7 ms·

Dear Floyd Mayweather, you’re why the SEC exists

121 points by janober 9y ago

nnfy 9y ago
Based on what I've seen in the off-media, I don't know that Mr. Mayweather understands much outside of boxing; I fear this article would fall on blind eyes if he would even read it. Then again, thats partly the purpose of the SEC, right? To protect people from ignorance?
- simpfai 9y ago
  According to Connor McGregor, Mr. Mayweather "can't even read" so your fear is definitely valid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2017/07/13/cant-even-read-conor-mcgregor-roasts-floyd-mayweather-toronto/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2017/07/13/cant-even-read-...
  - balls187 9y ago
    That's not McGregor's line. That started a while back from Mayweathers feud with 50Cent in response to a radio program where Mayweather struggled to read the promos aloud.
    - retroafroman 9y ago
      50 Cent is another guy who himself has made lots of money [0], and been technically bankrupt [1], but somehow did fine [2]. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/50-cent-tweeting-about-hnhi-2011-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/50-cent-tweeting-about-hnhi-2... [1] http://nypost.com/2015/09/05/heres-how-50-cent-went-broke/ http://nypost.com/2015/09/05/heres-how-50-cent-went-broke/ [2] http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/50-cent-to-end-bankruptcy-case-with-23-million-payout-20160707 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/50-cent-to-end-bankru...
- sremani 9y ago
  Floyd Mayweather understands "money" and understands how to acquire or increase it by "social proofing". His stunt is so successful that, even on HN ,people will be like what is stox ico and look for it.
  - econnors 9y ago
    Does he? He still hasn't paid his 2015 taxes: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boxing-mayweather-idUSKBN19V2NQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boxing-mayweather-idUSKBN...
Mikeb85 9y ago
You're allowed to state you're invested in something, or promote it. Not against any securities rules.
- twinkletwinkle 9y ago
  No one is saying the SEC exists to prevent Floyd from saying what he wants to say. The SEC exists to protect less informed investors from being influenced by what Floyd says. That's why they have rules about disclosures and/or accredited investors, which are lagging behind on ICOs
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >No one is saying the SEC exists to prevent Floyd from saying what he wants to say. The SEC exists to protect less informed investors from being influenced by what Floyd says. By preventing Floyd from saying what he wants to say.
    - uxp 9y ago
      Not really. Floyd can say whatever he wants to say, he just needs to warn people that they might not be able to weather the loss. Just like if I was to say that I think Apple's stock is going to soar now that they've discontinued the iPod and can focus more embedded development into the Apple Watch and TV and something something pulled out of my ass, I should also state that: All statements and expressions are the sole opinion of the commenter and are subject to change without notice. The Commenter is not liable for any investment decisions by its readers or subscribers. It is strongly recommended that any purchase or sale decision be discussed with a financial adviser, or a broker-dealer, or a member of any financial regulatory bodies. The information contained herein has been provided as an information service only. The accuracy or completeness of the information is not warranted and is only as reliable as the sources from which it was obtained. Investors are cautioned that they may lose all or a portion of their investment in this or any other company.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
spunker540 9y ago
I get that the SEC exists for very good reasons - but a part me wishes that ICOs and cryptocurrencies as a whole could remain unregulated. Sort of like an economic free-for-all zone: risky, experimental, not for the faint of heart. At the same time, I guess the only way for these to become mainstream is for them to be regulated. Hopefully regulations help them thrive rather than dampen growth. Time will tell. Regardless I'd like to see the SEC at least send a warning shot Floyd's way, cause he seems out of his depth and he's trying to bring his fans with him.
- wmf 9y ago
  You can create whatever crazy investment you want as long as you limit it to qualified investors. But those people mostly won't fall for pump-and-dump ICOs.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    You overestimate how much qualification is needed to be a qualified investor.
    - etjossem 9y ago
