961–970 of 976 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tether is unaudited. USDC has at least been audited by a global tier-1 accounting firm. That’s a huge difference.
And as we all know from 2008, large accounting firms would never lie about the quality of other companies for their own benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is about as logical as saying "just because we signed a contract doesnt mean I need to uphold my end of the contract. you should have known I wasnt going to be able to fulfill my end of our agreement" I agree with personal responsibility but not at the expense of communication. Imagine if every single person who moved a package was required to open the package and confirm the contents. It may be the only way to…
Yes but the thing is that you know that this "asset class" is unregulated - in fact it's one of its strongest selling points and one of the traits people tout as a benefit - it should be abundantly clear that "non-scams" are the exception not the norm. If I write "i owe you a billion dollars for your 64 diamonds" on a minecraft sign you shouldn't be surprised if I don't hold up my end of that.
The more a community holds itself accountable without regulation, the less regulation the community needs. If people always avoided unregulated assets because of your logic - we wouldnt have any regulated markets today.
Non-scams are the norm where I come from and with the people I interact with. Maybe it is cultural. Some cultures held people accountable for their bullshit and some didnt... and now the expectations for responsibility are different. "you should expect to get scammed" vs "if you find a scammer we will deal with them"
>If I write "i owe you a billion dollars for your 64 diamonds" on a minecraft sign you shouldn't be surprised if I don't hold up my end of that.
If you take my 64 diamonds, deny me a billion dollars, and then refuse to give the 64 diamonds back.. that is theft. In minecraft, I would then proceed to remove your health bar, take what I want from you, pour lava buckets on your house, etc. And you should not be surprised by that.
Abusing a lack of regulation causes chaos, and hinders the ability of communities to grow stronger. Weak communities enable unnecessary suffering. There is an ethical responsibility to make an example out of people who manipulate communication to scam others. It is one of the few things nature allowed us to have to enable building communities in the first place.
If scamming is currently the norm, then it is currently hunting season.
The speculation in this thread is silly. While Tether is certainly opaque (you could say shady), it's incredibly doubtful that it's unbacked to a significant extent. Even if it's only backed at 50% (which would be really shocking to me), it would take 39B$ to flow through the system to actually cause a depeg. That's very unlikely, and just the logistics of it means it would leave a lot of time to Tether to clear the…
> Consider that being "nakedly" unbacked (no underlying assets) in any meaningful capacity would qualify Tether's leadership for a quick trip to prison — as they've repeatedly said they were fully backed. They said on their website they were regularly audited, too, and never completed one. There’s years worth of clear lies from Tether.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what the post you replied to said at all and you are being intentionally obtuse. There is a reason the SEC exists. It's not to keep people from making bad decisions.
Well, it sort of is. The rules about not lying to investors, having accurate financial statements, and so on, are to help them avoid making bad investment decisions. The "accredited investor" limitations are supposed to make it harder for unsophisticated investors to lose their money.
I think the issue is assuming people who get scammed are at fault for something, just because a more paranoid person would have avoided the scam.
Regulation will not stop me from selling a potato for $100. it will stop me from selling a regular potato for $100 while claiming it cures cancer.
Buying a potato for $100 would be dumb, and nothing stops me from doing it
Buying a cancer-curing potato for $100 is not dumb. Believing a potato can cure cancer because someone else is publicly selling it to me that way in full view of the entire world is not dumb. I would think "oh wow, something about this potato must be cancer-curing because surely this guy knows that if he scams me in front of the public then the public will hold him accountable."
So it is now time to hold people accountable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The American dream is to make it through hard work Now that's the actual con, or at least a pipe dream. Hard work is never enough. Luck plays a huge factor but few who get lucky, and then rich, will ever admit to that part.
I admit it. Many of my peers do. Luck is fickle and hard quantify. Effort and decision making less so. It is at least obvious why people have such a bias.
I am not implying it is all luck, but there is never no luck involved in success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.sec.gov/about.shtml Basically, it's exactly that.
So no, it's not. The SEC is there to protect investors from malicious actors to allow them to make informed decisions not based on lies & manipulation. Now one can be informed but also choose to make stupid decisions. People do this all the time on penny stocks, options, etc... The SEC has no interest in trying to stop them, just making sure they know up from what they are getting into.
Other than that, lies and manipulation are part of the equation. It's a bad decision to blindly trust anyone or anything. You can't separate smelling bs from judgement.
The whole concept of an accredited investor is basically saving people from themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, let's eliminate all regulations. Some of you may die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take /s I mentioned it to another, but have some humanity and empathy for those less "smart" than yourself.
The empathy goes both ways. Many people who oppose regulation like this don't oppose it because they are happy for "dumb people" to lose money. They truly believe that there is so much regulation these days that people aren't faced with conmen often enough to wise up to it. A person offering you "product insurance" at the checkout is conning you. The car dealer is trying to con you. Anyone suggesting you can double y…
You're still thinking of it as something people can learn, but psychology / history says otherwise.
This is why I say empathy is important. For you, it's obvious. For others, it's not.
In addition, there are other factors at play, like desperation (when you're living paycheck to paycheck, you _want_ to believe there's a way out).
Everyone has different experiences / situations to grapple with, and as a society we should try to help folks find the happy path and protect them. Especially so for those of us who recognize cons!
So I guess I wouldn't understand the "empathy goes both way" statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So no, it's not. The SEC is there to protect investors from malicious actors to allow them to make informed decisions not based on lies & manipulation. Now one can be informed but also choose to make stupid decisions. People do this all the time on penny stocks, options, etc... The SEC has no interest in trying to stop them, just making sure they know up from what they are getting into.
Non accredited investors aren't allowed to invest in many things where the seller of securities is telling the truth. Most startups in the US under most scenarios cannot go around pitching non accredited investors. Other than that, lies and manipulation are part of the equation. It's a bad decision to blindly trust anyone or anything. You can't separate smelling bs from judgement. The whole concept of an accredited i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The empathy goes both ways. Many people who oppose regulation like this don't oppose it because they are happy for "dumb people" to lose money. They truly believe that there is so much regulation these days that people aren't faced with conmen often enough to wise up to it. A person offering you "product insurance" at the checkout is conning you. The car dealer is trying to con you. Anyone suggesting you can double y…
That's not empathy though. The thing is, a lot of folks will get conned over and over, especially as the times change and the cons evolve. You're still thinking of it as something people can learn, but psychology / history says otherwise. This is why I say empathy is important. For you, it's obvious. For others, it's not. In addition, there are other factors at play, like desperation (when you're living paycheck to p…
Your points are certainly valid. I don't think either way results in something perfect or even that good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn’t so long ago we had some fans of crypto on HN, lots of stories how this or that scheme was going to work. First movers want to sound and convince others they are right and “now” is the right time to step in. Most of it can be debunked if you had a good economy course that tells you how value is created.
I think the early days were full of promise. Circa 2010-2015 crypto felt like Wired magazine in 1994 about the internet. Unfortunately, reality is a harsh mistress.
Now they might find some new investors, but it will only delay the inevitable.