4 ms·
The difference here is that Brady and Bundchen not only received payment in equity as brand ambassadors they also invested into a stake of FTX. The conflict of
by hervature 4y ago
The difference here is that Brady and Bundchen not only received payment in equity as brand ambassadors they also invested into a stake of FTX. The conflict of interest is probably more actionable but the official role could make him subject to being an insider. Obviously there is a lot of negligence to go around here but if we swapped Ja Rule for Brady and FTX for Fyre Festevial (and Bahamas for Bermuda) we can see that some lawyers have gainful employment for a while.
- laborcontract 4y agoHow is this a conflict of interest? That’s the first time I’ve seen it presented this way. If they received equity, are their interests not more aligned with customers?
- yellow_lead 4y agoI would say they're less aligned because they now have an incentive to sell it for the highest price and convince others to buy it. The interests are opposite.
- JamesianP 4y agoBut equity is supposed to go up in value because of profit and growth and whatnot, not just in price. That's why you buy it. At least in a normal universe. They still need to know there was a scam going on to be culpable for it. Though I can see taking whatever cash payments they got back, if it rightfully belongs to scammed customers.
- hervature 4y agoRead my other comment, this is mostly about the true relationship since they are not simply being paid for an appearance. Given everything that transpired, was Brady's interests aligned with customers? Tough to say yes.
- unityByFreedom 4y ago> The conflict of interest is probably more actionable but the official role could make him subject to being an insider. What? No. Kardashian was fined because she advertised crypto without disclosing she was paid for the ad. Presumably these celebrities already made those disclosures, or it's understood since everyone knows TV ads are paid.
- hervature 4y agoAs far as I know, people do not have to disclose payment for TV ads because that would make TV advertising dead. Rather, I'm thinking more from the perspective that getting the CEO of a company (unbeknownst to the viewers) to pump up the company without saying they are a substantial insider is the problematic part. The issue is not failing to disclose payment but failing to disclose that your true relationship.