4 ms·

As somebody who lost money in the Voyager collapse, why can't we say both? People shouldn't have invested more than they could afford to lose, and the recent c

As somebody who lost money in the Voyager collapse, why can't we say both? People shouldn't have invested more than they could afford to lose, and the recent crypto situation is a massive systemic regulatory failure. Predatory companies were making impossible promises with zero transparency and accountability, BUT it's still on the investor to do their due diligence if they're going to be placing huge bets.

jimmar 4y ago
It's not clear that due diligence is even possible in the crypto community right now. Crypto companies are very opaque about their operations. Here's a quick clip of Mark Cuban saying that Voyager was virtually risk free: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZYMtVBXUrE&t=119s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZYMtVBXUrE&t=119s. I'll give Mark Cuban the benefit of the doubt that he thought his words were true, but even being that closely tied to Voyager, he didn't really know what was going on. I pulled my little bit of cryptocurrency out of BlockFi because I have no way of really knowing if they'll be another Voyager. There are few players I trust on the cryptocurrency space.
- semicolon_storm 4y ago
  Yes, that's one of the systemic failures. Despite proponents saying blockchain tech brings a new level of transparency, it's now very clear there was near zero transparency for companies built around the blockchain. For the layperson, there is no way you could have done proper DD for these investments because the regulations to force disclosures that could have helped you did not exist. However, the inability to do proper DD on their claims due to the information not existing probably should have served as a form of DD.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Due diligence in case of opaqueness is to not even try. If you can't understand how the money is made and how the whole thing can even operate it is better to skip the whole thing. You might lose, but it is not like crypto is only opportunity around.
wmf 4y ago
People aren't really qualified to do due diligence on crypto and what exactly does due diligence even mean when companies are lying about what they're doing?
- semicolon_storm 4y ago
  In this case, DD could have been as simple as: This company claims they provide low-risk xx% returns due to their risk mitigating crypto lending strategy, yet this company does not publish who/what they lend to and their claims are unaudited. Since they're unregulated, there's also no protections in place for investors if it turns out their claims are bogus.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jimmar 4y ago

It's not clear that due diligence is even possible in the crypto community right now. Crypto companies are very opaque about their operations. Here's a quick clip of Mark Cuban saying that Voyager was virtually risk free: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZYMtVBXUrE&t=119s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZYMtVBXUrE&t=119s. I'll give Mark Cuban the benefit of the doubt that he thought his words were true, but even being that closely tied to Voyager, he didn't really know what was going on. I pulled my little bit of cryptocurrency out of BlockFi because I have no way of really knowing if they'll be another Voyager. There are few players I trust on the cryptocurrency space.

semicolon_storm 4y ago
Yes, that's one of the systemic failures. Despite proponents saying blockchain tech brings a new level of transparency, it's now very clear there was near zero transparency for companies built around the blockchain. For the layperson, there is no way you could have done proper DD for these investments because the regulations to force disclosures that could have helped you did not exist. However, the inability to do proper DD on their claims due to the information not existing probably should have served as a form of DD.
Ekaros 4y ago
Due diligence in case of opaqueness is to not even try. If you can't understand how the money is made and how the whole thing can even operate it is better to skip the whole thing. You might lose, but it is not like crypto is only opportunity around.

wmf 4y ago

People aren't really qualified to do due diligence on crypto and what exactly does due diligence even mean when companies are lying about what they're doing?

semicolon_storm 4y ago
In this case, DD could have been as simple as: This company claims they provide low-risk xx% returns due to their risk mitigating crypto lending strategy, yet this company does not publish who/what they lend to and their claims are unaudited. Since they're unregulated, there's also no protections in place for investors if it turns out their claims are bogus.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]