4 ms·
Headline written for maximum panic. "FDIC issues cease and desist letter to FTX US to remove a tweet" doesn't sound as concerning.
by oldstrangers 4y ago
Headline written for maximum panic. "FDIC issues cease and desist letter to FTX US to remove a tweet" doesn't sound as concerning.
- pessimizer 4y agoFraud is never about anything other than false statements. Falsely telling people their money is insured (i.e. no possibility of loss, you can only win!) is a very bad thing.
- rvz 4y agoThen we can all agree that the regulators are doing their jobs then. Whether if it is the NTHSA investigating Tesla over its misleading claims and deceptive advertising of Fools Self Driving (FSD) and autopilot in the US to this matter of a crypto exchange misleading its customers via a tweet with the FDIC ordering them to remove the tweet, there are no exceptions to putting out vacuous and unchecked claims that involves safety in finance, or on the roads or anything that can cause financial or life changing implications. This only shows that the regulators are doing their job and the system is working.
- bdcravens 4y agoPer the letter, probably want to point out the cease and desist was due to "Potential Violations of Section 18(a)(14) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act" Also the conditions of the cease and desist also say they should make no additional dishonest statements regarding FDIC insurance, which is in no way restricted to tweets.
- marshray 4y agoHow do you accidentally make false statements about customer funds being FDIC- and SIPC-insured? It's just not plausible to me that this wasn't an intentional attempt to mislead about some pretty darn fundamental properties of the investment scheme.
- _jal 4y agoStrikes me as similar to small shops that have nothing to do with health care claiming to be "HIPAA-compliant". Doing things like this certainly conveys useful information, although not the information they intended to convey.
- marshray 4y agoHow would it be similar, when FTX has everything to do with FDIC/SIPC protections?
- _jal 4y agoCompanies cluelessly claiming important-sounding capabilities they do not have. Is that really difficult?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Companies cluelessly claiming important-sounding capabilities they do not have Fraudulently. Not just cluelessly. The “government can’t crypto” meme led a lot of people to lawlessness.
- jfengel 4y agoOr better, "HIPPA compliant", which tells you even more.
- vkou 4y agoYou don't, but it's easier to ask for forgiveness, than for permission, when your wildcat bank loses all of its customers' money.
- nodesocket 4y agoThis has popped up before with other crypto exchanges. The core piece is that the bank that the crypto exchange uses is FDIC insured but not the direct crypto exchange. So, if the bank that the exchange uses goes under, then yes that money should be insured. However, if the exchange itself goes under you SOL. So technically this is accurate but very misleading. This is a complete nothing burger. They want Brett to remove a tweet (posted on his personal account by the way) and text on 3rd party sites FTX US does not control. Government regulation at its best.
- duxup 4y agoCurrent headline: > FDIC issues cease and desist letter to FTX US Seems ok