4 ms·

I'm at odds with this title. Wash trading is wrong. By presenting something as "wash trading gone wrong", you somehow imply that something could have been right

by pyrale 3y ago

I'm at odds with this title. Wash trading is wrong. By presenting something as "wash trading gone wrong", you somehow imply that something could have been right at some point. The content is also flawed: > It's a cautionary tale for any crypto exchange looking to get ahead by faking volume Is that news outlet openly writing for fraudsters? What's their next article, 5 best ways to open an illegal casino?

devnullbrain 3y ago
It's just interesting. There's nothing wrong with telling people that committing a crime will turn out badly for them. Matt Levine often does the same with insider trading. You're being overly literal.
- Mystery-Machine 3y ago
  What turned out badly? They were stopped, but it didn't turn out bad for them, it just stopped being good. They stopped making money, but they kept all the money from the users. It's a typical crypto rug pull.
logicchains 3y ago
By "wash trading gone wrong", they mean it failed in its objective. The "wrong" here doesn't mean morally wrong, it means "the wrong way to achieve the goal". Much as "a code optimisation gone wrong" doesn't mean it was morally wrong, it means it catastrophically failed to achieve its objective.
- haswell 3y ago
  Wash trading is illegal, and "wrong" in both senses here...there's no "right way to achieve the goal" if the goal is wash trading. I think it's trying to go for a snarky/satirical tone, but instead it comes across as highly ambiguous. I think comparing this to code optimization is a category error. It'd be closer to saying "insider trading gone wrong". The opposite of catastrophic failure here is the successful execution of a crime. If they led with "BaseFEX accidentally bankrupts itself with wash trading scheme", the rest of the content might land a bit better. The fact that it's hosted on the blog of an options trading product and the statement that the post is "a solid guide for anyone who knows a bit of coding, and wants to take advantage of shady crypto exchanges" also plays a part in the weirdness of the framing, IMO. Overall, while interesting, it's a mess of a post.
  - skinnymuch 3y ago
    The person talked about morally wrong. Legality, morality, ethics are not the same. The usage seems correct to me. The objective of wash trading to capitalist success happened well enough but not perfectly.
    - haswell 3y ago
      Everything can be technically correct in a terribly written piece. It’s really all about framing and context. The issue is not really the specific word used. The issue is the overall framing and the ambiguity that the framing introduces. Now imagine the exchange didn’t bankrupt itself and successfully kept these trades under the radar and then went on to become a popular product. Some time later, the government catches wind and begins an investigation. Imagine how odd a story about this would be if framed as: “The dos and don’ts of wash trading”. With content like “do make sure you don’t fall prey to smart Python programmers” and “don’t get caught”. It’d be a lot weirder than “Popular exchange in trouble after the feds discovered evidence of early wash trading”.
      - ac2u 3y ago
        Your side of the argument seems really laboured. It’s like someone posted an article about how a high stakes jewel heist went wrong for the robbers and a bunch of people are having a go saying “well robbery can never go right because it’s wrong”
        haswell 3y ago
        Key to my side of the argument is the relative obscurity of wash trading vs. a widely recognizable crime like insider trading or robbery. If the content and framing worked for you, great. But we’ll have to agree to disagree about its effectiveness.
        ac2u 3y ago
        Fair. I had heard of wash trading before going in.
- hinkley 3y ago
  They’re calling fraud ‘faking’. That’s like calling attempted murder ‘an altercation’. The author comes off sounding like a sociopath.
bequanna 3y ago
Phrases like “robbery gone wrong” are common. It simply implies that someone was harmed when that wasn’t the intention.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  But with wash trading, like robbery, harming others is the intention.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    …harming themselves was not. Thus, it has “gone wrong”.
  - skinnymuch 3y ago
    These are words that are part of laws. Robbery is usually meant to be unlawfully taking private property. Why society in the first place believes we can have so much private property in such an unequal society makes this not a simple concept. I would be surprised if most people trying to do some semblance of a robbery on a financial institution actually believe they are harming others. If it goes cleanly, who got “hurt”? A bunch of rich people? Insurance?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > I would be surprised if most people trying to do some semblance of a robbery on a financial institution actually believe they are harming others. I think that most people who are stealing from others probably go to great lengths to contort their thinking such that it makes their theft OK in some way. If you're engaging in fraud or theft, you are undeniably intending to harm others. Making excuses such as "they can afford it" is not claiming there is no harm, it's claiming that the harm is justified.
    - DropInIn 3y ago
      You can't decry the Other for acts you commit without remorse or recompense. Enough with the double standards. The only ones who can commit "sins" and still hold any moral high ground are "Sin Eaters", but they don't do those things for any personal benefit but rather to correct improper benefits other have received or seek to receive. The rest of us are just selfish hypocritical trash that should either change our ways or stfu.

by pyrale 3y ago

devnullbrain 3y ago

It's just interesting. There's nothing wrong with telling people that committing a crime will turn out badly for them. Matt Levine often does the same with insider trading. You're being overly literal.

