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 cele

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.)