7 ms·

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest c

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest crypto pump and dump in history.

mulmen 3y ago
How is the SEC responsible for fraud committed on Twitter?
- lxgr 3y ago
  By using Twitter as a communications channel for official announcements, they are at least legitimizing it. If they have any reason to be concerned about the security of their account (and it looks like they should have at least from now on), they should arguably reconsider their choice of platform.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Do they make official announcements on Twitter? They have an account but what do they use it for?
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  Because it's their account?
  - riversflow 3y ago
    Fraud is the fault of the one being impersonated now?
    - photonthug 3y ago
      For people who are victims of identity theft, of course not, but for organizations or governments? Yes, clearly yes. Let's make sure that the burden of securing operations generally stays with, you know, the folks that have staff and budgets.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        Isn’t that Twitter in this case?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
huy77 3y ago
how do we know if this website is spreading truth from the SEC itself, then?
- ksjskskskkk 3y ago
  maybe trust the almost useless SSL certificate merchants, instead of the really useless 8 bucks blue checkmark merchants? i dunno.
- LeoPanthera 3y ago
  You don't. Verify any tweets at the SEC's own website: https://www.sec.gov/page/news https://www.sec.gov/page/news And if it's actually important, a third source from a trusted media outlet wouldn't hurt either.
paxys 3y ago
Twitter/X is not an authoritative source of news, regardless of whether it is an "official" account doing the Tweeting or not. Anyone can get a blue check by paying $8/mo.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  The SEC twitter account has a grey check, which you cannot get by paying $8. https://twitter.com/SECGov https://twitter.com/SECGov
  - paxys 3y ago
    And how does the average user know this?
    - unleaded 3y ago
      By clicking on it
      - paxys 3y ago
        Clicking on any blue check mark shows "this account is verified". But that isn't supposed to mean verified?
        SparkyMcUnicorn 3y ago
        This is what it says when I click on it. > This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account. Along with a link to "Learn More"[0] [0] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-labels https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-label...
        paulgb 3y ago
        Right, but I think paxys’ point is that the message you get when you click a blue check also implies the account is verified (which is not true in any rigorous sense of the word “verified”). The average user can’t be expected to know that the white one is “more verified” when they both say “verified”.
unleaded 3y ago
Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because someone wrote a tweet. How is cryptocurrency still taken seriously?
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  I am not a fan of crypto, but I don't think tweet affecting something like that is an indicator of anything. Something big can happen and only a very little information can reveal it to have happened. That is the power of speed of information and the scale.
- hyperhopper 3y ago
  Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because somebody dropped a bomb? How is fiat currency still taken seriously?
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because someone wrote a tweet. That's just as possible with regular stocks, which Twitter's owner has (unrelatedly) demonstrated multiple times in the past with both Tesla and Twitter... or, a bit slower, in the early covid months. Stock markets are insanely sensitive to "insider" information and breaking news in general, which is why the regulations around them are so strict.
- solardev 3y ago
  How is Twitter still taken seriously?
- derangedHorse 3y ago
  “Half as much” is unnecessary exaggeration. All assets with a high reading volume can be manipulated with a tweet. News of a Bitcoin ETF is no different than positive news for any other asset. I think your bias is making you ignorant to general market mechanics.
- bogota 3y ago
  So im guessing you feel like tesla shouldn’t be taken seriously as well?
paulpauper 3y ago
The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap more than that. all the alts went up too
addicted 3y ago
This is quite literally not a pump and dump by the SEC. A pump and dump would require the same entity to be doing the buying, pumping up, and then dumping the asset. The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price). Even assuming that the “largest pump and dump” claim is correct, at most, the SEC was used for that purpose and isn’t “responsible” for it.
- wlesieutre 3y ago
  They didn't say the SEC did it, they said the SEC was "responsible" for it. Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.
  - diggan 3y ago
    > Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all. It seems like SEC didn't even have some basic protections in place for their Twitter account, like having 2nd-factor enabled. That feels kind of negligent already, even if they had a very secure password.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- altairprime 3y ago
  Even if the hacking entity did the pump and dump, then their statement is valid: the SEC’s incaution made this possible.
  - epgui 3y ago
    Since we're all being a bit pedantic here... the SEC would be responsible for negligently allowing a third-party pump to happen-- they would not be responsible for a pump and dump. Pump and dump requires intention (and requires dumping).
Workaccount2 3y ago
Who cares about $25bn? These guys hacked the SEC, made huge announcement tweet, and only got a 3% move from that. More over, they only had a 10 minute window to close whatever positions they had before BTC crashed through it's pre-hack price. There is a fair chance that they actually lost money on this play, lol.
- mekster 3y ago
  This wasn't a pump and dump. If they wanted to, they should've posted about a rejection when it was 95% surely going to be approved and with a long squeeze happening along the way, they could've easily gotten a 10% movement down and back up.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- yreg 3y ago
  The expectation is that the ETF is going to be approved very soon, so it's priced in.
- dannyw 3y ago
  Should have tweeted something like filing charges against Ethereum for being an unregistered security.
- nullandvoid 3y ago
  You can 100x leverage on a lot of sites, that 3% now = 300% gain. As you say though 10 mins is a small window, but they could have easily set a Conservative stop on doubling their money with only a 1% gain.
Powdering7082 3y ago
3% gain on BTC is really not that much for crypto, it's the size of the movement within a given timeframe that makes it impressive (e.g. it was within a minute or two). It would have been very easy to take out a leveraged long position in defi & profit off this.
John23832 3y ago
How is the SEC responsible because they got hacked? Are you responsible for fraudulent charges on your credit card (you'll contrive some yes, but the answer is no)?
- dcolkitt 3y ago
  Generally I would expect a higher degree of security from an agency with a $2bn budget whose primary purpose is the integrity of communications about financial markets than an average person with a credit card. Certainly you will admit at some size, responsibility and level of funding the organization should take responsibility for protecting itself from hacks. If the Department of Defense got hacked and nuclear secrets were leaked, I certainly hope people would get fired rather than sympathized with.
  - John23832 3y ago
    Twitter offers password based security. What other methods of security were you expecting? The SEC can't make Twitter functionality. We don't even know how they got hacked. The DOD doesn't use Twitter, a social media platform, as the mechanism for launching nukes... what are you talking about?