      Qualified doesn't mean clever, it just means "losing isn't a big deal." The only people to whom losing a 50-100k investment won't be life-changingly bad are either high net worth or high income. There is a lot of frustration from this crowd about not being able to invest a sensibly small amount of money in an ICO / early stage startup / other risky thing. As a curious technologist who can handle a bit of risk, I can empathize! But we're not who the SEC is designed to protect. They're there to stop situations where people get half their life savings ripped off, and that is completely sensible.
  - api 9y ago
    Could you write a smart contract requiring someone to prove that they control enough currency to qualify ?
    - 9y ago
discombobulate 9y ago
Can buy some cigarettes, can't buy investments. The little people need protection from dat ROCE.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  Cigarettes are probably not the best product for your argument as they are highly regulated.
  - quickthrower2 9y ago
    Fine art would be a good example?
  - discombobulate 9y ago
    Regulations aren't heterogeneous. Edit Aren't homogenous, brah.
tabeth 9y ago
From my limited understanding, ICOs are more or less a tax on being stupid, as (relatively) intelligent individuals ride the cryptocurrency wave, profiting off the naive greed of the dumb. In other words, money made off cryptocurrencies are zero sum. Similar to how money made from stocks are zero sum (for every buyer their must be a seller and if one made money the other must have lost for the buyer to have gained, yadda yadda) if you ignore dividends. Any truth to this statement? I've tried to gather some more information but I still fail to see the advantage of any cryptocurrency for the average person conducting an average, typical transaction. I don't see how everyone investing in crytocurrencies can make money. EDIT: It seems this comment has riled a few people up. Basically, all I was trying to say is that the simplistic stock market (one without dividends) and bitcoins are very similar as they seem to be built on irrationality. People taking advantage of this irrationality in my view is how "dumb" people end up broke and the ICO sponsors or what have you run away with the dumb people's money.
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  Stocks are certainly not zero sum. If they were then the implication is that they have no intrinsic value.
  - tabeth 9y ago
    Ignoring dividends, what intrinsic value do stocks have? I'd be curious to know how the stock market, ignoring dividends, is not a zero sum game. Maybe my understanding of "zero sum" is incorrect.
    - umanwizard 9y ago
      > Ignoring dividends This is like saying "ignoring calories, what intrinsic value does food have?" The whole point of stocks is that they pay dividends, or in the case of some high-growth tech companies, they have some probability of paying dividends in the future.
      - revelation 9y ago
balls187 9y ago
> It’s impossible to know if Stox paid you to promote their ICO. It’d be fairly sleazy if they did, but either way, you have a responsibility to be forthcoming about what you stand to gain and what your passionate followers stand to lose. FTC ruled that paid sponsors must disclose that fact on Social Media posts.
- xxr 9y ago
  True, but it doesn't appear to be readily enforced. One of the lawsuits involving the Fyre Festival revolves around sponsored social media posts that failed to disclose that sponsorship.[1] Certainly, someone could come and sue Mayweather, but not before he dumps the pump. [1]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fyre-festival-sparks-class-action-lawsuit-999793 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fyre-festival-spark...
- soared 9y ago
  Yeah but with ICOs he doesn't really need to be paid directly. If he justs buys at the ICO price, promotoes it 'own his own', and dumps it after his marketing efforts have increased the price, that would be legal (?).
whack 9y ago
How is this any different from Ashton Kutcher being publicly bullish about Bitcoin, or Mark Cuban endorsing unikrn? Or more generally, any celebrity flaunting high-priced luxury goods like BMWs and Rolexes? Yeah, it feels great to be all self-righteous and lecture Mayweather, but that energy would be far better spent imparting financial literacy on the hundreds of millions who don't know any better. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100696230 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100696230 https://www.coindesk.com/celebrity-investor-mark-cuban-participate-first-ico/ https://www.coindesk.com/celebrity-investor-mark-cuban-parti...
- Rmilb 9y ago
