8 ms·

SEC charges Kim Kardashian for unlawfully touting crypto security

181 points by helsinkiandrew 4y ago

300bps 4y ago
$1.26 million fine for someone with a $1.8 billion net worth is like fining a millionaire $700. You’re not going to change their behavior.
- gtirloni 4y ago
  $1.26m is still $1.26m. We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had. How much did she get from this crypto deal? 400k? Then her work lost her almost 3x the amount she made. Is she willing to keep paying to work? I don't think so.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had. This means I should be able to steal at the supermarket and if caught, only pay for what I stole?
    - d23 4y ago
      Or how about we actually put them in jail when they commit crimes? A poor person stealing from a supermarket certainly risks jail time.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        No, they don't. Felony theft requires in excess of hundreds of dollars of theft. Now go rob a supermarket with a firearm and that's a different story.
        anotherman554 4y ago
        You can go to jail for misdemeanors, look up your state's laws.
        300bps 4y ago
        In my state, someone shoplifting less than $150 on their first offense is categorized as a summary offense which puts someone at risk of 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $300. Steal $1,000 though and that’s a 3rd degree felony with up to 7 years in jail and $15,000 fine.
    - edwnj 4y ago
      There is a day and night difference between stealing and fraud. And this is barely fraud btw. The only reason she is being fined because they they didn't file a form with the SEC for approval which would've meant they could only sell to "accredited investors". Don't you see they are lettering pissing at you. They think your too stupid to invest. You supposedly live in the most free country in the world but you need permission from the government to invest your friends company (or for your freind to ask u for investment). This is the world you want? parasite.
    - gtirloni 4y ago
      She actually got 250k from the deal and was fined 1.26m, is that enough?
      - djschnei 4y ago
        She was paid by the project founders 250k. You have no idea what she profited by pumping and dumping the shitcoin itself.
        gtirloni 4y ago
        Do you?
        djschnei 4y ago
        Nope. Merely pointing out that the transfer of wealth from fleeced retail to founders/insiders can hardly be summed up by 1 promotional transaction. This was a project and promotion with a single goal: hype and price pump in order to transfer wealth.
  - lexapro 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
  - ZetaZero 4y ago
    The fine is supposed to act as a deterrent, right?
  - haasted 4y ago
    A completely unrelated observation, but some countries actually fine based on a person's net worth. Here is an example from Finland where someone received a 54.000 Euro speeding ticket: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
    - Brajeshwar 4y ago
      Off-topic & genuinely curious: How would you have typed/displayed if the amount was 54,000.42?
      - haasted 4y ago
        54.000,42 https://www.languageediting.com/number-formatting-europe-vs-us/ https://www.languageediting.com/number-formatting-europe-vs-...
        Ekaros 4y ago
        54 000,42 is also not unreasonable alternative.
        jaclaz 4y ago
        Yep, it is actually the recommended way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_grouping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_groupi... It has been "ruined" by typewriters and computers, in hand writing the normal way here was to use a "high" dot to separate thousands and the comma for decimals.
        Brajeshwar 4y ago
        Ah! Nice. So, all the mathematicians walked into a bar and got into a fight.
  - blululu 4y ago
    No we also add in a punitive fine as a deterrent so the crime doesn’t happen again in the future. Punishment should be equal which means high net worth criminals should pay proportional punitive fines.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    _You_ don't. Others do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Specifically, that's based on (aggregate) income, not net worth, but it still intends to be more proportionate to avoid making crimes legal for rich people. There was actually a recent case in Germany of a wealthy man taking to court over a traffic violation fine, the fine being upheld in court and subsequently corrected to a much larger fine because the original fine was based on a much lower estimate of his income and by challenging it he had to reveal his actual income. Of course the problem with linear scales like this is that wealth doesn't scale linearly (e.g. the practical difference between an income of $10k and $0 is much greater than between $10k and $20k) but it still seems more reasonable than "punishing based on the impact" alone if it is after all intended to be a punishment (and it clearly is, otherwise we wouldn't have prisons).