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest crypto pump and dump in history.

mulmen 3y ago

How is the SEC responsible for fraud committed on Twitter?

lxgr 3y ago
By using Twitter as a communications channel for official announcements, they are at least legitimizing it. If they have any reason to be concerned about the security of their account (and it looks like they should have at least from now on), they should arguably reconsider their choice of platform.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Do they make official announcements on Twitter? They have an account but what do they use it for?
sebzim4500 3y ago
Because it's their account?
- riversflow 3y ago
  Fraud is the fault of the one being impersonated now?
  - photonthug 3y ago
    For people who are victims of identity theft, of course not, but for organizations or governments? Yes, clearly yes. Let's make sure that the burden of securing operations generally stays with, you know, the folks that have staff and budgets.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      Isn’t that Twitter in this case?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

huy77 3y ago

how do we know if this website is spreading truth from the SEC itself, then?

ksjskskskkk 3y ago
maybe trust the almost useless SSL certificate merchants, instead of the really useless 8 bucks blue checkmark merchants? i dunno.
LeoPanthera 3y ago
You don't. Verify any tweets at the SEC's own website: https://www.sec.gov/page/news https://www.sec.gov/page/news And if it's actually important, a third source from a trusted media outlet wouldn't hurt either.

paxys 3y ago

Twitter/X is not an authoritative source of news, regardless of whether it is an "official" account doing the Tweeting or not. Anyone can get a blue check by paying $8/mo.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
The SEC twitter account has a grey check, which you cannot get by paying $8. https://twitter.com/SECGov https://twitter.com/SECGov
- paxys 3y ago
  And how does the average user know this?
  - unleaded 3y ago
    By clicking on it
    - paxys 3y ago
      Clicking on any blue check mark shows "this account is verified". But that isn't supposed to mean verified?
      - SparkyMcUnicorn 3y ago
        This is what it says when I click on it. > This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account. Along with a link to "Learn More"[0] [0] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-labels https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-label...
        paulgb 3y ago
        Right, but I think paxys’ point is that the message you get when you click a blue check also implies the account is verified (which is not true in any rigorous sense of the word “verified”). The average user can’t be expected to know that the white one is “more verified” when they both say “verified”.

