31 ms·

The reasons this is nonsense are twofold: First, I have never actually seen any comments here disavowing themselves of responsibility. It is always aimed at pr

The reasons this is nonsense are twofold: First, I have never actually seen any comments here disavowing themselves of responsibility. It is always aimed at protecting others and this is rooted in the obvious fact that a very large number of people are not (and we do not expect them to be) experts in investment. That assets can go up or down is one thing, and nobody can be protected from that, but there is an extensive body of law intended to protect people from outright falsehoods. So I can say, "you should invest in ConCoin, it's going to the moooon" and that maybe is allowed. I cannot say "we have pegged this to the value of the dollar if I know that I have taken no care whatsoever to even try and do that". Second, refusing to set a floor on falsehoods using regulatory tools makes doing business much more expensive for people who are not scammers. This is a classic "market for lemons" effect. If I have a great idea that I would like to raise money for using, say, a utility token [n.b. not currently allowed] then if the last few such tokens have been exit scams, I will raise no money. Maintaining a certain level of trust is a pool from which we can all draw. It has in fact been shown that growth in low trust economies is systematically lower than in high trust economies.

bratwurst3000 4y ago
If people cant handle the basic of investing they shouldnt do it. If its too good to be true it mostly isnt. Is it the casino foult that their customers loose money because the ambient is so inviting and screams wining?
- dagw 4y ago
  Is it the casino foult that their customers loose money Casinos are very strictly regulated and must post the exact rules and probability of winning for all their games. If the casino lies about the rules of the game or your chances of winning, then yes it is absolutely their fault and they will be held liable.
  - bratwurst3000 4y ago
    Yes and everyone warned everyone investing in crypto that it could go from hero to zero instantly. I cant believe anyone didnt know this risk.
    - SamBam 4y ago
      I failed to see any of these warnings you're talking about in any of the Superbowl ads. I'm pretty sure if I followed the Superbowl ads to crypto.com, I would fail to see these warnings. Yes, for everyone deeply connected online, who has been following crypto for the last several years, of course we've talked about plenty of warnings many times. But the current marketing campaigns are not aimed at such people.
      - bratwurst3000 4y ago
        It is bad and sad that many people lost money that didn’t want to sound like I’m not aware of that. And yes you could be right it’s just my bubble. But it’s still sad that so many people fall for get rich quick scheme.
    - mescaline 4y ago
      There's a slight problem in your use of "everyone". You, personally, don't know or have sampled everyone. You are using it as a indication that "people warned" and "people should know", given people warned other people. Saying you can't believe people didn't know is just showing lack of empathy in how others form trust. Many of those people form trust by looking at a screen and seeing a nice website with nice logins and nice charts. They look at things with dollar signs and say, "that's a good number there". Others dig in and are curious about how things work. Some laugh when people complain about how much power proof-of-work takes and believe it is the eniventible conclusion to why we don't see aliens out there. Don't be the wurst person. Be the best! See that all humans need our help from an understanding technology perspective. Know that software can be implemented to take away their choices, or give them more choices than they had before.
    - JackFr 4y ago
      Everyone involved in crypto is either a con or a mark. There isn't a middle ground.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Where can I find my exact win rate at poker posted?
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      It should be pointed out that casinos are only required to post odds for perfect play in games that have skill (e.g. poker, blackjack). Therefore, your poker odds would be based on the rake.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Black Jack is playing against the house and you can calculate perfect play. Poker is played against peers and perfect play does not exist. I think poker is a lot closer to speculating on crypto or stocks. Companies can disclose their transaction fees but it is impossible to calculate your expected return on investment. This is why there's almost always terms of service or disclosure to that extent
        oneoff786 4y ago
        The best poker ai, as far as I’m aware based on things shown on hn, don’t consider past opponent behavior when making decisions. It’s effectively just a lookup table of hands and bets. Not perfect play but generally better than humans.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Better than humans at all levels, or your average player? Are you suggesting that every Casino publishes an AI derived win rate for poker by law?
        HWR_14 4y ago
        Perfect play, by definition, evens out. If everyone plays perfectly, then the ev should be zero (modified by position around the table). So it should balance to zero if everyone plays an equal number of hands from every position. The payoff would be adjusted by the rake.
  - anjel 4y ago
