3 ms·

How would Matt Damon know it's a scam? If it was a scam, wouldn't they be trying to fool him as well? Hard to call him a victim with a payday like that, but I

How would Matt Damon know it's a scam? If it was a scam, wouldn't they be trying to fool him as well? Hard to call him a victim with a payday like that, but I think he'd be closer to victim than a charlatan.

cldellow 4y ago
Without taking a stance on whether crypto is a scam or not, and whether him doing the ad was good or bad, he's an A-list celebrity. His ability to charge $ for his celebrity comes from his image/reputation. He has access to paid professionals whose job is to safeguard and burnish his reputation.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  Right, I understand the idea... but these companies are not out here saying "HEY THIS IS A SCAM EVERYONE" — a lot of them believe their own nonsense. Professionals are fooled all the time. Outside of an email chain that literally says something like "Hey Matt Damon, can you promote our scam" it seems like a legal boondoggle. How would you prove they knew it was a scam? How would you prove that they didn't do sufficient due-diligence in this example?
  - cldellow 4y ago
    We might be talking past each other. I was reading "scam" in a general way, versus as a legal term of art indicating a crime had happened. When the OP said celebrities should be "held liable", I didn't read it to mean criminally liable, just, reputationally liable. Health and wealth, in particular, are sensitive subjects that are often the source of scams. If I type into Google, "is crypto a", the top autosuggest hits include "a ponzi scheme", "a pyramid scheme", "a bubble", "a scam". Clearly some folks have some concerns. There are editorials in mass market papers discussing whether crypto is a scam, and have been for several years. If a celebrity still wants to lend their name to such a project, that's their choice, of course. And they might well have a good faith rationale to do so. And perhaps crypto is not a scam! But... it still seems to me that it's a risky proposition, and it should be evident to them and their PR team that it's a risky proposition. If it goes poorly, which it seems like it is, it's reasonable that people will conclude that Matt Damon preferred to make a bunch of money at the risk of other people's financial wellbeing. (And that's fine, too -- fortune favours the bold, after all.)
    - micromacrofoot 4y ago
      Ah ok, thanks for clarifying! Yeah I generally agree
baobabKoodaa 4y ago
This has nothing to do with Matt Damon.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  The comment I'm replying to directly mentions Matt Damon, so I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Can you elaborate?
  - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    Sure. Both you and the comment you are replying to are talking in the context of "celebrity endorses crypto, man loses pension". This is not the context in the OP. In OP case no celebrity was endorsing the scam, the scammers simply used the likeness of celebrities without permission to advertise their fake trading website that wasn't actually dealing with crypto at all. So the context of your discussion is misleading in 2 ways: 1) You're implying that OP has something to do with crypto investments. It doesn't. 2) You're implying that OP has something to do with celebrities endorsing crypto investments. It doesn't.

cldellow 4y ago

Without taking a stance on whether crypto is a scam or not, and whether him doing the ad was good or bad, he's an A-list celebrity. His ability to charge $ for his celebrity comes from his image/reputation. He has access to paid professionals whose job is to safeguard and burnish his reputation.

micromacrofoot 4y ago
Right, I understand the idea... but these companies are not out here saying "HEY THIS IS A SCAM EVERYONE" — a lot of them believe their own nonsense. Professionals are fooled all the time. Outside of an email chain that literally says something like "Hey Matt Damon, can you promote our scam" it seems like a legal boondoggle. How would you prove they knew it was a scam? How would you prove that they didn't do sufficient due-diligence in this example?
- cldellow 4y ago
  We might be talking past each other. I was reading "scam" in a general way, versus as a legal term of art indicating a crime had happened. When the OP said celebrities should be "held liable", I didn't read it to mean criminally liable, just, reputationally liable. Health and wealth, in particular, are sensitive subjects that are often the source of scams. If I type into Google, "is crypto a", the top autosuggest hits include "a ponzi scheme", "a pyramid scheme", "a bubble", "a scam". Clearly some folks have some concerns. There are editorials in mass market papers discussing whether crypto is a scam, and have been for several years. If a celebrity still wants to lend their name to such a project, that's their choice, of course. And they might well have a good faith rationale to do so. And perhaps crypto is not a scam! But... it still seems to me that it's a risky proposition, and it should be evident to them and their PR team that it's a risky proposition. If it goes poorly, which it seems like it is, it's reasonable that people will conclude that Matt Damon preferred to make a bunch of money at the risk of other people's financial wellbeing. (And that's fine, too -- fortune favours the bold, after all.)
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    Ah ok, thanks for clarifying! Yeah I generally agree

baobabKoodaa 4y ago

This has nothing to do with Matt Damon.

micromacrofoot 4y ago
The comment I'm replying to directly mentions Matt Damon, so I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Can you elaborate?
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  Sure. Both you and the comment you are replying to are talking in the context of "celebrity endorses crypto, man loses pension". This is not the context in the OP. In OP case no celebrity was endorsing the scam, the scammers simply used the likeness of celebrities without permission to advertise their fake trading website that wasn't actually dealing with crypto at all. So the context of your discussion is misleading in 2 ways: 1) You're implying that OP has something to do with crypto investments. It doesn't. 2) You're implying that OP has something to do with celebrities endorsing crypto investments. It doesn't.