8 ms·

Taylor Swift didn’t fall for FTX because she asked a simple question

cpufry 4y ago
double negatives always confuse me
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Do you mean: double negatives never don't confuse you?
ratg13 4y ago
Clickbait article misattributes this to Taylor herself, when in reality this was caught by her father, a financial advisor of 30 years at Merrill Lynch.
- blamazon 4y ago
  "Misattribute" does not feel like the right word here. Unless I'm missing something, the lawyer is attributing Swift to asking the question in the podcast quoted in article, which is what the article's headline and body text say. Of course, it is clickbait nonetheless. Additionally, do you have a source for the claim that her father was the actual person that "caught" this? I did a small search and did not find. If it is just a presumption based on his career, a more charitable take along these lines might be that she could have learned about securities from her dad sometime over those 30 years and thus could have not needed to consult him to know the question to ask.
  - drc500free 4y ago
    It's strange that commenters here think a 30-year-old entrepreneur worth $500M wouldn't know that there have been SEC questions around crypto offerings being unregistered securities for years. It's not some obscure detail, it's one of the key risks of being involved in a new crypto offering as an investor, and I think most people posting here have read years of HN discussions about the relevant SEC positions. Ultra high net worth individuals - especially ones that have launched multiple business lines - are fairly likely to have heard about it. At least enough to play word association and ask someone to look into it for them.
legitster 4y ago
> Swift avoided getting dragged in FTX’s collapse because the singer did her due diligence, and asked one important question: “Can you tell me that these are not unregistered securities?”, according to South Florida attorney Adam Moskowitz. Moskowitz, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit I do not for a second believe that Taylor Swift herself asked this literal question. It is a summarization of the due diligence her team performed, as paraphrased by the attorney charging everyone else. Take it with a grain of salt - this whole guy's legal case rides on the implication that all of the defendants knowingly had a duty to perform due diligence. And so proving that some celebrities like Taylor Swift backed out - not because of money or scheduling but because they understood that they were trading securities illegally - is important to his case. Personally, I come down on the side of the defendants on this one. When Larry David was hired to do a superbowl commercial for FTX, how much was he really expected understand about securities law? Could we really argue he was in on the fraud? If he did a superbowl commercial for Chipotle we wouldn't expect him to perform his own health inspections.
- tough 4y ago
  I mean Larry's literally said Naaaaaah to FTX in that ad. You should have really heard the man I guess
  - legitster 4y ago
    That would be an amazing legal defense if it worked. "I was in the ad but I was telling people not to buy it!"
    - tough 4y ago
      I was just thinking how his acting was so on point with his broader branding, the whole ad he's 'Curbing your enthusiam' of sorts. The ad ending: >Q: Would you say is FTX an easy and safe way to go into crypto? Larry: Eeeaaaah I don't think so, And I'm never wrong about this stuff, never. The ad ends with a don't be like larry, which ironically if you where like me and interpreted all marketing or ads by default as the double speak likes they are, you would just read as -be just like larry, avoid FTX- IANAL, but yeah that'd be a fun defense strategy to behold to be on a real trial, very comically appropiate for larry's trial if there's ever one
tough 4y ago
Hijack, as a famous people resell your likeness for any kind of whacky fake scammy endorsements, but make a TOS that make you not responsible of any wrongdoing of using ur likeness With AI tools this is doable already. If you're famous and need plausible denaibility to promote the next FTX just hit me up lol
tough 4y ago
Why isn't the SEC going after the politicians that accepted donations from FTX? Did those politicians ask any questions at all or just happily recieve the money, no questions asked, wink wink
- meepmorp 4y ago
  > Why isn't the SEC going after the politicians that accepted donations from FTX? Those would be campaign donations, which are not part of the SEC's responsibilities.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Why isn't the SEC going after the politicians that accepted donations from FTX? Because that's not the SECs job. It may be FEC’s job to do something about that, and it may be current FTX management's job to do something about that, but its definitely not SEC’s job. > Did those politicians ask any questions at all or just happily recieve the money They weren’t from FTX (corporations can't donate to candidates) but from individuals, and often through cutouts specifically to conceal the actual responsible individual (SBF) to avoid the questions that would come, including from the recipients, about the pattern of donations.
- josephd79 4y ago
  I thought they were doing clawbacks, no?
tough 4y ago
I was expecting the reason to be that she met FTX Founder Sam and decided to not go with the vegan effective-altruist pay-your-politician crowd Smart girl
spaceman_2020 4y ago
> $100 billion: How much FTX was willing to pay the celebrated singer-songwriter. This seems...wrong.
- calgarymicro 4y ago
  Yeah, it was $100 million, not $100 billion.[0] [0]https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-avoided-100-million-ftx-deal-with-securities-question-2023-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-avoided-100-mil...
say_it_as_it_is 4y ago
Can you tell me that these are not unregistered securities?? I... I don't know. What? Where am I. Oh, hi.
wodenokoto 4y ago
> I mean, why would you possibly promote cryptocurrency if it may be an unregistered security? I have no idea what that means one way or another. But if someone with backers like FTX at their height of their game came and asked me to promote them for a lot of money, I probably would assume they were legit.
guilhas 4y ago
So the secret sauce is not to promote or invest in any crypto related? Also of all the crypto companies FTX looked the more legitimate one, with their political connections, pushing for regulation...
vanjajaja1 4y ago
I wonder if Larry David's commercial was written in such a dismissive / negative joking way because it would be easier to avoid litigation? "I wasn't promoting it, I was on the ad saying I wasn't going to invest..."
credit_guy 4y ago
But wait. The downfall of FTX had nothing to do with selling unregistered securities. It had all to do with placing the wrong bets and having weak/non-existent risk controls. Also quite likely, even outright embezzlement.

double negatives always confuse me

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JohnFen 4y ago
Do you mean: double negatives never don't confuse you?