    Ever tried asking a Vegas casino manager for the is on any particular slot machine? I did about 10 years ago and was informed they were proprietary.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  That word "fault" is doing a lot of work. Strictly speaking, no, that bit isn't a fault, it's a great success. They did exactly what they set out to do. But there's always that separate question of whether it's a moral failing to set out to do what they did in the first place. And then you dig a little deeper and you can ask, even if we grant for the sake of argument that it's a moral failing, is it the state's responsibility to do anything about that? And then you can dig even deeper, maybe ease off on the deontological ethics a bit, and instead ask, "What's worse for society in the long run: this behavior, or whatever enforcement mechanisms it would take to curb it?" I'd argue that that's a much more edifying way to frame the question.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It's a relatively mainstream opinion that yes they are. Casinos are not allowed in some places, many individuals who could choose otherwise explicitly choose not to work for companies involved in gambling. My morals don't personally draw that line but it's common enough that you can't dismiss it as preposterous.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Is it the casino foult that their customers loose money Since “customers losing money” is the entire business model and what casinos work to optimize, yes, obviously.
- eric_cc 4y ago
  > If people cant handle the basic of investing they shouldnt do it. Amen to this. Too many people in this thread are shouting from the mountain tops that they hate freedom. If you can't handle climbing a mountain, you shouldn't do it. It's really this simple. If somebody takes on risk and gets hurt it is their own fault.
jmyeet 4y ago
> First, I have never actually seen any comments here disavowing themselves of responsibility. Pulling from the comment I was replying to: > ... many poorer and financially illeterate people have been tricked ... That's quite literally disavowing responsibility. > ... but there is an extensive body of law intended to protect people from outright falsehoods This is true and the law hasn't quite caught up to crypto scams but think about it this way: even if the scammers get prosecuted--possibly even go to jail--you're 99% likely never getting your money back. And even if you do it'll probably be after wasting years on the effort. Obviously there's a deterrence value to prosecuting scammers and I support that hpappening but you'll almost never get your money back. > Maintaining a certain level of trust is a pool from which we can all draw. It has in fact been shown that growth in low trust economies is systematically lower than in high trust economies. I 100% agree and this is something that libertarians and anarchists gloss over completely.
- SamBam 4y ago
  > That's quite literally disavowing responsibility. Unsure how you failed to read the emphasis on "themselves" in the comment you're replying to, and the line about protecting others.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Taking umbrage on behalf of others, in a matter that should be personal choice, is equally questionable. Half of this thread believes we should protect people from themselves. The other half believes people should have the freedom to screw themselves over. Not sure there's much ground for compromise, given the contradictory nature of those positions.
    - eric_cc 4y ago
      > Half of this thread believes we should protect people from themselves. > The other half believes people should have the freedom to screw themselves over. Nailed it. It comes down to principles. Do you believe in personal freedom? Or do you prefer authoritarian governments?
tomp 4y ago
There is no qualitative difference between claiming "coin is going to the moon" and "coin is pegged" (a.k.a. "coin is going to $1"). Trusting such claims without proof is stupid/financial illiteracy/YOLO investing (pick your preferred term).
eric_cc 4y ago
> people are not (and we do not expect them to be) experts in investment. So then they should stay out of the game. I totally disagree that we need a bunch of bullshit laws protecting people from poor decision making.
- nightski 4y ago
  That's not what the post you replied to said at all and you are being intentionally obtuse. There is a reason the SEC exists. It's not to keep people from making bad decisions.
  - skybrian 4y ago
    Well, it sort of is. The rules about not lying to investors, having accurate financial statements, and so on, are to help them avoid making bad investment decisions. The "accredited investor" limitations are supposed to make it harder for unsophisticated investors to lose their money.
    - cupofpython 4y ago
      Not really, it is to preemptively stop scamming. I think the issue is assuming people who get scammed are at fault for something, just because a more paranoid person would have avoided the scam. Regulation will not stop me from selling a potato for $100. it will stop me from selling a regular potato for $100 while claiming it cures cancer. Buying a potato for $100 would be dumb, and nothing stops me from doing it Buying a cancer-curing potato for $100 is not dumb. Believing a potato can cure cancer because someone else is publicly selling it to me that way in full view of the entire world is not dumb. I would think "oh wow, something about this potato must be cancer-curing because surely this guy knows that if he scams me in front of the public then the public will hold him accountable." So it is now time to hold people accountable
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    https://www.sec.gov/about.shtml https://www.sec.gov/about.shtml Basically, it's exactly that.
dikaio 4y ago
You also didn’t mention his idiotic statement of equating the “American Dream” to getting lucky and getting rich when in fact the American dream is about having the opportunity to work hard, buy a home and have a decent life for you and your family.
- skybrian 4y ago
  They are not that different. The "exit plan" for the American dream is retirement and trying to save a lot of money for retirement is perfectly normal. It's very sound, conventional, boring financial advice to save and invest for retirement. The "get rich quick" folks are doing basically the same thing but faster and sometimes with less sense. But hopefully with only a small portion of their savings.
- danans 4y ago
  There is room for many versions of the American dream, America being a big place and all. America has a rich history of both hard-working middle class aspiration and con-artistry and get rich quick schemes. They are both pretty resounding cultural themes here.
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  Unfortunately it's not an idiotic statement. Look at all the people playing the lottery and buying crypto. It does appear to be the true american dream.

