Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#71

Post by devmunchies »

kahrl wrote: post #33
devmunchies wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They jumped the gun on SBF. Should have let him testify in congress. The timing makes it look like they didn’t want him to talk. May not be the case but it’s what it looks like.

BASELESS conspiracy theory.

I didn't propose a conspiracy theory, just noticing suspicious, coincidental timing. Its was THE DAY BEFORE THE HEARING. A conspiracy theory would include why they wouldn't want him to talk (a la Esptein theories).

And its literally not "baseless" if you ask if its coincidental that he was arrested the day before he was supposed to testify, why not let the hearing come and go and if he was a no show then arrest him?

They are just questions.

Regardless, SBF was charged for conspiracy, fraud, collusion, etc. Why are any questions that would throw suspicion on other parties to the conspiracy immediately shut down?

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#72

Post by devmunchies »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #51
devmunchies wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They jumped the gun on SBF. Should have let him testify in congress. The timing makes it look like they didn’t want him to talk. May not be the case but it’s what it looks like.

They can still make him do it now. Prison has zoom calls

not the same dynamic. Now his guard is up and will probably plead the 5th and be behind a team of lawyers.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#73

Post by jsemrau »

Clearly shows that every social platform that was launched with good intentions can be abused by snake-oil salesmen to promote their products.

What would it take to weed this out?

1. Confirm holdings before posting.

2. Display holdings at time of posting to other users.

3. Defined area of expertise (not everyone is an expert in everything) - Always a nice warning sign if people are commenting on stocks all across industries.

4. Peer-reviewed posts. Posts only go live if other experts agree to it.

5. Reduced content velocity - Platforms like Twitter, Stocktwits, Commonstock promote this kind of behaviour by allowing a mix between opinion and insight.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#74

Post by jermaustin1 »

anonporridge wrote: post #36
AccountAccount1 wrote: post #6

This is the list of people they've charged: - Perry Matlock @PJ_Matlock - Edward Constantin @MrZackMorris - Thomas Cooperman @ohheytommy - Gary Deel @notoriousalerts - Mitchell Hennessey @Hugh_Henne - Stefan Hrvatin @LadeBackk - John Rybarcyzk @Ultra_Calls - Daniel Knight (@DipDeity)

It's nice to see I don't know, much less follow, any of these people. Similar feeling to when SBF went bust. Even though I'm heavily involved in the bitcoin space, I barely knew anything about him other than vague praise of his effective altruism ideals and more pro-crypto/anti-bitcoin stance and that he ran a seedy, off shore exchange. Only afterwards did a lot of the people I actually do follow and respect resurfac…

I followed Zack Morris, but I and everyone knew he was a pump and dump runner. His tagline was "The pump never dies" or something.

I tried a handful of times to short his pumps right at the rug pull, but almost every single time, I lost my position due to a short squeeze.

I ended up losing around $10k, had I been able to hold my positions (more cash in my margin account basically), they would be HUGE wins, because almost every stock he pumped went to near $0 within a few weeks/months. But the poor people who kept the squeezes alive lost so much more when the bottom fell out.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#75

Post by snapcaster »

jsemrau wrote: post #73

Clearly shows that every social platform that was launched with good intentions can be abused by snake-oil salesmen to promote their products. What would it take to weed this out? 1. Confirm holdings before posting. 2. Display holdings at time of posting to other users. 3. Defined area of expertise (not everyone is an expert in everything) - Always a nice warning sign if people are commenting on stocks all across ind…

I don't think any of that would work. I'm not letting the criminals off the hook but we have to acknowledge that the people who are taking stock pick advice from "The Stock Sniper" on twitter are greedy morons. They aren't reading financial statements let alone some kind of peer-reviewed research. In fact, Bed Bath and Beyond stock cultists got confirmed (by SEC filings) dumped on by Ryan Cohen and they're still claiming he's somehow long on the company's future

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#76

Post by snapcaster »

woah wrote: post #7

Finally, people are starting to realize that the "stock market" is a huge scam

This gave me the opposite feeling. Watching all these criminals run pump and dumps openly for the last two years was making me start to feel like the "stock market is a scam". Seeing these people be prosecuted actually _increases_ my faith in the market

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#77

Post by snapcaster »

calibas wrote: post #58
devmor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its fair to call the stock market a scam. I do think it's fair to say that a large part of how the stock market is used is in scams. Ideally, the stock market should be an open, visible and free agency for the population to invest in and gain returns from supporting publicly traded businesses. I just think it's far too unregulated (or perhaps, improperly regulated is the right term) to operate in that w…

> Ideally, the stock market should be an open, visible and free agency for the population to invest in and gain returns from supporting publicly traded businesses. Now that trading is moving to "dark pools", things seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

You don't seem to understand what a "dark pool" is and I can't help but get the feeling your financial world model has been poisoned by supporters of very specific stocks. Please step out of whatever place you're learning this stuff from and expose yourself to alternative explanations for the things you're seeing

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#78

Post by fineIllregister »

devmunchies wrote: post #72
cuteboy19 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can still make him do it now. Prison has zoom calls

not the same dynamic. Now his guard is up and will probably plead the 5th and be behind a team of lawyers.

The DOJ has a 95% conviction rate. SBF has confessed to illegal activity in his many interviews. His coworkers are believed to have cut deals. The new CEO is helping the feds, so they have expert testimony and access to all the material evidence.

It is over for SBF (barring a miracle). They weren't going to get anything from his congressional testimony.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#79

Post by anonporridge »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #74
anonporridge wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nice to see I don't know, much less follow, any of these people. Similar feeling to when SBF went bust. Even though I'm heavily involved in the bitcoin space, I barely knew anything about him other than vague praise of his effective altruism ideals and more pro-crypto/anti-bitcoin stance and that he ran a seedy, off shore exchange. Only afterwards did a lot of the people I actually do follow and respect resurfac…

I followed Zack Morris, but I and everyone knew he was a pump and dump runner. His tagline was "The pump never dies" or something. I tried a handful of times to short his pumps right at the rug pull, but almost every single time, I lost my position due to a short squeeze. I ended up losing around $10k, had I been able to hold my positions (more cash in my margin account basically), they would be HUGE wins, because al…

The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Post reply on HN