- listless 4y ago
  She’s not a criminal. She got paid to promote something and she did. Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she’s paid in much more than she made. Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
  - windexh8er 4y ago
    I don't see it that way. If your job is to promote things part of your process, with respect to ascertaining the validity of that work, should be in a wide range of ethics. She knows she has fans that will believe anything she says which is part of the reason why she's paid to promote things. But if all of the sudden a bleach company is paying Kim to promote drinking it to prevent and cure cancer it might feel different. Kim is still directly hurting people through her brand, but in a different way. > Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that. While likely unpopular I wish there were some decent studies on this topic. Like age demographics, screen time in social media, income, schooling, and other background information on the people that fit into this charade. I think this would shed some light on the predatory marketing Kim, potentially, engages in - knowingly or not.
  - notakio 4y ago
    The SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was restricted from purchasing stocks unless I ran it through an internal company process first, then ran it by the SEC, all because, as sysadmin, I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. If I had a hunch to buy something, by the time I ran that potential purchase through those two processes and got permission, generally the window of opportunity had closed. Of course, I knew this because it was made explicitly clear to me when I took the job, and when we went through the paperwork to setup the live stock feed. Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.
- pid-1 4y ago
  Article says she got paid $250,000 for the endorsement, so she lost 5x that amount.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    If the SEC only fines 5x the profit, they have to fine at least 20% of offenses to make this an unprofitable business practice (never mind punishing it). Does the SEC even have the manpower for that?
  - 300bps 4y ago
    And if you steal $5 from a grocery store if it's your first offense, in my state it's a summary offense punishable by up to 90 days in jail and fine of up to $300 (60x the amount). The problem with these crimes is that you'll get away with it some multiplier of times you get caught. So if you can do it 20 times and get caught once it doesn't matter if you lost 5x the amount. You're still ahead and can chalk the little fines up to the cost of doing illegal business.
58x14 4y ago
I hate to admit this, but I was (briefly) involved with the Ethereum Max project. They gave me a sizable sum of cash up front, no contract, to act as a general and technical consultant. This happened less than 48hrs after I met some of the main "team" which consisted of over two dozen crypto bros and various boxing promoters, none of whom understood the most basic concepts of blockchains, transactions, currency, regulation, etc. I was with them when they contacted Kim to shill, and I actually advised them to take a much different approach, but of course, I was ignored, and I promptly left the project about a week later. EMAX is really the epitome of everything wrong in cryptocurrency and I'm glad to see a fraction of justice being served here. Now if only the dozens of other "team" members who were (from my firsthand perspective) equally culpable in defrauding the public could also be held accountable, that would be great.
- eqmvii 4y ago
  Have you been in touch with the SEC? Their investigation is ongoing, and it sounds like you might have info that could help them clean things up…
  - 58x14 4y ago
    I haven’t reached out to them and I haven’t been contacted. There was a short window where I was super admin for their entire Google workspace, but everything was pretty cryptic and I had limited time to exfil data. I seriously contemplated going public but I started receiving death threats when I left the project, so I took the… cautious approach. Maybe now that the project is wholly sunk, I should make a YouTube video.
    - snek_case 4y ago
      You have a legal responsibility to share the information you know with the SEC. Do what's right and don't be afraid of these tech bros, they're probably busy pissing their pants right now anyways.
      - fortran77 4y ago
kennend3 4y ago
Proof systems like this need wider adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Far too often these fines are simply considered "the cost of doing business". Worse, in many cases they agree to pay the fine without admitting guilt. It is almost like the government simply wants a cut of the action instead of discouraging it?