Mystery-Machine 3y ago
What turned out badly? They were stopped, but it didn't turn out bad for them, it just stopped being good. They stopped making money, but they kept all the money from the users. It's a typical crypto rug pull.

logicchains 3y ago

By "wash trading gone wrong", they mean it failed in its objective. The "wrong" here doesn't mean morally wrong, it means "the wrong way to achieve the goal". Much as "a code optimisation gone wrong" doesn't mean it was morally wrong, it means it catastrophically failed to achieve its objective.

haswell 3y ago
Wash trading is illegal, and "wrong" in both senses here...there's no "right way to achieve the goal" if the goal is wash trading. I think it's trying to go for a snarky/satirical tone, but instead it comes across as highly ambiguous. I think comparing this to code optimization is a category error. It'd be closer to saying "insider trading gone wrong". The opposite of catastrophic failure here is the successful execution of a crime. If they led with "BaseFEX accidentally bankrupts itself with wash trading scheme", the rest of the content might land a bit better. The fact that it's hosted on the blog of an options trading product and the statement that the post is "a solid guide for anyone who knows a bit of coding, and wants to take advantage of shady crypto exchanges" also plays a part in the weirdness of the framing, IMO. Overall, while interesting, it's a mess of a post.
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  The person talked about morally wrong. Legality, morality, ethics are not the same. The usage seems correct to me. The objective of wash trading to capitalist success happened well enough but not perfectly.
  - haswell 3y ago
    Everything can be technically correct in a terribly written piece. It’s really all about framing and context. The issue is not really the specific word used. The issue is the overall framing and the ambiguity that the framing introduces. Now imagine the exchange didn’t bankrupt itself and successfully kept these trades under the radar and then went on to become a popular product. Some time later, the government catches wind and begins an investigation. Imagine how odd a story about this would be if framed as: “The dos and don’ts of wash trading”. With content like “do make sure you don’t fall prey to smart Python programmers” and “don’t get caught”. It’d be a lot weirder than “Popular exchange in trouble after the feds discovered evidence of early wash trading”.
    - ac2u 3y ago
      Your side of the argument seems really laboured. It’s like someone posted an article about how a high stakes jewel heist went wrong for the robbers and a bunch of people are having a go saying “well robbery can never go right because it’s wrong”
      - haswell 3y ago
        Key to my side of the argument is the relative obscurity of wash trading vs. a widely recognizable crime like insider trading or robbery. If the content and framing worked for you, great. But we’ll have to agree to disagree about its effectiveness.
        ac2u 3y ago
        Fair. I had heard of wash trading before going in.
hinkley 3y ago
They’re calling fraud ‘faking’. That’s like calling attempted murder ‘an altercation’. The author comes off sounding like a sociopath.

bequanna 3y ago

Phrases like “robbery gone wrong” are common. It simply implies that someone was harmed when that wasn’t the intention.

JohnFen 3y ago
But with wash trading, like robbery, harming others is the intention.
- bequanna 3y ago
  …harming themselves was not. Thus, it has “gone wrong”.
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  These are words that are part of laws. Robbery is usually meant to be unlawfully taking private property. Why society in the first place believes we can have so much private property in such an unequal society makes this not a simple concept. I would be surprised if most people trying to do some semblance of a robbery on a financial institution actually believe they are harming others. If it goes cleanly, who got “hurt”? A bunch of rich people? Insurance?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I would be surprised if most people trying to do some semblance of a robbery on a financial institution actually believe they are harming others. I think that most people who are stealing from others probably go to great lengths to contort their thinking such that it makes their theft OK in some way. If you're engaging in fraud or theft, you are undeniably intending to harm others. Making excuses such as "they can afford it" is not claiming there is no harm, it's claiming that the harm is justified.
  - DropInIn 3y ago
    You can't decry the Other for acts you commit without remorse or recompense. Enough with the double standards. The only ones who can commit "sins" and still hold any moral high ground are "Sin Eaters", but they don't do those things for any personal benefit but rather to correct improper benefits other have received or seek to receive. The rest of us are just selfish hypocritical trash that should either change our ways or stfu.