7 ms·

>A sane system would just throw him in jail. <facepalm> A capricious system that interprets based on whim, politics and influence is a large part of how we go

>A sane system would just throw him in jail. <facepalm> A capricious system that interprets based on whim, politics and influence is a large part of how we got here. People like this and their less than moral path in which they further their endeavors succeed specifically because of this environment. Polymarket is basically a platform to monetize petty stuff while also being able to monetize bad stuff. There is soooo much pressure to monetize bad stuff that once you poke a hole it's an uncontrolled leak. Polymarket recognized this, used it to scale, and then wisely used that money to get the legitimization and buy in that they needed to make the system (capriciously) say "this is fine for now you can keep going". They basically pulled a "actually Mr. Banker, I owe you so much money that it's your problem" but for insider information. The other metaphor you could use if people with a steady supply of prescription opioids don't turn to street drugs.

nickspacek 8mo ago
There's probably a useful middle ground between tossing people in jail and rewarding with great wealth, power, and influence those people whose main drive appears to be accumulation of said things without regard for their fellow citizens.
xvector 8mo ago
It is not capricious to hold C-suite legally accountable for their choices. Lots of corporate scandals would simply not have happened if decisionmakers had skin in the game. If CISOs can have personal liability for data breaches, CEOs can have personal liability for intentionally creating an illegal platform. Instead we reward these people with billions for degrading the fabric of society.
- Forgeties79 8mo ago
  We need either a “corporate death penalty” of sorts, more personal liability for c-suite execs, or some combo of the two. Too many people fail upwards to trust the system to sort out the “bad ones.”
  - jacquesm 8mo ago
    It exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution
    - Forgeties79 8mo ago
      Fair. I should probably say “we need to actually use the corporate death penalty.”
      - jacquesm 8mo ago
        Yes, but you are very much right: the fact that it exists but that hardly anybody knows about it is what is the problem. There are many companies that over the years should have been dissolved because of incredible crimes and yet they all keep getting away with it. Besides that I'm all for strict personal liability for the execs and the investors of the companies they invest in. That's of course the exact opposite of the way it works right now but that actually institutionalized externalization, one of the key issues with why the world is the mess that it is. Corporations are fine, limited liability corporations are not, I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are in fact the root of all evil because they allow the erection of financial 'diodes' that allow you to partition your stash from your liabilities and the two should always be linked. They are a very effective mechanism to allow people to screw over society and claim it's all perfectly legal.
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
        I’ve always felt LLC’s should more narrowly limit people’s liability more or less. It’s basically a shield currently. I also think it should be reserved for sole proprietorships or otherwise very small companies, and very specific kinds of companies at that. For instance, if I am drumming up funding for a movie I should not be personally held liable if it loses money (otherwise indie film would be completely snuffed out lol)
- DANmode 8mo ago
  > If CISOs can have personal liability for data breaches Where’s this, now?
  - happyopossum 8mo ago
    In the US it’s a legal battle currently being fought. CISOs have been charged by the SEC and other agencies, with varied success. Some cases have been deemed over-reach, some have not. And other were a case of a CISO doing ostensibly illegal things in their capacity (in some cases paying ransom demands have been interpreted as such, especially when disguised as other things).

nickspacek 8mo ago

There's probably a useful middle ground between tossing people in jail and rewarding with great wealth, power, and influence those people whose main drive appears to be accumulation of said things without regard for their fellow citizens.

xvector 8mo ago

It is not capricious to hold C-suite legally accountable for their choices. Lots of corporate scandals would simply not have happened if decisionmakers had skin in the game. If CISOs can have personal liability for data breaches, CEOs can have personal liability for intentionally creating an illegal platform. Instead we reward these people with billions for degrading the fabric of society.

Forgeties79 8mo ago
We need either a “corporate death penalty” of sorts, more personal liability for c-suite execs, or some combo of the two. Too many people fail upwards to trust the system to sort out the “bad ones.”
- jacquesm 8mo ago
  It exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution
  - Forgeties79 8mo ago
    Fair. I should probably say “we need to actually use the corporate death penalty.”
    - jacquesm 8mo ago
      Yes, but you are very much right: the fact that it exists but that hardly anybody knows about it is what is the problem. There are many companies that over the years should have been dissolved because of incredible crimes and yet they all keep getting away with it. Besides that I'm all for strict personal liability for the execs and the investors of the companies they invest in. That's of course the exact opposite of the way it works right now but that actually institutionalized externalization, one of the key issues with why the world is the mess that it is. Corporations are fine, limited liability corporations are not, I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are in fact the root of all evil because they allow the erection of financial 'diodes' that allow you to partition your stash from your liabilities and the two should always be linked. They are a very effective mechanism to allow people to screw over society and claim it's all perfectly legal.
      - Forgeties79 8mo ago
        I’ve always felt LLC’s should more narrowly limit people’s liability more or less. It’s basically a shield currently. I also think it should be reserved for sole proprietorships or otherwise very small companies, and very specific kinds of companies at that. For instance, if I am drumming up funding for a movie I should not be personally held liable if it loses money (otherwise indie film would be completely snuffed out lol)
DANmode 8mo ago
> If CISOs can have personal liability for data breaches Where’s this, now?
- happyopossum 8mo ago
  In the US it’s a legal battle currently being fought. CISOs have been charged by the SEC and other agencies, with varied success. Some cases have been deemed over-reach, some have not. And other were a case of a CISO doing ostensibly illegal things in their capacity (in some cases paying ransom demands have been interpreted as such, especially when disguised as other things).