bratwurst3000 4y ago

If people cant handle the basic of investing they shouldnt do it. If its too good to be true it mostly isnt. Is it the casino foult that their customers loose money because the ambient is so inviting and screams wining?

dagw 4y ago
Is it the casino foult that their customers loose money Casinos are very strictly regulated and must post the exact rules and probability of winning for all their games. If the casino lies about the rules of the game or your chances of winning, then yes it is absolutely their fault and they will be held liable.
- bratwurst3000 4y ago
  Yes and everyone warned everyone investing in crypto that it could go from hero to zero instantly. I cant believe anyone didnt know this risk.
  - SamBam 4y ago
    I failed to see any of these warnings you're talking about in any of the Superbowl ads. I'm pretty sure if I followed the Superbowl ads to crypto.com, I would fail to see these warnings. Yes, for everyone deeply connected online, who has been following crypto for the last several years, of course we've talked about plenty of warnings many times. But the current marketing campaigns are not aimed at such people.
    - bratwurst3000 4y ago
      It is bad and sad that many people lost money that didn’t want to sound like I’m not aware of that. And yes you could be right it’s just my bubble. But it’s still sad that so many people fall for get rich quick scheme.
  - mescaline 4y ago
    There's a slight problem in your use of "everyone". You, personally, don't know or have sampled everyone. You are using it as a indication that "people warned" and "people should know", given people warned other people. Saying you can't believe people didn't know is just showing lack of empathy in how others form trust. Many of those people form trust by looking at a screen and seeing a nice website with nice logins and nice charts. They look at things with dollar signs and say, "that's a good number there". Others dig in and are curious about how things work. Some laugh when people complain about how much power proof-of-work takes and believe it is the eniventible conclusion to why we don't see aliens out there. Don't be the wurst person. Be the best! See that all humans need our help from an understanding technology perspective. Know that software can be implemented to take away their choices, or give them more choices than they had before.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    Everyone involved in crypto is either a con or a mark. There isn't a middle ground.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Where can I find my exact win rate at poker posted?
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    It should be pointed out that casinos are only required to post odds for perfect play in games that have skill (e.g. poker, blackjack). Therefore, your poker odds would be based on the rake.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Black Jack is playing against the house and you can calculate perfect play. Poker is played against peers and perfect play does not exist. I think poker is a lot closer to speculating on crypto or stocks. Companies can disclose their transaction fees but it is impossible to calculate your expected return on investment. This is why there's almost always terms of service or disclosure to that extent
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        The best poker ai, as far as I’m aware based on things shown on hn, don’t consider past opponent behavior when making decisions. It’s effectively just a lookup table of hands and bets. Not perfect play but generally better than humans.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Better than humans at all levels, or your average player? Are you suggesting that every Casino publishes an AI derived win rate for poker by law?
        HWR_14 4y ago
        Perfect play, by definition, evens out. If everyone plays perfectly, then the ev should be zero (modified by position around the table). So it should balance to zero if everyone plays an equal number of hands from every position. The payoff would be adjusted by the rake.
- anjel 4y ago
  Ever tried asking a Vegas casino manager for the is on any particular slot machine? I did about 10 years ago and was informed they were proprietary.
mumblemumble 4y ago
That word "fault" is doing a lot of work. Strictly speaking, no, that bit isn't a fault, it's a great success. They did exactly what they set out to do. But there's always that separate question of whether it's a moral failing to set out to do what they did in the first place. And then you dig a little deeper and you can ask, even if we grant for the sake of argument that it's a moral failing, is it the state's responsibility to do anything about that? And then you can dig even deeper, maybe ease off on the deontological ethics a bit, and instead ask, "What's worse for society in the long run: this behavior, or whatever enforcement mechanisms it would take to curb it?" I'd argue that that's a much more edifying way to frame the question.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
It's a relatively mainstream opinion that yes they are. Casinos are not allowed in some places, many individuals who could choose otherwise explicitly choose not to work for companies involved in gambling. My morals don't personally draw that line but it's common enough that you can't dismiss it as preposterous.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Is it the casino foult that their customers loose money Since “customers losing money” is the entire business model and what casinos work to optimize, yes, obviously.
eric_cc 4y ago
> If people cant handle the basic of investing they shouldnt do it. Amen to this. Too many people in this thread are shouting from the mountain tops that they hate freedom. If you can't handle climbing a mountain, you shouldn't do it. It's really this simple. If somebody takes on risk and gets hurt it is their own fault.

