4 ms·

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 the

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.
- andreareina 4y ago
  My position is that celebs have no business hawking anything as risky as crypto. You're right, they're entertainers. They are not competent to have any public opinion on what someone else should do about crypto. This isn't like "washing hands is a good hygiene practice". Crypto is controversial, I can't throw a rock without hitting ten finance processionals that have ten contradictory opinions. Someone who doesn't know what they're talking about should stay in their lane and not spout crap they don't understand about stuff that has a major impact on people's finances. And if they do, then they own the consequences. I don't know if it's legal, but let's say it is: are we ok with celebs endorsing gambling? I sure as hell am not, I don't care what the auditors say about the solvency of the platform.
  - jakear 4y ago
    The government enforcing who is and isn't allowed to talk about "controversial topics" is a slippery slope I don't want to come close to approaching. Ban calling for acts of violence, sure, but beyond that let people make their own decisions. The populous will be much better served by learning how to look at a bunch of actors* making a bunch of conflicting statements about a topic and gauging the net ground truth themselves than simply relying on the government to be the divine truth-tellers without question. When they get bit here and there and lose some money, that's a pretty important lesson in returns too good to be true. *Hewitt-Bishop, not David-McConaughey
    - andreareina 4y ago
      I'm not taking a position on what the law should be. That was unclear in my original post, and I've edited it to reflect that.

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.

andreareina 4y ago
My position is that celebs have no business hawking anything as risky as crypto. You're right, they're entertainers. They are not competent to have any public opinion on what someone else should do about crypto. This isn't like "washing hands is a good hygiene practice". Crypto is controversial, I can't throw a rock without hitting ten finance processionals that have ten contradictory opinions. Someone who doesn't know what they're talking about should stay in their lane and not spout crap they don't understand about stuff that has a major impact on people's finances. And if they do, then they own the consequences. I don't know if it's legal, but let's say it is: are we ok with celebs endorsing gambling? I sure as hell am not, I don't care what the auditors say about the solvency of the platform.
- jakear 4y ago
  The government enforcing who is and isn't allowed to talk about "controversial topics" is a slippery slope I don't want to come close to approaching. Ban calling for acts of violence, sure, but beyond that let people make their own decisions. The populous will be much better served by learning how to look at a bunch of actors* making a bunch of conflicting statements about a topic and gauging the net ground truth themselves than simply relying on the government to be the divine truth-tellers without question. When they get bit here and there and lose some money, that's a pretty important lesson in returns too good to be true. *Hewitt-Bishop, not David-McConaughey
  - andreareina 4y ago
    I'm not taking a position on what the law should be. That was unclear in my original post, and I've edited it to reflect that.