8 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.
  - Uehreka 4y ago
    Sounds awesome! Punish the people benefitting most from the fraud (the actual fraudsters as opposed to the people being paid a commission to advertise) and provide an incentive for them to police their ad agencies and influencers to not let it happen in the future! Crypto companies are absolutely securities companies, so it’s just a a matter of time until the hammer comes down. I’m often cynical about the ability of government to crack down on businesses, but in this case it really feels like a lot of crypto folks are miles out over their skis in terms of the kinds of “mind games” they think they can play on the justice system.
formerkrogemp 4y ago
Or, you know we could just ban cryptocurrencies.
- core-utility 4y ago
  People get scammed with telephones and 7-eleven gift cards, should we ban those too? Bans only target the symptoms while ignoring the root cause and hurting the 99.999% of valid use in the process. And as another pointed out, this scam involved no actual crypto.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > 7-eleven gift cards, should we ban those too? Yes, actually. While a complete gift card ban is possibly not necessary, I do think there is a strong need to place legal limitations on their use and transferability to reduce or eliminate the degree to which they enable scammers. Stores have done a little bit to try to combat this at the point of sale but it isn't nearly enough. On the telephone side, I think we need to start holding phone companies liable if a spoofed number was used in a scam. It is ridiculous that they still haven't been able to solve that issue after years of effort and legistlation.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      We also need more "public service" announcements - and not the 30 second boring ads, but actual plot points in movies and TV be centered around these common scams. If (I have no idea what's popular now, but let's say Marvel) a movie had a crypto scam as a central point, it would educate people way more than any number of government warnings.
      - shkkmo 4y ago
        Education would be a great stop gap, but I still think we need to close the hole thay is being used. One example would be requiring gift cards to be bound to a name on purchase and have IDs checked when it is used.
- 4y ago
ivankelly 4y ago
name the celebrities at least.
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  The way these scams work is they use celebrity names and images without permission. Completely different from the Matt Damon case and similar cases, where the celebrity is actually involved.
- UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  https://youtu.be/9hBC5TVdYT8 https://youtu.be/9hBC5TVdYT8 I can only think of Matt Damon's somewhat notorious Crypto.com commercial, which has been lampooned so many times. There are others, I'm sure.
  - Joeboy 4y ago
    Spike Lee, rather horrifyingly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAZ7beWo0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAZ7beWo0I
    - addingnumbers 4y ago
      Wow, they dressed him up exactly like Lyle Lanley singing Springfield a monorail song.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Funny thing is that there was a disclaimer at the end of that one.
    - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
      Yeah, I think they knew that one was on shaky ground as far as Ponzi schemes were concerned =)

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.
- Uehreka 4y ago
  Sounds awesome! Punish the people benefitting most from the fraud (the actual fraudsters as opposed to the people being paid a commission to advertise) and provide an incentive for them to police their ad agencies and influencers to not let it happen in the future! Crypto companies are absolutely securities companies, so it’s just a a matter of time until the hammer comes down. I’m often cynical about the ability of government to crack down on businesses, but in this case it really feels like a lot of crypto folks are miles out over their skis in terms of the kinds of “mind games” they think they can play on the justice system.

formerkrogemp 4y ago

Or, you know we could just ban cryptocurrencies.

core-utility 4y ago
People get scammed with telephones and 7-eleven gift cards, should we ban those too? Bans only target the symptoms while ignoring the root cause and hurting the 99.999% of valid use in the process. And as another pointed out, this scam involved no actual crypto.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > 7-eleven gift cards, should we ban those too? Yes, actually. While a complete gift card ban is possibly not necessary, I do think there is a strong need to place legal limitations on their use and transferability to reduce or eliminate the degree to which they enable scammers. Stores have done a little bit to try to combat this at the point of sale but it isn't nearly enough. On the telephone side, I think we need to start holding phone companies liable if a spoofed number was used in a scam. It is ridiculous that they still haven't been able to solve that issue after years of effort and legistlation.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    We also need more "public service" announcements - and not the 30 second boring ads, but actual plot points in movies and TV be centered around these common scams. If (I have no idea what's popular now, but let's say Marvel) a movie had a crypto scam as a central point, it would educate people way more than any number of government warnings.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      Education would be a great stop gap, but I still think we need to close the hole thay is being used. One example would be requiring gift cards to be bound to a name on purchase and have IDs checked when it is used.
4y ago

ivankelly 4y ago

name the celebrities at least.

baobabKoodaa 4y ago
The way these scams work is they use celebrity names and images without permission. Completely different from the Matt Damon case and similar cases, where the celebrity is actually involved.
UnpossibleJim 4y ago
https://youtu.be/9hBC5TVdYT8 https://youtu.be/9hBC5TVdYT8 I can only think of Matt Damon's somewhat notorious Crypto.com commercial, which has been lampooned so many times. There are others, I'm sure.
- Joeboy 4y ago
  Spike Lee, rather horrifyingly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAZ7beWo0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAZ7beWo0I
  - addingnumbers 4y ago
    Wow, they dressed him up exactly like Lyle Lanley singing Springfield a monorail song.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Funny thing is that there was a disclaimer at the end of that one.
  - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
    Yeah, I think they knew that one was on shaky ground as far as Ponzi schemes were concerned =)