrative technology stack, as well as a relatively low friction licensed entry point into the lucrative US digital payments ecosystem. By separating Tilia from its umbrella, investors not only streamlined Linden Lab’s operations but also potentially increased Tilia’s market value as an independent entity—ripe for acquisition. Moreover, this strategy aligns with typical private equity plays, which focus on boosting short-term financial metrics and preparing companies—or their most profitable parts—for sale. The implications of these strategic divestitures for Second Life look pretty fundamental. While the official stance positions the sale of Tilia and the subsequent partnership with Thunes as a boon for payment processing capabilities, a deeper analysis suggests otherwise. The five-year exclusive partnership with Thunes, while ostensibly a stability measure, could well be the timeframe investors see as sufficient to wind down operations. This timeline may not only allow for the amortization of remaining assets but also the management of user transition or platform shutdown with minimal disruption. With the tech landscape evolving rapidly, Second Life’s technology and user engagement models appear increasingly dated. Without significant reinvestment—a prospect made unlikely by the current strategic direction—Second Life might struggle to retain its relevance in the coming years. My Forecast (for what it's worth) While it may appear that the funds generated by the sale of Tilia represent a windfall for Linden Lab, a substantial amount of those funds are destined for the pockets of JP Morgan, and Dunamu. Whether the balance is destined for reinvestment in Secondlife, or simply as dividends paid directly into the coffers of Randy Waterfield et al, is yet to be seen. If I were still an active resident, I wouldn't count on much longer than 3 or 4 years of continued enjoyment of SL. Which is still a pretty good outlook for any legacy technology platform in this environment. So not all doom and gloom!