9 ms·

"It started just over a year ago. I noticed an ad that was endorsed by two well-known celebrities showing you could earn more money than you could earn in a ban

"It started just over a year ago. I noticed an ad that was endorsed by two well-known celebrities showing you could earn more money than you could earn in a bank," I think we should punish these ads & its associated companies for not indicating that there is risk in investing cryptos. These ads are really powerful, and are made to trap people. If we don't invest, there is fear that we may be left out and social media makes us feel guilty when we hear the success stories. Many people are gullible, and this is one more reason why ads are generally stupid. I wonder why people think that they can easily earn money out of thin air. May be these influencers & ads are the primary reason? May be we human make irrational decision when we see other people are earning too much wealth on cryptos/stocks? Yes, combination of luck & logic sometimes favor people, and they become successful. But as with everything in this world, people must also realize that 20% people controls maximum wealth.

s_dev 4y ago
I remember laughing at Matt Damon til I learned how much he made from that ad deal. It was like 80 Million dollars or something insane.
- onychomys 4y ago
  On the plus side, if he got paid in bitcoin, now it's only like 20 million.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    Or he sold it in 5 minutes because there is enough liquidity to sell $80 million in bitcoin at an OTC desk
    - sour-taste 4y ago
      It's possible but seems unlikely. The taxes would be very painful. I find it likely that he did sell but maybe slowly, over a period of time while working with tax lawyers to limit liability
      - yieldcrv 4y ago
        When US citizens are paid in an asset they taxed on both income and when sold or spent they are taxed on the price differences from when the income was received Selling over time would not mitigate any part of the income tax liability
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        Because of the way progressive income taxation works, splitting over tax years can save some in taxes (though, unless Damon has been very good at structuring his other income streams, that probably doesn't matter for him); because of the way capital gains taxes work, selling some 1 year + 1 day on after receiving it saves additional taxes beyond what is saved by splitting it across tax years, and this works even if you are stuck in the highest tax bracket from other income so that splitting across tax years is immaterial, too.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Two points: 1) Progressive tax bracket caps out at ~500k. I expect Damon would be above this every year, rendering structuring irrelevant 2) capital gains tax would be zero upon receipt, so selling immediately should not trigger any new tax.
        yieldcrv 4y ago
        Right, and as you noticed halfway through writing that, none of this matters at these amounts
      - ahtihn 4y ago
        > The taxes would be very painful. Why? If you get paid in bitcoin, the easiest for taxes is to sell immediately. The value of the bitcoin at the time you receive them has to be declared as income anyway. If you sell little by little over time, you need to declare the income anyway + keep track of transactions for capital gains taxes.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  That's nuts. Didn't he know that telling people to invest in these volatile is irresponsible? Not so Will Hunting now - is it? Wonder what he thinks now - that his name was used to scam people.
yieldcrv 4y ago
s1artibartfast 4y ago
>I think we should punish these ads & its associated companies for not indicating that there is risk in investing cryptos. The adds, at least the Matt Damon one, did have fine print disclaimers.
tifadg1 4y ago
> I think we should punish these ads & its associated companies for not indicating that there is risk in investing cryptos. punish who exactly? an ad agency that took the job or influencer that took the job or an llc registered who knows where? they should have known better is logical, but when you write something into law it's tricky to convey the spirit. Should an ad agency do due diligence on every product they advertise, even if they understand nothing about it?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > Should an ad agency do due diligence on every product they advertise, even if they understand nothing about it? Why not? This will cut down on scams and dubious products dramatically, a good thing in my opinion.
- Hellbanevil 4y ago
- Uehreka 4y ago
  We already have laws for this and they work, so no need for hemming and hawing. They’re why ads for stock brokers and such have to say things like “investment carries risk” and “past performance is no indication of future returns”. It’s possible those ads are already in breach of these laws, or possibly the regulations just need to be updated to cover crypto companies.
  - mbreese 4y ago
    It’s not the ad agencies or spokespeople that are liable if those disclaimers are removed — it’s the primary company. The ad agency gets paid to produce the ad and help place it on media channels. If there is a legally required warning, that’s up to the customer to provide. The celebrity endorser is a paid performer and nothing more. Their reputation could take a hit from being involved in the ads, but that’s not a legal concern. That said, I do wish them luck in trying to market anything else. In this case, the customer doesn’t think they are covered by SEC rules because they aren’t trading in securities. The claim being that crypto isn’t a security but rather a commodity, which have fewer regulatory restrictions. However, that’s all about to be tested in court at a massive scale.

