5 ms·

It used to be that the thought process of receiving a portion of sale money before delivering any product allowed the company to pay suppliers and keep afloat a

It used to be that the thought process of receiving a portion of sale money before delivering any product allowed the company to pay suppliers and keep afloat as they drove towards the finish line of delivery. Now it seems the grifting-meta is to make promises around a product with no plans on delivering it, take in pre-order money, and then just park it in an investment account to grow during a bull market. By the time the grift comes due, your "investment" will have grown to a magnitude where even if you are forced to pay it back, you will have made a tidy profit.

thaumasiotes 5mo ago
> Now it seems the grifting-meta is to make promises around a product with no plans on delivering it, take in pre-order money, and then just park it in an investment account to grow during a bull market. By the time the grift comes due, your "investment" will have grown to a magnitude where even if you are forced to pay it back, you will have made a tidy profit. There's never been a time where that would work. A damages theory can't make you cough up your stock market gains, but unjust enrichment will do it. Put into an example, it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000. If I'm less lucky than that and turn it into $50, I owe you all $1,000.
- GolfPopper 5mo ago
  In practice how often does that actually happen to well-heeled, well-connected fraudsters?
- irishcoffee 5mo ago
  > Put into an example, it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000. If I'm less lucky than that and turn it into $50, I owe you all $1,000. Instead of ending this sentence in a period, I would have ended it: , if I get caught.
- gruez 5mo ago
  > it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000. Only if you "stole", and only if you get caught. If you asked $1,000 for an "investment" with the intention of putting it on red 27, then win, you can repay your investors and they'd be none the wiser.
  - tzs 5mo ago
    >> I owe you all $36,000 > Only if you "stole", and only if you get caught Are you sure? I'd have guessed that the debt is created when they generate the $36 000. Getting caught would just make it easier for the victim to collect.
- rootusrootus 5mo ago
  > been black-letter law Only civil, though, right? IIRC criminal law seeks restitution, which would be the original $1000. Civil law is where unjust enrichment would come into play, to my understanding.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 5mo ago
  Some people have argued that Sam Bankman Fried just had unlucky timing. If his Anthropic investment had an opportunity to mature everyone would have been happy. I don’t subscribe, but I have seen the argument a few times.
helterskelter 5mo ago
[flagged]
- StilesCrisis 5mo ago
  Why did he want an all-white audience? You lost me there.
  - helterskelter 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - StilesCrisis 5mo ago
      The guy had vitiligo, I don't think this was a choice.
      - helterskelter 5mo ago
        Yeah I dunno, the nose job makes me think it was about more than evening some skin tone. That guy was weird.
- gruez 5mo ago
  >Michael Jackson did this with concert tickets, sort of. You had to pay hundreds of dollars for the chance to buy a ticket to his mega tour, to be refunded if you didn't manage to get one. People send their money in and have to wait like three months to find out if they managed to get one. Meanwhile, he's making money by the dump truck on the interest from all this. This doesn't pass the sniff test. If we assume that "hundreds of dollars" is $500, and the risk free rate is 5%, and they hold it for 3 months, then you get $6.25 per victim. Hardly a huge sum. If you factor in credit card processing fees, they might even be losing money on it.
  - wolvoleo 5mo ago
    Back then interest rates were double digit
cyanydeez 5mo ago
It used to be fraud was the problem of the perpetrator, and not the victim. Welcome to the grift economy.
array_key_first 5mo ago
Yes a lot of scams basically are elaborate ways to get interest-free loans. The only way to discourage these types of scams is to require the claw-back to include high interest. Which probably feels very punitive, so we don't do it. Generally we award the damages and then that's it. But like... damages 2 years ago don't equal damages now, that's not how money works. I guess our courts don't know that.

thaumasiotes 5mo ago

> Now it seems the grifting-meta is to make promises around a product with no plans on delivering it, take in pre-order money, and then just park it in an investment account to grow during a bull market. By the time the grift comes due, your "investment" will have grown to a magnitude where even if you are forced to pay it back, you will have made a tidy profit. There's never been a time where that would work. A damages theory can't make you cough up your stock market gains, but unjust enrichment will do it. Put into an example, it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000. If I'm less lucky than that and turn it into $50, I owe you all $1,000.

GolfPopper 5mo ago
In practice how often does that actually happen to well-heeled, well-connected fraudsters?
irishcoffee 5mo ago
> Put into an example, it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000. If I'm less lucky than that and turn it into $50, I owe you all $1,000. Instead of ending this sentence in a period, I would have ended it: , if I get caught.
gruez 5mo ago
> it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000. Only if you "stole", and only if you get caught. If you asked $1,000 for an "investment" with the intention of putting it on red 27, then win, you can repay your investors and they'd be none the wiser.
- tzs 5mo ago
  >> I owe you all $36,000 > Only if you "stole", and only if you get caught Are you sure? I'd have guessed that the debt is created when they generate the $36 000. Getting caught would just make it easier for the victim to collect.
rootusrootus 5mo ago
> been black-letter law Only civil, though, right? IIRC criminal law seeks restitution, which would be the original $1000. Civil law is where unjust enrichment would come into play, to my understanding.
0cf8612b2e1e 5mo ago
Some people have argued that Sam Bankman Fried just had unlucky timing. If his Anthropic investment had an opportunity to mature everyone would have been happy. I don’t subscribe, but I have seen the argument a few times.

helterskelter 5mo ago

[flagged]

StilesCrisis 5mo ago
Why did he want an all-white audience? You lost me there.
- helterskelter 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - StilesCrisis 5mo ago
    The guy had vitiligo, I don't think this was a choice.
    - helterskelter 5mo ago
      Yeah I dunno, the nose job makes me think it was about more than evening some skin tone. That guy was weird.
gruez 5mo ago
>Michael Jackson did this with concert tickets, sort of. You had to pay hundreds of dollars for the chance to buy a ticket to his mega tour, to be refunded if you didn't manage to get one. People send their money in and have to wait like three months to find out if they managed to get one. Meanwhile, he's making money by the dump truck on the interest from all this. This doesn't pass the sniff test. If we assume that "hundreds of dollars" is $500, and the risk free rate is 5%, and they hold it for 3 months, then you get $6.25 per victim. Hardly a huge sum. If you factor in credit card processing fees, they might even be losing money on it.
- wolvoleo 5mo ago
  Back then interest rates were double digit

cyanydeez 5mo ago

It used to be fraud was the problem of the perpetrator, and not the victim. Welcome to the grift economy.

array_key_first 5mo ago

Yes a lot of scams basically are elaborate ways to get interest-free loans. The only way to discourage these types of scams is to require the claw-back to include high interest. Which probably feels very punitive, so we don't do it. Generally we award the damages and then that's it. But like... damages 2 years ago don't equal damages now, that's not how money works. I guess our courts don't know that.