• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

bitcoins

mrzuzzo said:
CZ/Binance are creating a bailout fund for troubled crypto companies, which is kinda sorta what a central bank does.

Crypto is extremely centralized, which is why the downfall of one player impacts the entire ecosystem.
Click to expand...

'kinda sorta' is doing a lot of legwork here. We are talking about Binance buying out other companies that are near failing, not them giving loans to support prevent these companies from failing. More worryingly, the reason Binance didn't step in and 'save' FTX seems to basically be a personal beef between the respective owners of the 2 companies. There is no way a traditional central bank could get away with making a decision that damages all of their customers financially (which this did) just because they want to specifically fuck over one guy.

Crypto is just a boondoggle. it honestly seems like the primary role of crypto has been to transfer wealth from middle class ish people to wealthy people basically in return for worthless crap.
 
ScarySpikes said:
'kinda sorta' is doing a lot of legwork here. We are talking about Binance buying out other companies that are near failing, not them giving loans to support prevent these companies from failing. More worryingly, the reason Binance didn't step in and 'save' FTX seems to basically be a personal beef between the respective owners of the 2 companies. There is no way a traditional central bank could get away with making a decision that damages all of their customers financially (which this did) just because they want to specifically fuck over one guy.

Crypto is just a boondoggle. it honestly seems like the primary role of crypto has been to transfer wealth from middle class ish people to wealthy people basically in return for worthless crap.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%

Climber said:
Yeah, it seems really amazing that he'd be so quickly hitting the reset button and moving forward again.

If he had not been in the upper class, he'd be done and buried. It's pretty much like he was playing monopoly!
Click to expand...

Yes, but, he's literally proposing paying off old investors with new investors money to make them whole. Pretty sure I've heard of that concept before, can't quite put my finger on it.. :laughing
 
It would be amazing to see celebs like Tom Brady, Steph Curry, Matt Damon, etc pay massive fines for promoting scams, ponzis and securities they have no idea about. Grifters need to pay so they think twice before endorsing a product that scams people.

Would love to see SEC and other agencies act on it. This is why we have a functioning government!
 
mrzuzzo said:
It would be amazing to see celebs like Tom Brady, Steph Curry, Matt Damon, etc pay massive fines for promoting scams, ponzis and securities they have no idea about. Grifters need to pay so they think twice before endorsing a product that scams people.

Would love to see SEC and other agencies act on it. This is why we have a functioning government!
Click to expand...


I kind of agree with you on that. However, as a jaded Gen Xer, once I see celebrities endorsing a financial product, I know the jig is up and it's a scam. :laughing In a way, those endorsements are my tell that the end is near. So, thanks? lol.
 
Thats a slippery slope. Really slippery. Why should a celebrity be held responsible if all they were paid to do was read a script in front of a camera or in a sound booth? Does that make the copy writer or production crew responsible, too? If a celebrity does a commercial for a car that has a safety recall, should the celebrity pay fines but not the engineers?

I'm a lot more concerned with prosecuting the management that took part in fraud or other financial crimes.
 
Map8 said:
Thats a slippery slope. Really slippery. Why should a celebrity be held responsible if all they were paid to do was read a script in front of a camera or in a sound booth? Does that make the copy writer or production crew responsible, too? If a celebrity does a commercial for a car that has a safety recall, should the celebrity pay fines but not the engineers?

I'm a lot more concerned with prosecuting the management that took part in fraud or other financial crimes.
Click to expand...

Yes. They should absolutely 100% be held responsible. This is why we have financial security laws and the SEC.

Your car example is irrelevant.
 
Are you saying the camera operators, lighting and sound technicians, video editors and everyone associated with a commercial promoting what turns out to be a fraudulent financial product should be held responsible?
 
Map8 said:
Are you saying the camera operators, lighting and sound technicians, video editors and everyone associated with a commercial promoting what turns out to be a fraudulent financial product should be held responsible?
Click to expand...

They are not being the spokesperson nor are they publically endorsing financial securities, so no.

SEC Charges Kim Kardashian for Unlawfully Touting Crypto Security

There has been some positive movement in holding spokespeople of these exams accountable. But it's not enough.
 
mrzuzzo said:
Yes. They should absolutely 100% be held responsible. This is why we have financial security laws and the SEC.

Your car example is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

How is it irrelevant? You propose giving people the ability to punish those who market a product that has known hazards to peoples financial health. So how is that different from suing everyone that endorses a product that hurts a person in other ways? If this is purely a financial thing then you could make the argument that smoking hurts a person financially because now your medical costs will rise as you have to pay for treatments to combat the ill effects of smoking cigarettes.

Why stop there why not allow people to sue those that endorse motorcycles we all know they are two wheel death traps and anyone who endorses these things should know better and therefore should be held responsible because they caused us to buy them by using their influence over me as a celebrity.

So you can see that allowing people to sue because they are idiots and don't know any better shouldn't be allowed but that really would require a huge tort(?) system reform that I don't see happening. I honestly don't think this case is going to go anywhere. What ever happened to taking ownership for your own stupid actions and not blaming everyone else when you should have known better.
 
Map8 said:
Thats a slippery slope. Really slippery. Why should a celebrity be held responsible if all they were paid to do was read a script in front of a camera or in a sound booth? Does that make the copy writer or production crew responsible, too? If a celebrity does a commercial for a car that has a safety recall, should the celebrity pay fines but not the engineers?

I'm a lot more concerned with prosecuting the management that took part in fraud or other financial crimes.
Click to expand...
I agree. Definitely a slippery slope. They didn't know that it was a scam, it's not something they have any expertise in.