s_dev 4y ago

I remember laughing at Matt Damon til I learned how much he made from that ad deal. It was like 80 Million dollars or something insane.

onychomys 4y ago
On the plus side, if he got paid in bitcoin, now it's only like 20 million.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Or he sold it in 5 minutes because there is enough liquidity to sell $80 million in bitcoin at an OTC desk
  - sour-taste 4y ago
    It's possible but seems unlikely. The taxes would be very painful. I find it likely that he did sell but maybe slowly, over a period of time while working with tax lawyers to limit liability
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      When US citizens are paid in an asset they taxed on both income and when sold or spent they are taxed on the price differences from when the income was received Selling over time would not mitigate any part of the income tax liability
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        Because of the way progressive income taxation works, splitting over tax years can save some in taxes (though, unless Damon has been very good at structuring his other income streams, that probably doesn't matter for him); because of the way capital gains taxes work, selling some 1 year + 1 day on after receiving it saves additional taxes beyond what is saved by splitting it across tax years, and this works even if you are stuck in the highest tax bracket from other income so that splitting across tax years is immaterial, too.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Two points: 1) Progressive tax bracket caps out at ~500k. I expect Damon would be above this every year, rendering structuring irrelevant 2) capital gains tax would be zero upon receipt, so selling immediately should not trigger any new tax.
        yieldcrv 4y ago
        Right, and as you noticed halfway through writing that, none of this matters at these amounts
    - ahtihn 4y ago
      > The taxes would be very painful. Why? If you get paid in bitcoin, the easiest for taxes is to sell immediately. The value of the bitcoin at the time you receive them has to be declared as income anyway. If you sell little by little over time, you need to declare the income anyway + keep track of transactions for capital gains taxes.
uxcolumbo 4y ago
That's nuts. Didn't he know that telling people to invest in these volatile is irresponsible? Not so Will Hunting now - is it? Wonder what he thinks now - that his name was used to scam people.

yieldcrv 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>I think we should punish these ads & its associated companies for not indicating that there is risk in investing cryptos. The adds, at least the Matt Damon one, did have fine print disclaimers.

tifadg1 4y ago

> I think we should punish these ads & its associated companies for not indicating that there is risk in investing cryptos. punish who exactly? an ad agency that took the job or influencer that took the job or an llc registered who knows where? they should have known better is logical, but when you write something into law it's tricky to convey the spirit. Should an ad agency do due diligence on every product they advertise, even if they understand nothing about it?

Nextgrid 4y ago
> Should an ad agency do due diligence on every product they advertise, even if they understand nothing about it? Why not? This will cut down on scams and dubious products dramatically, a good thing in my opinion.
Hellbanevil 4y ago
Uehreka 4y ago
We already have laws for this and they work, so no need for hemming and hawing. They’re why ads for stock brokers and such have to say things like “investment carries risk” and “past performance is no indication of future returns”. It’s possible those ads are already in breach of these laws, or possibly the regulations just need to be updated to cover crypto companies.
- mbreese 4y ago
  It’s not the ad agencies or spokespeople that are liable if those disclaimers are removed — it’s the primary company. The ad agency gets paid to produce the ad and help place it on media channels. If there is a legally required warning, that’s up to the customer to provide. The celebrity endorser is a paid performer and nothing more. Their reputation could take a hit from being involved in the ads, but that’s not a legal concern. That said, I do wish them luck in trying to market anything else. In this case, the customer doesn’t think they are covered by SEC rules because they aren’t trading in securities. The claim being that crypto isn’t a security but rather a commodity, which have fewer regulatory restrictions. However, that’s all about to be tested in court at a massive scale.