7 ms·

I don't think the celebs are going to be held accountable (and I don't think they should be) in any real sense. None of them had any real insight into how it wa

I don't think the celebs are going to be held accountable (and I don't think they should be) in any real sense. None of them had any real insight into how it was being run and I wouldn't expect them to have that knowledge.

thunky 4y ago
You're probably right. But Tom Brady owns his own crypto/nft scam company (autograph.io), so I wouldn't be surprised if he knew it was a money grab. I also won't be surprised if he faces charges for it down the road.
- carewell 4y ago
  I don't want to seem like I am defending crypto, but how is selling NFTs a scam? FTX was scam not because it was selling crypto but because it was an actual financial scam, a business breaking US laws.
  - thunky 4y ago
    I personally think the goal of autograph.io is "to take advantage of unsophisticated investors", which is part of the allegation against him wrt FTX. He does this by using his celebrity power, as well as bringing in other big athletes (tiger woods for example) to pump up artificial demand for junk NFTs. I also think that the NFTs they sell are designed to be confusing, and the buyer probably doesn't know what they're (not) buying in many cases... although this is probably true for all NFTs. This may all be legal now, but I think he's playing with fire. When people engage in greed fueled schemes like this, chances go up that they have engaged in actual fraud. IMO what he's doing here is more crooked than his FTX involvement already.
edmundsauto 4y ago
The question is whether we should hold them legally accountable to have that knowledge (or at least having done some basic research). In some sense, being a brand ambassador is to lend your credibility and honor to a product. Whether society is better or worse is an open question, as there would be pretty obvious workarounds and it might just add noise to the regulations. I do think people should be generally accountable for what they promote. Otherwise there is an open loop, where individuals and companies can get the upside without a corresponding downside of accountability. That inherently unbalanced the scales, which is a bad incentive.
- nradov 4y ago
  So if Merck hires some actor to advertise a new prescription painkiller, and that drug later turns out to cause heart attacks, should the actor be held legally accountable?
  - exabrial 4y ago
    Yes, duh. Medical decisions shouldn’t be based on actors attractiveness… it should be based on efficacy and safety.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    I think we can distinguish between an actor playing a role and a famous person hired to endorse a product. If this means commercials revert to having all no-name actors because the law tilts towards endorsement, so be it.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Please explain how such a law could ever possibly comply with the constitutional vagueness doctrine, and with 1st Amendment protections on freedom of expression.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > explain how such a law could ever possibly comply with the constitutional vagueness doctrine, and with 1st Amendment protections on freedom of expression Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment [1]. This is old law. [1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        Fraud isn't protected, so that is how you would handle the 1st amendment. Whether the person was acting as an actor or was endorsing it as a celebrity is a matter of fact for the jury. It actually doesn't even sound that hard to demonstrate. Tom Brady wasn't paid 10MM (or whatever) because he is that much of a better actor. He was paid to be himself and endorse a product.
andreareina 4y ago
I think anybody who promotes something has at the very least the responsibility to verify that way they're promoting is probably on the up-and-up. Obviously they can't know for sure but some diligence is due, especially when the thing smells like investment advice. If I put my money into ftx because I saw Tom Brady hawking it that's on me. But to say that Tom is without responsibility ignores human nature. Celebrities get paid millions to endorse products because it demonstrably short-circuits our decision-making process. Edit: to be clear I speak entirely on the moral/ethical side of the question. For better or worse the legal system doesn't legislate mortality.
- ralusek 4y ago
  I think it depends. If Tiger Woods promotes a golf club and I find out that it sucks, I'll be annoyed at him. If Larry David promotes a crypto exchange, my expectation is: 1.) Larry David doesn't know how crypto works, and very likely thinks it's stupid 2.) Larry David doesn't understand the additional layer of what a crypto exchange is 3.) Larry David doesn't have any opinion regarding which crypto exchange to use. He definitely doesn't know internals wrt how much of a reserve the exchange is keeping, and whether the coins with which they're backing other coins are reputable If I lose money with this exchange, I place 0 blame on Larry David.
  - andreareina 4y ago
    You sound like a rational person who isn't swayed by endorsements by non-experts. Or maybe you already know about crypto, so you already have an informed opinion. None of that applies to most people. Again, if it did companies wouldn't be spending eye-watering amounts of money to these celebs. We all ought to be rational. We're not.
- jakear 4y ago
  Third party auditors said FTX was all groovy. How the heck can we expect Larry David or Tom Brady to perform better financial DD than folks who quite literally do it for a living? They’re entertainers, their contributions should be judged on entertainment value; the auditors should be the ones judged on audit quality. If an auditor had raised flags and Tom and Larry went on to promote it knowing that, that’s a totally different story. But no-one knew, that’s kinda the whole problem.
liamwestray 4y ago
I mean sure. But Gisele's ads were specifically calling her an "ESG Advisor" to FTX. If you're going to tell me you're any kind of "governance" advisor to a company that defrauded people to the tune of billions, I am not going to pretend you are somehow not partially liable.
- statictype 4y ago
  Do you feel all employees of FTX are partially liable? Where do you draw that line? People endorsing products have zero inputs in the decision making processes that lead to these meltdowns so I don’t really see how they can be held accountable.
  - ReptileMan 4y ago
    FTX employees are fully liable. Except probably the janitor. FTX/Alameda were obvious scams.
    - ptudan 4y ago
      Obvious scams eh? Wheres your short money
    - tasuki 4y ago
      Why is the janitor not liable? They janited for a fraudulent company.
    - arlcode 4y ago
      What about the HR staff interviewing or hiring people? Or the marketing person who created / managed an Instagram campaign? Or the IT staff who setup notebooks and a VPN/firewall? None of these (or many others) was even involved in the core product or are expected to know anything about financial regulations. There is a reason that usually only senor leadership is involved in such suits. There are exceptions to that rule of course
Animats 4y ago
The SEC already got $1.25 million from Kim Kardashian for promoting Etherium Max without disclosing they paid her $250K to do so.[1] [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-183 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-183

