https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/29/coinflex-ceo-unlikely-to-resume-withdrawals-thursday.htm
CNBC just reporting on this matter of fact-ly. No mention of what a scam this is. Fund one broke ponzi scheme by starting another.
Why is Madoff in jail and these guys aren’t? Is it because he didn’t disguise his bullshit with techno-babble?
There doesn’t appear to be any article at your link.
I assume it was this one?
Well, he’s still in a confined space…
Lantz
3753
I think we’ll definitely see some of them in jail eventually, but these kinds of white collar financial frauds take a while to play out.
That said, it’s not illegal to offer a risky investment and have that investment blow up as long as you’re explicit about the risks and don’t steal the money directly and such. So there’s going to be a bunch of people who did what I would consider terribly unethical and immoral things with no legal exposure. The people who lied about risk or asset backing or stole money directly are another thing.
But also because he stole from the wrong people, not the plebs. That seemed to grease the wheels of justice into spinning very quickly.
Don’t know if it helps since it’s crypto, but at least it’s something.
And oh hey, the Tether market cap drops by a couple hundred million, and Bitcoin’s price goes up above $20k again.
Edit: Briefly, anyway: overnight it dipped below again.
Lantz
3760
Had a bunch of announcements of people charged on various crypto schemes today:
Thrag
3761
Voyager Digital suspending withdrawals.
I like pasting snippits from Techmeme because they summarize everything nicely.
A nice summary of the last month for crypto.
I mean, INAL, but seems to me that might be fraudulent…
Sharpe
3766
If you read it closely it’s clearly misleading But trying to weasel around outright lying - it’s about US dollars being protected but of course a cryptocurrency is not a US dollar so the guarantee does not apply to the crypto instrument. Let me be clear this is imo definitely deceptive - as to whether it’s legally chargeable as fraud I don’t know - I have no knowledge of the relevant statutes
I don’t doubt that there are might be some interesting blockchain applications down the line coming from people who aren’t just profiteering but who want to build a better web. But so far, I don’t see it. And so often when I read this stuff from investors I feel like I’m being DDoS’d by marketing language, needless complexity, and vague future-casting. I believe that much of it is in earnest, but I think that much of it is also intended to obscure how little meat there is on the bone of these arguments. A lot of people simply won’t read a 15-page whitepaper, but they will be impressed by the flowcharts. By making the language of Web3 meandering and impenetrable and by building a culture that is very self-referential, investors make criticism harder to come by.
This is what I think every time I read a new blockchain proposal.
DraiAC
3769
If Voyager did not partner with an actual bank, to open a USD deposit account for customers, then it is fraudulent, and prudential bank regulators don’t take kindly to claiming insured deposits when you don’t have them.
What’s unclear is if Voyager did have that set up when that tweet was made in 2020; their website disclosures currently read as saying deposits are not FDIC insured. There is also no disclosure on their site saying what bank is handling deposit accounts, other than a prepaid debit card through Metropolitan Bank (if a fintech is offering true banking services, the underlying bank must be disclosed).
So they either once did offer bank accounts and no longer do, or they took a big risk in fibbing about have FDIC insured accounts.