jmyeet 4y ago

> First, I have never actually seen any comments here disavowing themselves of responsibility. Pulling from the comment I was replying to: > ... many poorer and financially illeterate people have been tricked ... That's quite literally disavowing responsibility. > ... but there is an extensive body of law intended to protect people from outright falsehoods This is true and the law hasn't quite caught up to crypto scams but think about it this way: even if the scammers get prosecuted--possibly even go to jail--you're 99% likely never getting your money back. And even if you do it'll probably be after wasting years on the effort. Obviously there's a deterrence value to prosecuting scammers and I support that hpappening but you'll almost never get your money back. > Maintaining a certain level of trust is a pool from which we can all draw. It has in fact been shown that growth in low trust economies is systematically lower than in high trust economies. I 100% agree and this is something that libertarians and anarchists gloss over completely.

SamBam 4y ago
> That's quite literally disavowing responsibility. Unsure how you failed to read the emphasis on "themselves" in the comment you're replying to, and the line about protecting others.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Taking umbrage on behalf of others, in a matter that should be personal choice, is equally questionable. Half of this thread believes we should protect people from themselves. The other half believes people should have the freedom to screw themselves over. Not sure there's much ground for compromise, given the contradictory nature of those positions.
  - eric_cc 4y ago
    > Half of this thread believes we should protect people from themselves. > The other half believes people should have the freedom to screw themselves over. Nailed it. It comes down to principles. Do you believe in personal freedom? Or do you prefer authoritarian governments?

tomp 4y ago

There is no qualitative difference between claiming "coin is going to the moon" and "coin is pegged" (a.k.a. "coin is going to $1"). Trusting such claims without proof is stupid/financial illiteracy/YOLO investing (pick your preferred term).

eric_cc 4y ago

> people are not (and we do not expect them to be) experts in investment. So then they should stay out of the game. I totally disagree that we need a bunch of bullshit laws protecting people from poor decision making.

nightski 4y ago
That's not what the post you replied to said at all and you are being intentionally obtuse. There is a reason the SEC exists. It's not to keep people from making bad decisions.
- skybrian 4y ago
  Well, it sort of is. The rules about not lying to investors, having accurate financial statements, and so on, are to help them avoid making bad investment decisions. The "accredited investor" limitations are supposed to make it harder for unsophisticated investors to lose their money.
  - cupofpython 4y ago
    Not really, it is to preemptively stop scamming. I think the issue is assuming people who get scammed are at fault for something, just because a more paranoid person would have avoided the scam. Regulation will not stop me from selling a potato for $100. it will stop me from selling a regular potato for $100 while claiming it cures cancer. Buying a potato for $100 would be dumb, and nothing stops me from doing it Buying a cancer-curing potato for $100 is not dumb. Believing a potato can cure cancer because someone else is publicly selling it to me that way in full view of the entire world is not dumb. I would think "oh wow, something about this potato must be cancer-curing because surely this guy knows that if he scams me in front of the public then the public will hold him accountable." So it is now time to hold people accountable
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  https://www.sec.gov/about.shtml https://www.sec.gov/about.shtml Basically, it's exactly that.

dikaio 4y ago

You also didn’t mention his idiotic statement of equating the “American Dream” to getting lucky and getting rich when in fact the American dream is about having the opportunity to work hard, buy a home and have a decent life for you and your family.

skybrian 4y ago
They are not that different. The "exit plan" for the American dream is retirement and trying to save a lot of money for retirement is perfectly normal. It's very sound, conventional, boring financial advice to save and invest for retirement. The "get rich quick" folks are doing basically the same thing but faster and sometimes with less sense. But hopefully with only a small portion of their savings.
danans 4y ago
There is room for many versions of the American dream, America being a big place and all. America has a rich history of both hard-working middle class aspiration and con-artistry and get rich quick schemes. They are both pretty resounding cultural themes here.
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
Unfortunately it's not an idiotic statement. Look at all the people playing the lottery and buying crypto. It does appear to be the true american dream.