4 ms·

Sadly, this seems about right. Both MLM and NFT and ICO tokens are mostly used to dump bad investments onto clueless suckers. Of course, there's also useful use

Sadly, this seems about right. Both MLM and NFT and ICO tokens are mostly used to dump bad investments onto clueless suckers. Of course, there's also useful uses, which is why I own some crypto myself. But if you design a system to avoid legal oversight as much as possible, then of course there won't be much legal oversight to protect the stupid from intelligent scams. In the end, that means the whole Web 3.0 and crypto complaints boil down to a simple question: Should our government protect (idiots|naive investors) from getting scammed? I'd argue yes, to make society more peaceful and more stable. But one could also argue that this is just the financial survival of the fittest and, hence, a natural rule that suckers get taken advantage of.

senko 5y ago
> Should our government protect (idiots|naive investors) from getting scammed? > But one could also argue that this is just the financial survival of the fittest and, hence, a natural rule that suckers get taken advantage of. In the nation where you have to put "Caution - Hot" on coffee-to-go cups to avoid being sued, I think the answer to that is self-evident.
- barnabee 5y ago
  Not all of us live there or want those rules
- dugite-code 5y ago
  >In the nation where you have to put "Caution - Hot" on coffee-to-go cups to avoid being sued Hate to be that guy but McDonald's got sued over the hot coffee because they continued to serve coffee well above safe temperatures long after valid saftey concerns had been raised. The poor woman recieved 3rd degree burns (something that shouldn't be possible from a spilled beverage). She was publicly vilified for the massive settlement awarded to her when she only asked for reasonable medical costs. Also the "Caution - Hot" warning wouldn't have prevented her from being able to sue for negligence. From the data America isn't nearly as litigious as many media stories make out. In fact after this minor court case it actually became harder to sue companies in America and arguably resulted in may corporations to be less concerned about their affect on the common good.
prox 5y ago
It reminds me of Michael Scott explaining that his new revenue program was not a pyramid scheme and when he draws to explain he draws a pyramid. Anyone I know personally who makes NFT or his interested in it is doing it for speculation, not to make art per se.
igorkraw 5y ago
> Should our government protect (idiots|naive investors) from getting scammed? While the answer for me is yes I also dislike the framing of this. We live in a society that (the US even more than Europe) 1. Over centuries has moved towards more and more privatisation of what used to be commons (land, water, ways, now software), thus forcing people to engage in either business or crime to survive - unless you are born rich 2. Has grown more and more complex to navigate,sometimes by necessity but often via rent seeking (Intuit and taxes) requiring you to spend quite a lot of mental capacity and time to manage it - unless you are rich enough to pay someone to do the work for you 3. Does not really adequately give you the training and time required to acquire these skills - unless you are rich in money enough to afford college and possibly additional training, or have rich/self sacrificing enough parents to navigate college, learn how to separate good free sources from bad free sources etc. (not even bringing in systemic handicaps like lead paint or other cognitively impairing pollution in low income areas) 4. Has grown a hundreds of billion dollar industry around manipulating people, with useful information ever more difficult to distinguish from "sponsored posts" etc. - reinforcing the above 3 points. The swamp of influencers feeding parasocial relationships to monetize as part of that that is especially normalized throughout all of life and entertainment - unless you can afford paying for "high quality" media that doesn't feature them (in cash or in time searching for gems) and we blame individuals for getting scammed? All of the above boil down to "if you are already privileged, you can avoid getting scammed" and most of the moralistic arguments people use (greed, stupidity, impulsive,lazy...) are "fuck the poor" in disguise: fuck the poor for having poor impulse control (nevermind lead paint, unresolved trauma because there was no therapist money, not having the time to learn that impulse control before being thrust into work...), fuck the poor for their greed (never mind the fact that high risk games might be the only chance for meaningful social mobility if they work and the whole culture valorizes taking risks and having vision), fuck the poor for being stupid (education costs money, even if the internet gives you info for free you need to sift, sort, learn), fuck the poor for being lazy (nevermind that being poor is expensive due to lack of economizing opportunities and after just breaking even you might already have done a whole day of work). We are putting up a well oiled, highly funded (sometimes state subsidised) machine of professional nudging, manipulation and technically legal scams against Joe Plumber or Joe Programmer who is just trying to do the right thing and hustle on top of his normal job. I'm not sure we should blame Joe for statistically not being on top in that game
Kaze404 5y ago
I disagree with the notion that this is "financial survival of the fittest" and "a natural rule". There's absolutely nothing natural in this situation, and even if it was I don't think there's a reason that should be relevant.

