3 ms·

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

by 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.

by jakear 4y ago

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.