- DLTADragonHawk 4y ago
  I don't know. It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. Is the court there to provide a fair verdict and fair punishment or to dissuade behaviors? If it is the former why should the persons assets be considered as all. If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth?
  - kennend3 4y ago
    > If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth? You did not read the link at all, correct? It clearly states that in places like Finland traffic violations are where you see "day fines". > It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. The purpose of the courts is to interpret/enforce laws. Government creates these laws based on the will of the people. If the purpose of the laws is not to "dissuade behaviours" why do we put people in jail? Isn't the whole purpose of the jail system to remove freedoms so they can think about their actions and not do that again? Taking peoples money via "fines" is also intended to "dissuade behaviours" so your point is unclear? The problem is the system has become somewhat of a joke. Large bank creates thousands of fake accounts and earns millions in fees. Large bank is fined an amount below their "ill gotten gains" so the fine is nothing but a "cost of doing business". They are still ahead of the game at the end of the day.
    - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      It looks like the fine was much more than she got paid.
amelius 4y ago
Is this the same Kim as Kim Dotcom?
- toong 4y ago
  No. The similar hip size might have confused you ?
- Ekaros 4y ago
  No this is the celebrity... Both are about as important in general...
- kennend3 4y ago
  I see the confusion, given the amount of photoshop on Kim K's pictures it "COULD" be Kim Dotcom?
- kenyawest 4y ago
eqmvii 4y ago
A good start. I hope the investigation keeps going and exposes more of the comedic web of fraud that fuels the crypto ecosystem.
- rvz 4y ago
  Yes. The SEC and the regulators are actually doing their jobs for investigating and charging scammers and it doesn't matter if they are as pseudonymous or as famous as Kim Kardashian. So there you go.
ETH_start 4y ago
Any one who promoted this project should be branded as totally bereft of any integrity or sense of judgment, and denied any kind of platform to influence society. There are celebrities who got involved in the crypto market, but did so thoughtfully, and not in the manner of Maywather and Kardashian. Case in point, Terry Crews: https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/everyone-can-be-rich-in-crypto-there-are-no-divine/id1512654905?i=1000524263004 https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/everyone-can-be-rich-i...
haasted 4y ago
Slate has some background on this story from a year ago: https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/ben-mckenzie-crypto-celebrities-kardashian-brady-lohan.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/ben-mckenzie-crypto-cel...
zeroclip 4y ago
How can anybody look at the 'official' Ethereum Max twitter and not see it as a sham?[1] The problem with crypto is that your average retail user, and probably even a lot of regulators, do not understand the difference between Ethereum and Ethereum Max. [1] https://twitter.com/ethereum_max https://twitter.com/ethereum_max
- pavlov 4y ago
  The problem with crypto is that the use cases are so limited that, to the average retail user, there simply is no difference between Ethereum and Ethereum Max. Both are mysterious digital things you buy and hope the price goes up.
  - nightski 4y ago
    You could replace what you said with stocks, investing, and finance in general actually.
    - pgwhalen 4y ago
      Surely a retail investor understands that the AAPL represents claims on the future earnings of Apple, and TSLA represents claims on the future earnings of Tesla. People know what those companies do in the real world.
      - zeroclip 4y ago
        And most understand that Dogecoin and Ethereum are different coins, and probably even that Ethereum and Ethereum Max are different coins. But they often do not know the difference between these protocols or projects. It would be like putting stock tickers on all the hundreds of competing JavaScript frameworks on GitHub and asking the average non-dev what to invest in.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - nightski 4y ago
nailer 4y ago
> Kardashian included “#AD” at the bottom of the post in 2021, according to the SEC. Despite that, the SEC said investors weren’t made aware of her being paid for the ad. Yes they were - not thinking a social media post with '#ad' is an ad is akin to thinking the TV ads are just made by actors that like the products.