Clickbait article misattributes this to Taylor herself, when in reality this was caught by her father, a financial advisor of 30 years at Merrill Lynch.

blamazon 4y ago
"Misattribute" does not feel like the right word here. Unless I'm missing something, the lawyer is attributing Swift to asking the question in the podcast quoted in article, which is what the article's headline and body text say. Of course, it is clickbait nonetheless. Additionally, do you have a source for the claim that her father was the actual person that "caught" this? I did a small search and did not find. If it is just a presumption based on his career, a more charitable take along these lines might be that she could have learned about securities from her dad sometime over those 30 years and thus could have not needed to consult him to know the question to ask.
- drc500free 4y ago
  It's strange that commenters here think a 30-year-old entrepreneur worth $500M wouldn't know that there have been SEC questions around crypto offerings being unregistered securities for years. It's not some obscure detail, it's one of the key risks of being involved in a new crypto offering as an investor, and I think most people posting here have read years of HN discussions about the relevant SEC positions. Ultra high net worth individuals - especially ones that have launched multiple business lines - are fairly likely to have heard about it. At least enough to play word association and ask someone to look into it for them.

legitster 4y ago

> Swift avoided getting dragged in FTX’s collapse because the singer did her due diligence, and asked one important question: “Can you tell me that these are not unregistered securities?”, according to South Florida attorney Adam Moskowitz. Moskowitz, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit I do not for a second believe that Taylor Swift herself asked this literal question. It is a summarization of the due diligence her team performed, as paraphrased by the attorney charging everyone else. Take it with a grain of salt - this whole guy's legal case rides on the implication that all of the defendants knowingly had a duty to perform due diligence. And so proving that some celebrities like Taylor Swift backed out - not because of money or scheduling but because they understood that they were trading securities illegally - is important to his case. Personally, I come down on the side of the defendants on this one. When Larry David was hired to do a superbowl commercial for FTX, how much was he really expected understand about securities law? Could we really argue he was in on the fraud? If he did a superbowl commercial for Chipotle we wouldn't expect him to perform his own health inspections.

tough 4y ago
I mean Larry's literally said Naaaaaah to FTX in that ad. You should have really heard the man I guess
- legitster 4y ago
  That would be an amazing legal defense if it worked. "I was in the ad but I was telling people not to buy it!"
  - tough 4y ago
    I was just thinking how his acting was so on point with his broader branding, the whole ad he's 'Curbing your enthusiam' of sorts. The ad ending: >Q: Would you say is FTX an easy and safe way to go into crypto? Larry: Eeeaaaah I don't think so, And I'm never wrong about this stuff, never. The ad ends with a don't be like larry, which ironically if you where like me and interpreted all marketing or ads by default as the double speak likes they are, you would just read as -be just like larry, avoid FTX- IANAL, but yeah that'd be a fun defense strategy to behold to be on a real trial, very comically appropiate for larry's trial if there's ever one

tough 4y ago

Hijack, as a famous people resell your likeness for any kind of whacky fake scammy endorsements, but make a TOS that make you not responsible of any wrongdoing of using ur likeness With AI tools this is doable already. If you're famous and need plausible denaibility to promote the next FTX just hit me up lol

tough 4y ago

Why isn't the SEC going after the politicians that accepted donations from FTX? Did those politicians ask any questions at all or just happily recieve the money, no questions asked, wink wink

meepmorp 4y ago
> Why isn't the SEC going after the politicians that accepted donations from FTX? Those would be campaign donations, which are not part of the SEC's responsibilities.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Why isn't the SEC going after the politicians that accepted donations from FTX? Because that's not the SECs job. It may be FEC’s job to do something about that, and it may be current FTX management's job to do something about that, but its definitely not SEC’s job. > Did those politicians ask any questions at all or just happily recieve the money They weren’t from FTX (corporations can't donate to candidates) but from individuals, and often through cutouts specifically to conceal the actual responsible individual (SBF) to avoid the questions that would come, including from the recipients, about the pattern of donations.
josephd79 4y ago
I thought they were doing clawbacks, no?

tough 4y ago

I was expecting the reason to be that she met FTX Founder Sam and decided to not go with the vegan effective-altruist pay-your-politician crowd Smart girl

spaceman_2020 4y ago

> $100 billion: How much FTX was willing to pay the celebrated singer-songwriter. This seems...wrong.

calgarymicro 4y ago
Yeah, it was $100 million, not $100 billion.[0] [0]https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-avoided-100-million-ftx-deal-with-securities-question-2023-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-avoided-100-mil...

say_it_as_it_is 4y ago

Can you tell me that these are not unregistered securities?? I... I don't know. What? Where am I. Oh, hi.

wodenokoto 4y ago

> I mean, why would you possibly promote cryptocurrency if it may be an unregistered security? I have no idea what that means one way or another. But if someone with backers like FTX at their height of their game came and asked me to promote them for a lot of money, I probably would assume they were legit.

guilhas 4y ago

So the secret sauce is not to promote or invest in any crypto related? Also of all the crypto companies FTX looked the more legitimate one, with their political connections, pushing for regulation...

vanjajaja1 4y ago

I wonder if Larry David's commercial was written in such a dismissive / negative joking way because it would be easier to avoid litigation? "I wasn't promoting it, I was on the ad saying I wasn't going to invest..."

credit_guy 4y ago

But wait. The downfall of FTX had nothing to do with selling unregistered securities. It had all to do with placing the wrong bets and having weak/non-existent risk controls. Also quite likely, even outright embezzlement.