thunky 4y ago

You're probably right. But Tom Brady owns his own crypto/nft scam company (autograph.io), so I wouldn't be surprised if he knew it was a money grab. I also won't be surprised if he faces charges for it down the road.

carewell 4y ago
I don't want to seem like I am defending crypto, but how is selling NFTs a scam? FTX was scam not because it was selling crypto but because it was an actual financial scam, a business breaking US laws.
- thunky 4y ago
  I personally think the goal of autograph.io is "to take advantage of unsophisticated investors", which is part of the allegation against him wrt FTX. He does this by using his celebrity power, as well as bringing in other big athletes (tiger woods for example) to pump up artificial demand for junk NFTs. I also think that the NFTs they sell are designed to be confusing, and the buyer probably doesn't know what they're (not) buying in many cases... although this is probably true for all NFTs. This may all be legal now, but I think he's playing with fire. When people engage in greed fueled schemes like this, chances go up that they have engaged in actual fraud. IMO what he's doing here is more crooked than his FTX involvement already.

edmundsauto 4y ago

The question is whether we should hold them legally accountable to have that knowledge (or at least having done some basic research). In some sense, being a brand ambassador is to lend your credibility and honor to a product. Whether society is better or worse is an open question, as there would be pretty obvious workarounds and it might just add noise to the regulations. I do think people should be generally accountable for what they promote. Otherwise there is an open loop, where individuals and companies can get the upside without a corresponding downside of accountability. That inherently unbalanced the scales, which is a bad incentive.