- the_lonely_road 4y ago
  Woah this is a pretty meaty part of the allegation because I 100% would assume that would be good enough to inform your audience that it was an add. Especially given how small a tweet is, how can you reasonably say that a consumer read the content of the tweet but did not read the #ad part? Twitch streamers are paid to play games all the time. It was one of their large revenue streams. They very rarely if ever mention that it is an ad, but they put in their title #ad exactly like this accusation. Obviously the SEC is unlikely to care bout streamers shilling video games to children, but seems like that could be a problem in the future.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  IANAL, but I believe the "#ad" requirement is from the FTC. The SEC may have a higher bar, since this is securities-related. Just like putting "#ad" on Tweet promoting medicine wouldn't fly with the FDA.
jqpabc123 4y ago
What about those who paid her and profited from this scheme?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
captn3m0 4y ago
https://archive.is/e0Wqo https://archive.is/e0Wqo
seydor 4y ago
Nothing that the launch of EthereumKim won't solve
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  She agreed not to promote any digital asset for 3 years, so it will have to wait a while.
shapefrog 4y ago
IWorkAtBigCo 4y ago
Now do Randi Zuckerberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp0diaVLPrQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp0diaVLPrQ
- adanto6840 4y ago
  LOL. That's legitimately entertaining and hysterical.
djschnei 4y ago
Does very little to help the laimen that got fleeced in yet another crypto pump-and-dump... I wonder if the whole ordeal was still profitable for her. You know it was for the Eth Max founders. At least they had the guts to officially call it a "crypto asset security"
miohtama 4y ago
EthereumMax was not only “crypto security”, but it was a clean cut fraud from the start to the end. The SEC could have gone with simple fraud charges, as they have done with earlier scams like scam ICOs from 2017, but now they have started to push this “crypto security” term around. I surely hope Mrs Kardashian got her $250k payment with vesting and cliffed EthereumMax token for her promotion for fraud, instead of dollars.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  > got her $250k payment with vesting and cliffed EthereumMax token for her promotion for fraud, I recognize all of these words as English, but I have no idea what you're saying
djschnei 4y ago
Does very little to help the laimen that got fleeced in yet another crypto pump-and-dump... I wonder if the whole ordeal was still profitable for her. You know it was for the Eth Max founders. At least they had the guts to officially call it a "crypto asset security"
Meekro 4y ago
Kim's whole business is doing paid promotions to her Instagram followers-- typically $250k-$500k per promotion. Turns out that's illegal for securities, unless you disclose how much you got paid. If she'd added a footnote to her post, she would have been fine-- maybe something like "The brilliant folks at EthereumMax paid me $250k to bring you this message." Such a footnote wouldn't have hurt the ad's effectiveness. There were news articles at the time warning people not to take investment advice from Kim Kardashian[1], but that didn't seem to deter people. [1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-kim-kardashian-hawking-a-sketchy-new-cryptocurrency https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-kim-kardashian-hawking-...
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  > illegal for securities, unless you disclose how much you got paid Since she certainly has "people" who know this and advise her, I can only assume that they thought that doing this would reduce the effectiveness of the advertising. Someone made a judgement call (heh!) and decided that the expected fine, if prosecuted, was less than she'd make from the promotion.
dboreham 4y ago
Source article: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/33-11116.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/33-11116.pdf Also, it can be interesting to read the filings daily posted here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.htm https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.htm
Animats 4y ago
The SEC added more enforcement staff to their "cyber" unit a few months ago. The number of crypto-related enforcement actions just increased from about two a month to four in one week.[1] Until recently, they were still working down the backlog from the ICO scams of 2018-2019. Now, they're going after much more recent violations. It's hammer time for crypto scams. [1] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-actions https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti...

