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

91–95 of 95 posts

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

#91

Post by calibas »

snapcaster wrote: post #90
calibas wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but first off I never claimed they "make stock trading more open and visible" that was you putting words in my mouth. My whole comment was that they make stock trading the opposite of "open and visible", then you come along and tell me that I don't understand what a dark pool is... That's exactly what a dark pool does, you just see that as a good thing because it benefits investors. I'm more concerned about t…

Why would non-investors care whether trades in something they don't participate happen in a "lit" exchange or a "dark pool"? I don't play basketball, so not concerned at all about changes to basketball rules. Now i'm very confused on your point

It's simple, everybody participates in the global economy (unlike basketball), so shifts in how markets work have far-reaching effects. I'm not convinced that switching to less transparent systems is in the best interest of your average person.

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

#92

Post by devmunchies »

prirun wrote: post #84
devmunchies wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

Maybe they didn't want him to go in front of Congress because they were afraid Congress might grant him immunity. Given all the money he donated to both sides, it seems plausible to me.

I believe congress can only make recommendations, they can't actually pass any judgement from a hearing.

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

#93

Post by brandnewaccount »

amanj41 wrote: post #20
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.

Have seen this conspiracy theory propounded by several people now. Two things: 1) SBF refused to testify right before he was due to anyways: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/12/former-ftx-ceo-sam-bankman-f... 2) The charges he is looking at are so serious, I have a hard time believing it would matter that much whether he racked up one more charge of lying under oath Edit: formatting

Plus, why let him "testify" and potentially spread misinformation, doing even more harm

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

#94

Post by timbit42 »

woah wrote: post #7

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

The stock market was designed to be profitable for shareholders through dividends, not stock price increases. Today, everyone focuses on stock prices instead of dividends.

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

#95

Post by prirun »

devmunchies wrote: post #92
prirun wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they didn't want him to go in front of Congress because they were afraid Congress might grant him immunity. Given all the money he donated to both sides, it seems plausible to me.

I believe congress can only make recommendations, they can't actually pass any judgement from a hearing.

I looked this up before posting my comment. According to Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity:

"In the United States, Congress can also grant criminal immunity (at the Federal level) to witnesses in exchange for testifying.[1]"

Post reply on HN