  Bitcoin is not a security so I don't think the comparison is valid. Your other examples don't involve securities or the SEC. I'm not familiar enough with Unikrn to comment on that.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  This is a fluid development, but basically until Stox proves that it isn't a security, then securities regulations apply. In this case it means lots of disclosures for safe harbor from litigation when it goes bust. (PSLRA) How is it different than bitcoin or unikrn? Loaded question, but the main thing is that not all tokens are the same. As in, just because something is tokenized doesn't mean the same things apply. Even the SEC understands that, and proved so with their no action report from a few days ago, even though nobody read it and just used the headline to confirm their worldview. Regulations apply to securities. Bitcoin isn't considered a security. Unikrn might be. Stox might be. This is a factor of how they are offered, issued, and used.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >but basically until Stox proves that it isn't a security, then securities regulations apply That's not how it works.
Jabanga 9y ago
The attitude expressed in the article, of assuming one group of adults has a right to create laws restricting what is offered in the marketplace to other groups of adults, to protect the latter from their own naivety and bad judgement, is incredibly paternalistic. It exudes a superiority complex and disdain for the personal autonomy of presumed lesser men and women. >ICOs, like any other securities offering, come with risks. There has been no statement from the SEC that all token sales qualify as securities offerings.
OliverJones 9y ago
It's true that buying shares in any new offering is risky. It's true that celeb endorsements can convince some otherwise careful people to behave riskily. It's true that selling shares in a decent index fund to buy shares in an initial offering is risky. And people should be careful. (duh.) It's a good reason to be skeptical of stuff like celeb endorsements and guarantees of resturns. But there's another side to the SEC regulation system. It has been captured by the industry it's supposed to regulate. It serves the existing investment industry very well, and main street investors not so much (witness the Madoff mess). The tonnage of legal work required to meet the regulations raises a barrier to entry to new players. Google, in their IPO, managed to innovate in this area. But they already had a lot of political clout. It would be helpful if there were ways to expand access.
chrsstrm 9y ago
The concept of an ICO is still somewhat new to me and I'm trying to figure out how Mayweather is so sure he is going to make money on this offering. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the simplest terms: I'm assuming Mayweather is not an owner of STOX, just a 3rd party participant in the offering. His plan would be to attempt to corner the market on STOX tokens on release and then pray to Cthulhu that demand for the tokens outpaces supply, triggering a rise in price. He then starts to sell his tokens, taking advantage of good old fashioned price arbitrage (which he himself was trying to influence). Does this sound about right?
needlessly 9y ago
i'm not sure why this guy thinks Floyd would care what he thinks.
- soared 9y ago
  Obviously the article is to inform readers, not aimed at Floyd. The title is just to get clicks.
crazydoggers 9y ago
Why aren't we talking about the fact that Stox is basically a bucket shop? Isn't that the bigger issue than the celeb who is promoting the bucket shop?? Oh wait... it's a "prediction market"... lol. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market)
- noddy1 9y ago
  exactly - more info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bancor/comments/6o34fz/heads_up_for_those_who_intend_to_invest_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bancor/comments/6o34fz/heads_up_for... "Tali Yaron-Eldar, Israel’s income tax commissioner from 2002 to 2004, in 2007 founded eTrader, a binary options firm that targets Israelis, along with Shay Ben-Asulin, who also co-founded AnyOption, one of Israel’s largest binary options companies with revenues in the tens of millions of dollars. In 2011, Ben-Asulin was indicted by the United States for securities fraud, and last month he was convicted of fraud by an Israeli court for helping an Israeli credit card company, ICC-CAL, illegally clear billions of shekels of charges from porn, binary options and gambling websites, as well as conceal the number of canceled transactions." AnyOption was bought by invest.com and the customer numbers bragged about in the STOX ico are those of anyoption. For more information on the anyoption.com scam: https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.anyoption.com https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.anyoption.com They seem to have destroyed their reputation by refusing to pay out investor funds. For more information on this style of israeli bucketshop binary options scam: http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv-israels-vast-amoral-binary-options-scam-exposed/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv-israels-...

121 points by janober 9y ago

nnfy 9y ago

Based on what I've seen in the off-media, I don't know that Mr. Mayweather understands much outside of boxing; I fear this article would fall on blind eyes if he would even read it. Then again, thats partly the purpose of the SEC, right? To protect people from ignorance?

simpfai 9y ago
According to Connor McGregor, Mr. Mayweather "can't even read" so your fear is definitely valid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2017/07/13/cant-even-read-conor-mcgregor-roasts-floyd-mayweather-toronto/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2017/07/13/cant-even-read-...
- balls187 9y ago
  That's not McGregor's line. That started a while back from Mayweathers feud with 50Cent in response to a radio program where Mayweather struggled to read the promos aloud.
  - retroafroman 9y ago
    50 Cent is another guy who himself has made lots of money [0], and been technically bankrupt [1], but somehow did fine [2]. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/50-cent-tweeting-about-hnhi-2011-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/50-cent-tweeting-about-hnhi-2... [1] http://nypost.com/2015/09/05/heres-how-50-cent-went-broke/ http://nypost.com/2015/09/05/heres-how-50-cent-went-broke/ [2] http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/50-cent-to-end-bankruptcy-case-with-23-million-payout-20160707 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/50-cent-to-end-bankru...
sremani 9y ago
Floyd Mayweather understands "money" and understands how to acquire or increase it by "social proofing". His stunt is so successful that, even on HN ,people will be like what is stox ico and look for it.
- econnors 9y ago
  Does he? He still hasn't paid his 2015 taxes: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boxing-mayweather-idUSKBN19V2NQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boxing-mayweather-idUSKBN...

Mikeb85 9y ago

You're allowed to state you're invested in something, or promote it. Not against any securities rules.

twinkletwinkle 9y ago
No one is saying the SEC exists to prevent Floyd from saying what he wants to say. The SEC exists to protect less informed investors from being influenced by what Floyd says. That's why they have rules about disclosures and/or accredited investors, which are lagging behind on ICOs
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >No one is saying the SEC exists to prevent Floyd from saying what he wants to say. The SEC exists to protect less informed investors from being influenced by what Floyd says. By preventing Floyd from saying what he wants to say.
  - uxp 9y ago
    Not really. Floyd can say whatever he wants to say, he just needs to warn people that they might not be able to weather the loss. Just like if I was to say that I think Apple's stock is going to soar now that they've discontinued the iPod and can focus more embedded development into the Apple Watch and TV and something something pulled out of my ass, I should also state that: All statements and expressions are the sole opinion of the commenter and are subject to change without notice. The Commenter is not liable for any investment decisions by its readers or subscribers. It is strongly recommended that any purchase or sale decision be discussed with a financial adviser, or a broker-dealer, or a member of any financial regulatory bodies. The information contained herein has been provided as an information service only. The accuracy or completeness of the information is not warranted and is only as reliable as the sources from which it was obtained. Investors are cautioned that they may lose all or a portion of their investment in this or any other company.
    - Jabanga 9y ago

spunker540 9y ago

I get that the SEC exists for very good reasons - but a part me wishes that ICOs and cryptocurrencies as a whole could remain unregulated. Sort of like an economic free-for-all zone: risky, experimental, not for the faint of heart. At the same time, I guess the only way for these to become mainstream is for them to be regulated. Hopefully regulations help them thrive rather than dampen growth. Time will tell. Regardless I'd like to see the SEC at least send a warning shot Floyd's way, cause he seems out of his depth and he's trying to bring his fans with him.

wmf 9y ago
You can create whatever crazy investment you want as long as you limit it to qualified investors. But those people mostly won't fall for pump-and-dump ICOs.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  You overestimate how much qualification is needed to be a qualified investor.
  - etjossem 9y ago
    Qualified doesn't mean clever, it just means "losing isn't a big deal." The only people to whom losing a 50-100k investment won't be life-changingly bad are either high net worth or high income. There is a lot of frustration from this crowd about not being able to invest a sensibly small amount of money in an ICO / early stage startup / other risky thing. As a curious technologist who can handle a bit of risk, I can empathize! But we're not who the SEC is designed to protect. They're there to stop situations where people get half their life savings ripped off, and that is completely sensible.
- api 9y ago
  Could you write a smart contract requiring someone to prove that they control enough currency to qualify ?
  - 9y ago

discombobulate 9y ago

Can buy some cigarettes, can't buy investments. The little people need protection from dat ROCE.

kasey_junk 9y ago
Cigarettes are probably not the best product for your argument as they are highly regulated.
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  Fine art would be a good example?
- discombobulate 9y ago
  Regulations aren't heterogeneous. Edit Aren't homogenous, brah.

tabeth 9y ago

From my limited understanding, ICOs are more or less a tax on being stupid, as (relatively) intelligent individuals ride the cryptocurrency wave, profiting off the naive greed of the dumb. In other words, money made off cryptocurrencies are zero sum. Similar to how money made from stocks are zero sum (for every buyer their must be a seller and if one made money the other must have lost for the buyer to have gained, yadda yadda) if you ignore dividends. Any truth to this statement? I've tried to gather some more information but I still fail to see the advantage of any cryptocurrency for the average person conducting an average, typical transaction. I don't see how everyone investing in crytocurrencies can make money. EDIT: It seems this comment has riled a few people up. Basically, all I was trying to say is that the simplistic stock market (one without dividends) and bitcoins are very similar as they seem to be built on irrationality. People taking advantage of this irrationality in my view is how "dumb" people end up broke and the ICO sponsors or what have you run away with the dumb people's money.

quickthrower2 9y ago
Stocks are certainly not zero sum. If they were then the implication is that they have no intrinsic value.
- tabeth 9y ago
  Ignoring dividends, what intrinsic value do stocks have? I'd be curious to know how the stock market, ignoring dividends, is not a zero sum game. Maybe my understanding of "zero sum" is incorrect.
  - umanwizard 9y ago
    > Ignoring dividends This is like saying "ignoring calories, what intrinsic value does food have?" The whole point of stocks is that they pay dividends, or in the case of some high-growth tech companies, they have some probability of paying dividends in the future.
    - revelation 9y ago

balls187 9y ago

> It’s impossible to know if Stox paid you to promote their ICO. It’d be fairly sleazy if they did, but either way, you have a responsibility to be forthcoming about what you stand to gain and what your passionate followers stand to lose. FTC ruled that paid sponsors must disclose that fact on Social Media posts.

xxr 9y ago
True, but it doesn't appear to be readily enforced. One of the lawsuits involving the Fyre Festival revolves around sponsored social media posts that failed to disclose that sponsorship.[1] Certainly, someone could come and sue Mayweather, but not before he dumps the pump. [1]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fyre-festival-sparks-class-action-lawsuit-999793 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fyre-festival-spark...
soared 9y ago
Yeah but with ICOs he doesn't really need to be paid directly. If he justs buys at the ICO price, promotoes it 'own his own', and dumps it after his marketing efforts have increased the price, that would be legal (?).

whack 9y ago

How is this any different from Ashton Kutcher being publicly bullish about Bitcoin, or Mark Cuban endorsing unikrn? Or more generally, any celebrity flaunting high-priced luxury goods like BMWs and Rolexes? Yeah, it feels great to be all self-righteous and lecture Mayweather, but that energy would be far better spent imparting financial literacy on the hundreds of millions who don't know any better. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100696230 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100696230 https://www.coindesk.com/celebrity-investor-mark-cuban-participate-first-ico/ https://www.coindesk.com/celebrity-investor-mark-cuban-parti...

Rmilb 9y ago
Bitcoin is not a security so I don't think the comparison is valid. Your other examples don't involve securities or the SEC. I'm not familiar enough with Unikrn to comment on that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
This is a fluid development, but basically until Stox proves that it isn't a security, then securities regulations apply. In this case it means lots of disclosures for safe harbor from litigation when it goes bust. (PSLRA) How is it different than bitcoin or unikrn? Loaded question, but the main thing is that not all tokens are the same. As in, just because something is tokenized doesn't mean the same things apply. Even the SEC understands that, and proved so with their no action report from a few days ago, even though nobody read it and just used the headline to confirm their worldview. Regulations apply to securities. Bitcoin isn't considered a security. Unikrn might be. Stox might be. This is a factor of how they are offered, issued, and used.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >but basically until Stox proves that it isn't a security, then securities regulations apply That's not how it works.

Jabanga 9y ago

The attitude expressed in the article, of assuming one group of adults has a right to create laws restricting what is offered in the marketplace to other groups of adults, to protect the latter from their own naivety and bad judgement, is incredibly paternalistic. It exudes a superiority complex and disdain for the personal autonomy of presumed lesser men and women. >ICOs, like any other securities offering, come with risks. There has been no statement from the SEC that all token sales qualify as securities offerings.

OliverJones 9y ago

It's true that buying shares in any new offering is risky. It's true that celeb endorsements can convince some otherwise careful people to behave riskily. It's true that selling shares in a decent index fund to buy shares in an initial offering is risky. And people should be careful. (duh.) It's a good reason to be skeptical of stuff like celeb endorsements and guarantees of resturns. But there's another side to the SEC regulation system. It has been captured by the industry it's supposed to regulate. It serves the existing investment industry very well, and main street investors not so much (witness the Madoff mess). The tonnage of legal work required to meet the regulations raises a barrier to entry to new players. Google, in their IPO, managed to innovate in this area. But they already had a lot of political clout. It would be helpful if there were ways to expand access.

chrsstrm 9y ago

The concept of an ICO is still somewhat new to me and I'm trying to figure out how Mayweather is so sure he is going to make money on this offering. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the simplest terms: I'm assuming Mayweather is not an owner of STOX, just a 3rd party participant in the offering. His plan would be to attempt to corner the market on STOX tokens on release and then pray to Cthulhu that demand for the tokens outpaces supply, triggering a rise in price. He then starts to sell his tokens, taking advantage of good old fashioned price arbitrage (which he himself was trying to influence). Does this sound about right?

needlessly 9y ago

i'm not sure why this guy thinks Floyd would care what he thinks.

soared 9y ago
Obviously the article is to inform readers, not aimed at Floyd. The title is just to get clicks.

crazydoggers 9y ago

Why aren't we talking about the fact that Stox is basically a bucket shop? Isn't that the bigger issue than the celeb who is promoting the bucket shop?? Oh wait... it's a "prediction market"... lol. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market)

noddy1 9y ago
exactly - more info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bancor/comments/6o34fz/heads_up_for_those_who_intend_to_invest_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bancor/comments/6o34fz/heads_up_for... "Tali Yaron-Eldar, Israel’s income tax commissioner from 2002 to 2004, in 2007 founded eTrader, a binary options firm that targets Israelis, along with Shay Ben-Asulin, who also co-founded AnyOption, one of Israel’s largest binary options companies with revenues in the tens of millions of dollars. In 2011, Ben-Asulin was indicted by the United States for securities fraud, and last month he was convicted of fraud by an Israeli court for helping an Israeli credit card company, ICC-CAL, illegally clear billions of shekels of charges from porn, binary options and gambling websites, as well as conceal the number of canceled transactions." AnyOption was bought by invest.com and the customer numbers bragged about in the STOX ico are those of anyoption. For more information on the anyoption.com scam: https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.anyoption.com https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.anyoption.com They seem to have destroyed their reputation by refusing to pay out investor funds. For more information on this style of israeli bucketshop binary options scam: http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv-israels-vast-amoral-binary-options-scam-exposed/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv-israels-...