$1.26 million fine for someone with a $1.8 billion net worth is like fining a millionaire $700. You’re not going to change their behavior.

gtirloni 4y ago
$1.26m is still $1.26m. We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had. How much did she get from this crypto deal? 400k? Then her work lost her almost 3x the amount she made. Is she willing to keep paying to work? I don't think so.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had. This means I should be able to steal at the supermarket and if caught, only pay for what I stole?
  - d23 4y ago
    Or how about we actually put them in jail when they commit crimes? A poor person stealing from a supermarket certainly risks jail time.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      No, they don't. Felony theft requires in excess of hundreds of dollars of theft. Now go rob a supermarket with a firearm and that's a different story.
      - anotherman554 4y ago
        You can go to jail for misdemeanors, look up your state's laws.
      - 300bps 4y ago
        In my state, someone shoplifting less than $150 on their first offense is categorized as a summary offense which puts someone at risk of 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $300. Steal $1,000 though and that’s a 3rd degree felony with up to 7 years in jail and $15,000 fine.
  - edwnj 4y ago
    There is a day and night difference between stealing and fraud. And this is barely fraud btw. The only reason she is being fined because they they didn't file a form with the SEC for approval which would've meant they could only sell to "accredited investors". Don't you see they are lettering pissing at you. They think your too stupid to invest. You supposedly live in the most free country in the world but you need permission from the government to invest your friends company (or for your freind to ask u for investment). This is the world you want? parasite.
  - gtirloni 4y ago
    She actually got 250k from the deal and was fined 1.26m, is that enough?
    - djschnei 4y ago
      She was paid by the project founders 250k. You have no idea what she profited by pumping and dumping the shitcoin itself.
      - gtirloni 4y ago
        Do you?
        djschnei 4y ago
        Nope. Merely pointing out that the transfer of wealth from fleeced retail to founders/insiders can hardly be summed up by 1 promotional transaction. This was a project and promotion with a single goal: hype and price pump in order to transfer wealth.
- lexapro 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
- ZetaZero 4y ago
  The fine is supposed to act as a deterrent, right?
- haasted 4y ago
  A completely unrelated observation, but some countries actually fine based on a person's net worth. Here is an example from Finland where someone received a 54.000 Euro speeding ticket: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
  - Brajeshwar 4y ago
    Off-topic & genuinely curious: How would you have typed/displayed if the amount was 54,000.42?
    - haasted 4y ago
      54.000,42 https://www.languageediting.com/number-formatting-europe-vs-us/ https://www.languageediting.com/number-formatting-europe-vs-...
      - Ekaros 4y ago
        54 000,42 is also not unreasonable alternative.
        jaclaz 4y ago
        Yep, it is actually the recommended way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_grouping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_groupi... It has been "ruined" by typewriters and computers, in hand writing the normal way here was to use a "high" dot to separate thousands and the comma for decimals.
      - Brajeshwar 4y ago
        Ah! Nice. So, all the mathematicians walked into a bar and got into a fight.
- blululu 4y ago
  No we also add in a punitive fine as a deterrent so the crime doesn’t happen again in the future. Punishment should be equal which means high net worth criminals should pay proportional punitive fines.
- hnbad 4y ago
  _You_ don't. Others do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Specifically, that's based on (aggregate) income, not net worth, but it still intends to be more proportionate to avoid making crimes legal for rich people. There was actually a recent case in Germany of a wealthy man taking to court over a traffic violation fine, the fine being upheld in court and subsequently corrected to a much larger fine because the original fine was based on a much lower estimate of his income and by challenging it he had to reveal his actual income. Of course the problem with linear scales like this is that wealth doesn't scale linearly (e.g. the practical difference between an income of $10k and $0 is much greater than between $10k and $20k) but it still seems more reasonable than "punishing based on the impact" alone if it is after all intended to be a punishment (and it clearly is, otherwise we wouldn't have prisons).
listless 4y ago
She’s not a criminal. She got paid to promote something and she did. Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she’s paid in much more than she made. Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
- windexh8er 4y ago
  I don't see it that way. If your job is to promote things part of your process, with respect to ascertaining the validity of that work, should be in a wide range of ethics. She knows she has fans that will believe anything she says which is part of the reason why she's paid to promote things. But if all of the sudden a bleach company is paying Kim to promote drinking it to prevent and cure cancer it might feel different. Kim is still directly hurting people through her brand, but in a different way. > Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that. While likely unpopular I wish there were some decent studies on this topic. Like age demographics, screen time in social media, income, schooling, and other background information on the people that fit into this charade. I think this would shed some light on the predatory marketing Kim, potentially, engages in - knowingly or not.
- notakio 4y ago
  The SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was restricted from purchasing stocks unless I ran it through an internal company process first, then ran it by the SEC, all because, as sysadmin, I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. If I had a hunch to buy something, by the time I ran that potential purchase through those two processes and got permission, generally the window of opportunity had closed. Of course, I knew this because it was made explicitly clear to me when I took the job, and when we went through the paperwork to setup the live stock feed. Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.
pid-1 4y ago
Article says she got paid $250,000 for the endorsement, so she lost 5x that amount.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  If the SEC only fines 5x the profit, they have to fine at least 20% of offenses to make this an unprofitable business practice (never mind punishing it). Does the SEC even have the manpower for that?
- 300bps 4y ago
  And if you steal $5 from a grocery store if it's your first offense, in my state it's a summary offense punishable by up to 90 days in jail and fine of up to $300 (60x the amount). The problem with these crimes is that you'll get away with it some multiplier of times you get caught. So if you can do it 20 times and get caught once it doesn't matter if you lost 5x the amount. You're still ahead and can chalk the little fines up to the cost of doing illegal business.

