4 ms·
By this same logic, fraud shouldn't be a crime. People will always find a way to profit by misleading people, and the most careful ones will reap the rewards an
by karpierz 4y ago
By this same logic, fraud shouldn't be a crime. People will always find a way to profit by misleading people, and the most careful ones will reap the rewards and get away with it.
- skidd0 4y agoKnowing privileged info and acting on it as an individual is not he same as intentionally misleading another person.
- pavlov 4y agoIn a market that promises information symmetry, there’s no difference between the two.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoThat's incorrect. Due diligence is expected of any person who enters a contract. This forum was recently poopooing Musk for violating his purchase contract even though he may have had legitimate concerns of Twitter keeping secret its number of bot accounts. If you want to make the case that the ignorance of one party is sufficient to accuse the other of fraud, the burden of proof is on you.
- tylersmith 4y agoWhen you gain that information under the understanding you won't abuse it, solely for the purposes of abusing it, you have committed fraud.
- j0hnyl 4y agoWho is the victim here?
- idiotsecant 4y agoThe victim of insider trading is everyone else participating in the market that is not insider trading. Which, given the widespread reliance on 401k's for most of our accumulated wealth, is all of us.
- j0hnyl 4y agoBut crypto is not an equity and your 401k is not tied up in it at all?
- munificent 4y agoIt is a shared good that benefits all participants for a market to be efficient. Insider trading reduces market efficiency.
- siftrics 4y agoIt literally does the opposite. It pushes the price in the direction it's going to go when the information is made public.
- munificent 4y agoYou're only thinking of the first-order effect. If insider trading is allowed then, yes, those who have access to inside information can trade on it more efficiently. But it also highly incentivizes market participants to hide information. In a world where insider trading is allowed, anyone who has access to inside information can now personally monetize it as long as that information does not get out to the wider market. You're basically paying people to manufacture information asymmetry. As an emergent effect, that does not lead to the widely available information needed for a market to perform efficiently.
- siftrics 4y agoHow will they profit if the information never becomes public?
- munificent 4y ago...by insider trading on it.
- siftrics 4y agoWhy would the price move in their favor if the information never becomes public?
- tylersmith 4y agoCoinbase. It's in the indictment.
- j0hnyl 4y agoMaybe I'm dense... but how does Coinbase lose money from this?