unleaded 3y ago

Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because someone wrote a tweet. How is cryptocurrency still taken seriously?

mewpmewp2 3y ago
I am not a fan of crypto, but I don't think tweet affecting something like that is an indicator of anything. Something big can happen and only a very little information can reveal it to have happened. That is the power of speed of information and the scale.
hyperhopper 3y ago
Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because somebody dropped a bomb? How is fiat currency still taken seriously?
mschuster91 3y ago
> Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because someone wrote a tweet. That's just as possible with regular stocks, which Twitter's owner has (unrelatedly) demonstrated multiple times in the past with both Tesla and Twitter... or, a bit slower, in the early covid months. Stock markets are insanely sensitive to "insider" information and breaking news in general, which is why the regulations around them are so strict.
solardev 3y ago
How is Twitter still taken seriously?
derangedHorse 3y ago
“Half as much” is unnecessary exaggeration. All assets with a high reading volume can be manipulated with a tweet. News of a Bitcoin ETF is no different than positive news for any other asset. I think your bias is making you ignorant to general market mechanics.
bogota 3y ago
So im guessing you feel like tesla shouldn’t be taken seriously as well?

paulpauper 3y ago

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap more than that. all the alts went up too

addicted 3y ago

This is quite literally not a pump and dump by the SEC. A pump and dump would require the same entity to be doing the buying, pumping up, and then dumping the asset. The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price). Even assuming that the “largest pump and dump” claim is correct, at most, the SEC was used for that purpose and isn’t “responsible” for it.

wlesieutre 3y ago
They didn't say the SEC did it, they said the SEC was "responsible" for it. Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.
- diggan 3y ago
  > Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all. It seems like SEC didn't even have some basic protections in place for their Twitter account, like having 2nd-factor enabled. That feels kind of negligent already, even if they had a very secure password.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
altairprime 3y ago
Even if the hacking entity did the pump and dump, then their statement is valid: the SEC’s incaution made this possible.
- epgui 3y ago
  Since we're all being a bit pedantic here... the SEC would be responsible for negligently allowing a third-party pump to happen-- they would not be responsible for a pump and dump. Pump and dump requires intention (and requires dumping).

Workaccount2 3y ago

Who cares about $25bn? These guys hacked the SEC, made huge announcement tweet, and only got a 3% move from that. More over, they only had a 10 minute window to close whatever positions they had before BTC crashed through it's pre-hack price. There is a fair chance that they actually lost money on this play, lol.

mekster 3y ago
This wasn't a pump and dump. If they wanted to, they should've posted about a rejection when it was 95% surely going to be approved and with a long squeeze happening along the way, they could've easily gotten a 10% movement down and back up.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yreg 3y ago
The expectation is that the ETF is going to be approved very soon, so it's priced in.
dannyw 3y ago
Should have tweeted something like filing charges against Ethereum for being an unregistered security.
nullandvoid 3y ago
You can 100x leverage on a lot of sites, that 3% now = 300% gain. As you say though 10 mins is a small window, but they could have easily set a Conservative stop on doubling their money with only a 1% gain.

Powdering7082 3y ago

3% gain on BTC is really not that much for crypto, it's the size of the movement within a given timeframe that makes it impressive (e.g. it was within a minute or two). It would have been very easy to take out a leveraged long position in defi & profit off this.

John23832 3y ago

How is the SEC responsible because they got hacked? Are you responsible for fraudulent charges on your credit card (you'll contrive some yes, but the answer is no)?

dcolkitt 3y ago
Generally I would expect a higher degree of security from an agency with a $2bn budget whose primary purpose is the integrity of communications about financial markets than an average person with a credit card. Certainly you will admit at some size, responsibility and level of funding the organization should take responsibility for protecting itself from hacks. If the Department of Defense got hacked and nuclear secrets were leaked, I certainly hope people would get fired rather than sympathized with.
- John23832 3y ago
  Twitter offers password based security. What other methods of security were you expecting? The SEC can't make Twitter functionality. We don't even know how they got hacked. The DOD doesn't use Twitter, a social media platform, as the mechanism for launching nukes... what are you talking about?