58x14 4y ago

I hate to admit this, but I was (briefly) involved with the Ethereum Max project. They gave me a sizable sum of cash up front, no contract, to act as a general and technical consultant. This happened less than 48hrs after I met some of the main "team" which consisted of over two dozen crypto bros and various boxing promoters, none of whom understood the most basic concepts of blockchains, transactions, currency, regulation, etc. I was with them when they contacted Kim to shill, and I actually advised them to take a much different approach, but of course, I was ignored, and I promptly left the project about a week later. EMAX is really the epitome of everything wrong in cryptocurrency and I'm glad to see a fraction of justice being served here. Now if only the dozens of other "team" members who were (from my firsthand perspective) equally culpable in defrauding the public could also be held accountable, that would be great.

eqmvii 4y ago
Have you been in touch with the SEC? Their investigation is ongoing, and it sounds like you might have info that could help them clean things up…
- 58x14 4y ago
  I haven’t reached out to them and I haven’t been contacted. There was a short window where I was super admin for their entire Google workspace, but everything was pretty cryptic and I had limited time to exfil data. I seriously contemplated going public but I started receiving death threats when I left the project, so I took the… cautious approach. Maybe now that the project is wholly sunk, I should make a YouTube video.
  - snek_case 4y ago
    You have a legal responsibility to share the information you know with the SEC. Do what's right and don't be afraid of these tech bros, they're probably busy pissing their pants right now anyways.
    - fortran77 4y ago

kennend3 4y ago

Proof systems like this need wider adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Far too often these fines are simply considered "the cost of doing business". Worse, in many cases they agree to pay the fine without admitting guilt. It is almost like the government simply wants a cut of the action instead of discouraging it?

DLTADragonHawk 4y ago
I don't know. It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. Is the court there to provide a fair verdict and fair punishment or to dissuade behaviors? If it is the former why should the persons assets be considered as all. If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth?
- kennend3 4y ago
  > If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth? You did not read the link at all, correct? It clearly states that in places like Finland traffic violations are where you see "day fines". > It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. The purpose of the courts is to interpret/enforce laws. Government creates these laws based on the will of the people. If the purpose of the laws is not to "dissuade behaviours" why do we put people in jail? Isn't the whole purpose of the jail system to remove freedoms so they can think about their actions and not do that again? Taking peoples money via "fines" is also intended to "dissuade behaviours" so your point is unclear? The problem is the system has become somewhat of a joke. Large bank creates thousands of fake accounts and earns millions in fees. Large bank is fined an amount below their "ill gotten gains" so the fine is nothing but a "cost of doing business". They are still ahead of the game at the end of the day.
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    It looks like the fine was much more than she got paid.

amelius 4y ago

Is this the same Kim as Kim Dotcom?

toong 4y ago
No. The similar hip size might have confused you ?
Ekaros 4y ago
No this is the celebrity... Both are about as important in general...
kennend3 4y ago
I see the confusion, given the amount of photoshop on Kim K's pictures it "COULD" be Kim Dotcom?
kenyawest 4y ago

eqmvii 4y ago

A good start. I hope the investigation keeps going and exposes more of the comedic web of fraud that fuels the crypto ecosystem.

rvz 4y ago
Yes. The SEC and the regulators are actually doing their jobs for investigating and charging scammers and it doesn't matter if they are as pseudonymous or as famous as Kim Kardashian. So there you go.

ETH_start 4y ago

Any one who promoted this project should be branded as totally bereft of any integrity or sense of judgment, and denied any kind of platform to influence society. There are celebrities who got involved in the crypto market, but did so thoughtfully, and not in the manner of Maywather and Kardashian. Case in point, Terry Crews: https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/everyone-can-be-rich-in-crypto-there-are-no-divine/id1512654905?i=1000524263004 https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/everyone-can-be-rich-i...

haasted 4y ago

Slate has some background on this story from a year ago: https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/ben-mckenzie-crypto-celebrities-kardashian-brady-lohan.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/ben-mckenzie-crypto-cel...

zeroclip 4y ago

How can anybody look at the 'official' Ethereum Max twitter and not see it as a sham?[1] The problem with crypto is that your average retail user, and probably even a lot of regulators, do not understand the difference between Ethereum and Ethereum Max. [1] https://twitter.com/ethereum_max https://twitter.com/ethereum_max

pavlov 4y ago
The problem with crypto is that the use cases are so limited that, to the average retail user, there simply is no difference between Ethereum and Ethereum Max. Both are mysterious digital things you buy and hope the price goes up.
- nightski 4y ago
  You could replace what you said with stocks, investing, and finance in general actually.
  - pgwhalen 4y ago
    Surely a retail investor understands that the AAPL represents claims on the future earnings of Apple, and TSLA represents claims on the future earnings of Tesla. People know what those companies do in the real world.
    - zeroclip 4y ago
      And most understand that Dogecoin and Ethereum are different coins, and probably even that Ethereum and Ethereum Max are different coins. But they often do not know the difference between these protocols or projects. It would be like putting stock tickers on all the hundreds of competing JavaScript frameworks on GitHub and asking the average non-dev what to invest in.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - nightski 4y ago