I think that lawyers are just trying to find some deep pockets to make money off of.

And agree, go after the people who knowingly ripped people off with ponzi schemes and other tricks that are dishonest. I'm really surprised that the person behind this whol ponzi scheme is talking about going bacck and doing it again instead of behind bars.
 
Her promotion of crypto didn't include the "paid spokesperson" disclaimer...

"Ms. Kardashian’s case also serves as a reminder to celebrities and others that the law requires them to disclose to the public when and how much they are paid to promote investing in securities..."
Click to expand...

The KK example is... wait for it... irrelevant.
 
Tom and Giselle in happier days...

[YOUTUBE]uymLJoKFlW8[/YOUTUBE]

Is that the Paid Spokesperson disclaimer at the end? The print is on the "fine" side....
 
Sharxfan said:
How is it irrelevant? You propose giving people the ability to punish those who market a product that has known hazards to peoples financial health. So how is that different from suing everyone that endorses a product that hurts a person in other ways? If this is purely a financial thing then you could make the argument that smoking hurts a person financially because now your medical costs will rise as you have to pay for treatments to combat the ill effects of smoking cigarettes.

Why stop there why not allow people to sue those that endorse motorcycles we all know they are two wheel death traps and anyone who endorses these things should know better and therefore should be held responsible because they caused us to buy them by using their influence over me as a celebrity.

So you can see that allowing people to sue because they are idiots and don't know any better shouldn't be allowed but that really would require a huge tort(?) system reform that I don't see happening. I honestly don't think this case is going to go anywhere. What ever happened to taking ownership for your own stupid actions and not blaming everyone else when you should have known better.
Click to expand...

I'm not debating anything you said because there are already laws in place. Financial securities are held to a completely different standard than other products. You may disagree with this, but financial security laws are essential to protect from scams.

Those who offer and sell securities in the United States must comply with the federal securities laws. Any celebrity or other individual who promotes a virtual token or coin that is a security must disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion. A failure to disclose this information is a violation of the anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws. I guess in this case they were "technically" promoting a "platform" (FTX) and bit the "coin" aka "FTT" but that should not give people a pass to promote obvious scams.
 
mrzuzzo, I'm probably 99% in agreement with you on regulation and I appreciate your contributions to this discussion. I just think pursuing celebrities who are paid spokespersons is way, way down the list of needed reforms.
 
mrzuzzo said:
I'm not debating anything you said because there are already laws in place. Financial securities are held to a completely different standard than other products. You may disagree with this, but financial security laws are essential to protect from scams.

Those who offer and sell securities in the United States must comply with the federal securities laws. Any celebrity or other individual who promotes a virtual token or coin that is a security must disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion. A failure to disclose this information is a violation of the anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws. I guess in this case they were "technically" promoting a "platform" (FTX) and bit the "coin" aka "FTT" but that should not give people a pass to promote obvious scams.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think we agree on this in principle, but I think it's very clear from the ads I've seen, produced by FTX which included these celebrities that they were paid actors and not randomly supporting the app because they liked it. I do think that positive mentions on social media, or in interviews, or anything like that, does need to have disclosure of any payment or financial interest.

I definitely don't think that celebs who have followed the law on disclosure of payment or financial interest should be accountable for a companies fraud unless they either knew about the fraud and did nothing about it, or were complicit in the fraud.
 
ScarySpikes said:
More worryingly, the reason Binance didn't step in and 'save' FTX seems to basically be a personal beef between the respective owners of the 2 companies. There is no way a traditional central bank could get away with making a decision that damages all of their customers financially (which this did) just because they want to specifically fuck over one guy.
Click to expand...

During the DD of the Biance buyout of FTX, on day #2, Binance figured out very quickly that FTX's balance sheet didn't work. It literally took less than 24 hours for them to say "thanks, but no thanks", and then proceed to dump FTT on the market knowing the end was already at hand for FTX and FTT. It may have looked like lead plundering, but in truth Binance looking into SBF's soul and saw dog shit. That's one thing about a buyout: your buyer gets to see all your numbers...and in a Crypto exchange/ fund it's hard to hide the BS.

The grand irony here is FTX's plan to use leveraged buyouts to beat Binance/ CZ is what put SBF in a position where he needed the liquidity infusion of Binance in early November. His Voyager buyout was a clue to CZ and harbinger. CZ knew what to look for on FTX's sheet. His dumping of FTT wasn't just smart, it also DID end SBF's $B+ fortune run. Two birds...

In the end, the scam had been running some time. If you use Google's custom date range and go back more than two months to a year ago, they articles are hand rubbing glorious. What idiots...


mrzuzzo said:
https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1592710177152995328?t=j6ZxKGHOPjzQbeL-pF3rrA&s=19

After swindling billions from customers small and large, SBF is a free man and openly talking about running another ponzi scheme.

The future of finance, people! :laughing
Click to expand...

American Greed is The best show on TV.

Patience eventually reveals the scam, in grand collapse. It's been said for some time that Crypto's exposure is in the lack of backstops and regulation. It appears that now people understand what was meant by "regulation" and "exposure". That exposure still exists...I honesty had no idea so many exchanges were all failing on liquidity concerns. It's like money pyramids built on John Ponzi's shoulders, when I read how the industry was operating. At least pulling the lever you have a chance of a waitress bringing you a drink at some point...

mrzuzzo said:
Agree 100%

Yes, but, he's literally proposing paying off old investors with new investors money to make them whole. Pretty sure I've heard of that concept before, can't quite put my finger on it.. :laughing
Click to expand...

What size are you? It's made for us...

charles-ponzi-portrait-circa-1920-war-is-hell-store-transparent.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top