nradov 4y ago
So if Merck hires some actor to advertise a new prescription painkiller, and that drug later turns out to cause heart attacks, should the actor be held legally accountable?
- exabrial 4y ago
  Yes, duh. Medical decisions shouldn’t be based on actors attractiveness… it should be based on efficacy and safety.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  I think we can distinguish between an actor playing a role and a famous person hired to endorse a product. If this means commercials revert to having all no-name actors because the law tilts towards endorsement, so be it.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Please explain how such a law could ever possibly comply with the constitutional vagueness doctrine, and with 1st Amendment protections on freedom of expression.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > explain how such a law could ever possibly comply with the constitutional vagueness doctrine, and with 1st Amendment protections on freedom of expression Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment [1]. This is old law. [1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Fraud isn't protected, so that is how you would handle the 1st amendment. Whether the person was acting as an actor or was endorsing it as a celebrity is a matter of fact for the jury. It actually doesn't even sound that hard to demonstrate. Tom Brady wasn't paid 10MM (or whatever) because he is that much of a better actor. He was paid to be himself and endorse a product.

andreareina 4y ago

I think anybody who promotes something has at the very least the responsibility to verify that way they're promoting is probably on the up-and-up. Obviously they can't know for sure but some diligence is due, especially when the thing smells like investment advice. If I put my money into ftx because I saw Tom Brady hawking it that's on me. But to say that Tom is without responsibility ignores human nature. Celebrities get paid millions to endorse products because it demonstrably short-circuits our decision-making process. Edit: to be clear I speak entirely on the moral/ethical side of the question. For better or worse the legal system doesn't legislate mortality.

ralusek 4y ago
I think it depends. If Tiger Woods promotes a golf club and I find out that it sucks, I'll be annoyed at him. If Larry David promotes a crypto exchange, my expectation is: 1.) Larry David doesn't know how crypto works, and very likely thinks it's stupid 2.) Larry David doesn't understand the additional layer of what a crypto exchange is 3.) Larry David doesn't have any opinion regarding which crypto exchange to use. He definitely doesn't know internals wrt how much of a reserve the exchange is keeping, and whether the coins with which they're backing other coins are reputable If I lose money with this exchange, I place 0 blame on Larry David.
- andreareina 4y ago
  You sound like a rational person who isn't swayed by endorsements by non-experts. Or maybe you already know about crypto, so you already have an informed opinion. None of that applies to most people. Again, if it did companies wouldn't be spending eye-watering amounts of money to these celebs. We all ought to be rational. We're not.
jakear 4y ago
Third party auditors said FTX was all groovy. How the heck can we expect Larry David or Tom Brady to perform better financial DD than folks who quite literally do it for a living? They’re entertainers, their contributions should be judged on entertainment value; the auditors should be the ones judged on audit quality. If an auditor had raised flags and Tom and Larry went on to promote it knowing that, that’s a totally different story. But no-one knew, that’s kinda the whole problem.

liamwestray 4y ago

I mean sure. But Gisele's ads were specifically calling her an "ESG Advisor" to FTX. If you're going to tell me you're any kind of "governance" advisor to a company that defrauded people to the tune of billions, I am not going to pretend you are somehow not partially liable.

statictype 4y ago
Do you feel all employees of FTX are partially liable? Where do you draw that line? People endorsing products have zero inputs in the decision making processes that lead to these meltdowns so I don’t really see how they can be held accountable.
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  FTX employees are fully liable. Except probably the janitor. FTX/Alameda were obvious scams.
  - ptudan 4y ago
    Obvious scams eh? Wheres your short money
  - tasuki 4y ago
    Why is the janitor not liable? They janited for a fraudulent company.
  - arlcode 4y ago
    What about the HR staff interviewing or hiring people? Or the marketing person who created / managed an Instagram campaign? Or the IT staff who setup notebooks and a VPN/firewall? None of these (or many others) was even involved in the core product or are expected to know anything about financial regulations. There is a reason that usually only senor leadership is involved in such suits. There are exceptions to that rule of course

Animats 4y ago

The SEC already got $1.25 million from Kim Kardashian for promoting Etherium Max without disclosing they paid her $250K to do so.[1] [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-183 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-183