nailer 4y ago

> Kardashian included “#AD” at the bottom of the post in 2021, according to the SEC. Despite that, the SEC said investors weren’t made aware of her being paid for the ad. Yes they were - not thinking a social media post with '#ad' is an ad is akin to thinking the TV ads are just made by actors that like the products.

the_lonely_road 4y ago
Woah this is a pretty meaty part of the allegation because I 100% would assume that would be good enough to inform your audience that it was an add. Especially given how small a tweet is, how can you reasonably say that a consumer read the content of the tweet but did not read the #ad part? Twitch streamers are paid to play games all the time. It was one of their large revenue streams. They very rarely if ever mention that it is an ad, but they put in their title #ad exactly like this accusation. Obviously the SEC is unlikely to care bout streamers shilling video games to children, but seems like that could be a problem in the future.
reaperducer 4y ago
IANAL, but I believe the "#ad" requirement is from the FTC. The SEC may have a higher bar, since this is securities-related. Just like putting "#ad" on Tweet promoting medicine wouldn't fly with the FDA.

jqpabc123 4y ago

What about those who paid her and profited from this scheme?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

captn3m0 4y ago

https://archive.is/e0Wqo https://archive.is/e0Wqo

seydor 4y ago

Nothing that the launch of EthereumKim won't solve

ensignavenger 4y ago
She agreed not to promote any digital asset for 3 years, so it will have to wait a while.

shapefrog 4y ago

IWorkAtBigCo 4y ago

Now do Randi Zuckerberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp0diaVLPrQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp0diaVLPrQ

adanto6840 4y ago
LOL. That's legitimately entertaining and hysterical.

djschnei 4y ago

Does very little to help the laimen that got fleeced in yet another crypto pump-and-dump... I wonder if the whole ordeal was still profitable for her. You know it was for the Eth Max founders. At least they had the guts to officially call it a "crypto asset security"

miohtama 4y ago

EthereumMax was not only “crypto security”, but it was a clean cut fraud from the start to the end. The SEC could have gone with simple fraud charges, as they have done with earlier scams like scam ICOs from 2017, but now they have started to push this “crypto security” term around. I surely hope Mrs Kardashian got her $250k payment with vesting and cliffed EthereumMax token for her promotion for fraud, instead of dollars.

happyopossum 4y ago
> got her $250k payment with vesting and cliffed EthereumMax token for her promotion for fraud, I recognize all of these words as English, but I have no idea what you're saying

djschnei 4y ago

Meekro 4y ago

Kim's whole business is doing paid promotions to her Instagram followers-- typically $250k-$500k per promotion. Turns out that's illegal for securities, unless you disclose how much you got paid. If she'd added a footnote to her post, she would have been fine-- maybe something like "The brilliant folks at EthereumMax paid me $250k to bring you this message." Such a footnote wouldn't have hurt the ad's effectiveness. There were news articles at the time warning people not to take investment advice from Kim Kardashian[1], but that didn't seem to deter people. [1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-kim-kardashian-hawking-a-sketchy-new-cryptocurrency https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-kim-kardashian-hawking-...

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
> illegal for securities, unless you disclose how much you got paid Since she certainly has "people" who know this and advise her, I can only assume that they thought that doing this would reduce the effectiveness of the advertising. Someone made a judgement call (heh!) and decided that the expected fine, if prosecuted, was less than she'd make from the promotion.

dboreham 4y ago

Source article: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/33-11116.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/33-11116.pdf Also, it can be interesting to read the filings daily posted here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.htm https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.htm

Animats 4y ago

The SEC added more enforcement staff to their "cyber" unit a few months ago. The number of crypto-related enforcement actions just increased from about two a month to four in one week.[1] Until recently, they were still working down the backlog from the ICO scams of 2018-2019. Now, they're going after much more recent violations. It's hammer time for crypto scams. [1] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-actions https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti...