3 ms·

The actual wording at least in the article is "maybe get rich". That doesn't sound like fraud to me. Fraud would have been to claim "you'll certainly get rich".

The actual wording at least in the article is "maybe get rich". That doesn't sound like fraud to me. Fraud would have been to claim "you'll certainly get rich". Journalists must have known they are gambling if they don#t receive real money for their work. If not, they were incredibly naive and perhaps have learned a valuable lesson. Namely, don't rely on empty promises. The article mentions stock options. Stock options also don't always pan out. It rather feels as if these journalists feel entitled somehow to their riches, as they have seen their brothers in tech receive. But they forget to think about the people in tech who toiled in startups that failed and who also received nothing.

benj111 8y ago
It can still be fraud, even if its 'maybe get rich'. If they misrepresent the risks, if they issue more tokens than what they said, that's all fraud. "you may get back less than you put in" isn't carte blanche to fleece the investors.
- lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
  Sure - but what indication is there that they made false promises?
  - wyattpeak 8y ago
    The direct claim of Jay Cassano. "Civil repeatedly promised the tokens would be worth at least 75 cents. I have the documents to prove it." Once again, no idea if this is true. But suggesting there's no indication is disingenuous.
    - lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
      But unless it is written down in contract? I don't know - why would anybody take the token "because it will be worth at least 75 cents", instead of 75 cents? I find it hard to imagine how to spin such a scheme, in an age of ICOs and crypto hype, without people being aware of the risks? I still think it is like startup options: people have to learn that if they want to earn x, they should put it into the contract, and not be satisfied with a vague promise of possible riches in the future. It is so basic that I find it hard to sympathize.
      - wyattpeak 8y ago
        You're shifting the goalposts, so I'm not going to discuss it further. You asked where it was indicated, I told you.
PeterisP 8y ago
If we're talking about "maybe get rich" then the relevant word is "regulated securities". If you want to trade dreams of "maybe get rich" to others for goods or services (as in this case, the services of journalists), then there's a set of rules that have to followed, pretty much every single nuance of them based on historical cases of mass fraud. Issuing stock options and following all the rules of SEC designed to reduce (though, naturally, not eliminate) fraud is legal. Issuing promises of "maybe get rich" without following this bare minimum of requirements is a crime.

benj111 8y ago

It can still be fraud, even if its 'maybe get rich'. If they misrepresent the risks, if they issue more tokens than what they said, that's all fraud. "you may get back less than you put in" isn't carte blanche to fleece the investors.

lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
Sure - but what indication is there that they made false promises?
- wyattpeak 8y ago
  The direct claim of Jay Cassano. "Civil repeatedly promised the tokens would be worth at least 75 cents. I have the documents to prove it." Once again, no idea if this is true. But suggesting there's no indication is disingenuous.
  - lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
    But unless it is written down in contract? I don't know - why would anybody take the token "because it will be worth at least 75 cents", instead of 75 cents? I find it hard to imagine how to spin such a scheme, in an age of ICOs and crypto hype, without people being aware of the risks? I still think it is like startup options: people have to learn that if they want to earn x, they should put it into the contract, and not be satisfied with a vague promise of possible riches in the future. It is so basic that I find it hard to sympathize.
    - wyattpeak 8y ago
      You're shifting the goalposts, so I'm not going to discuss it further. You asked where it was indicated, I told you.

PeterisP 8y ago

If we're talking about "maybe get rich" then the relevant word is "regulated securities". If you want to trade dreams of "maybe get rich" to others for goods or services (as in this case, the services of journalists), then there's a set of rules that have to followed, pretty much every single nuance of them based on historical cases of mass fraud. Issuing stock options and following all the rules of SEC designed to reduce (though, naturally, not eliminate) fraud is legal. Issuing promises of "maybe get rich" without following this bare minimum of requirements is a crime.