senko 5y ago

> Should our government protect (idiots|naive investors) from getting scammed? > But one could also argue that this is just the financial survival of the fittest and, hence, a natural rule that suckers get taken advantage of. In the nation where you have to put "Caution - Hot" on coffee-to-go cups to avoid being sued, I think the answer to that is self-evident.

barnabee 5y ago
Not all of us live there or want those rules
dugite-code 5y ago
>In the nation where you have to put "Caution - Hot" on coffee-to-go cups to avoid being sued Hate to be that guy but McDonald's got sued over the hot coffee because they continued to serve coffee well above safe temperatures long after valid saftey concerns had been raised. The poor woman recieved 3rd degree burns (something that shouldn't be possible from a spilled beverage). She was publicly vilified for the massive settlement awarded to her when she only asked for reasonable medical costs. Also the "Caution - Hot" warning wouldn't have prevented her from being able to sue for negligence. From the data America isn't nearly as litigious as many media stories make out. In fact after this minor court case it actually became harder to sue companies in America and arguably resulted in may corporations to be less concerned about their affect on the common good.

prox 5y ago

It reminds me of Michael Scott explaining that his new revenue program was not a pyramid scheme and when he draws to explain he draws a pyramid. Anyone I know personally who makes NFT or his interested in it is doing it for speculation, not to make art per se.

igorkraw 5y ago

> Should our government protect (idiots|naive investors) from getting scammed? While the answer for me is yes I also dislike the framing of this. We live in a society that (the US even more than Europe) 1. Over centuries has moved towards more and more privatisation of what used to be commons (land, water, ways, now software), thus forcing people to engage in either business or crime to survive - unless you are born rich 2. Has grown more and more complex to navigate,sometimes by necessity but often via rent seeking (Intuit and taxes) requiring you to spend quite a lot of mental capacity and time to manage it - unless you are rich enough to pay someone to do the work for you 3. Does not really adequately give you the training and time required to acquire these skills - unless you are rich in money enough to afford college and possibly additional training, or have rich/self sacrificing enough parents to navigate college, learn how to separate good free sources from bad free sources etc. (not even bringing in systemic handicaps like lead paint or other cognitively impairing pollution in low income areas) 4. Has grown a hundreds of billion dollar industry around manipulating people, with useful information ever more difficult to distinguish from "sponsored posts" etc. - reinforcing the above 3 points. The swamp of influencers feeding parasocial relationships to monetize as part of that that is especially normalized throughout all of life and entertainment - unless you can afford paying for "high quality" media that doesn't feature them (in cash or in time searching for gems) and we blame individuals for getting scammed? All of the above boil down to "if you are already privileged, you can avoid getting scammed" and most of the moralistic arguments people use (greed, stupidity, impulsive,lazy...) are "fuck the poor" in disguise: fuck the poor for having poor impulse control (nevermind lead paint, unresolved trauma because there was no therapist money, not having the time to learn that impulse control before being thrust into work...), fuck the poor for their greed (never mind the fact that high risk games might be the only chance for meaningful social mobility if they work and the whole culture valorizes taking risks and having vision), fuck the poor for being stupid (education costs money, even if the internet gives you info for free you need to sift, sort, learn), fuck the poor for being lazy (nevermind that being poor is expensive due to lack of economizing opportunities and after just breaking even you might already have done a whole day of work). We are putting up a well oiled, highly funded (sometimes state subsidised) machine of professional nudging, manipulation and technically legal scams against Joe Plumber or Joe Programmer who is just trying to do the right thing and hustle on top of his normal job. I'm not sure we should blame Joe for statistically not being on top in that game

Kaze404 5y ago

I disagree with the notion that this is "financial survival of the fittest" and "a natural rule". There's absolutely nothing natural in this situation, and even if it was I don't think there's a reason that should be relevant.