5 ms·

They should be going after Proctor & Gamble because Tide is a form of alternative currency. http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/ http://n

They should be going after Proctor & Gamble because Tide is a form of alternative currency. http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/ http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/

desdiv 11y ago
That brings a whole new meaning to "money laundering".
zaroth 11y ago
Remember reading this a few years ago, and at the time I was pretty sure this was a submarine ad for Tide.
maxerickson 11y ago
Ripple is not in trouble for using some form of alternative currency. They are in trouble for facilitating transactions between other parties without keeping track of who those people are. It's fun to pretend that the government is always completely arbitrary in its actions, but it isn't very realistic.
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  The point is that by manufacturing Tide, that was in some sense also "facilitating transactions". Where the line is drawn is pretty arbitrary and vague.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    It isn't that vague, P&G isn't buying Tide, no questions asked, from anyone who wants to sell it to them.
    - nmrm 11y ago
      And in fact, if you read the article about Tide, the people who are buying Tide, no questions asked, from anyone who wants to sell it to them are committing felonies and are tracked down in sting operations.
    - mike_hearn 11y ago
      But regular people do buy Tide without asking questions, don't they? They just walk into some shop they found on the street and hand over the money.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        Yeah sure. I'm not sure what the difficulty is, when I say "facilitate a transaction" I mean that there is a party with minority interest in the transaction (it ends up with just a fee) and that it does business with 2 (or more) other parties (that are presumably transferring an amount greater than the fee). That is a pretty normal use of the word facilitate (involving an action in the middle of the other parties). In the case of Proctor and Gamble, they end up with whatever price they charge for the Tide when they first sell it and (AFAIK) don't buy any of it. They do business only as a seller and keep their profits. So sure, the existence of bottles of Tide does in fact make it possible to use bottles of Tide to transfer value. It does not however implicate Proctor and Gamble as a party to each of those transactions. In the case of a company that makes a business out of receiving value from one party and transferring it to another, they are naturally implicated in every single transaction that they participate in.

desdiv 11y ago

That brings a whole new meaning to "money laundering".

zaroth 11y ago

Remember reading this a few years ago, and at the time I was pretty sure this was a submarine ad for Tide.

maxerickson 11y ago

Ripple is not in trouble for using some form of alternative currency. They are in trouble for facilitating transactions between other parties without keeping track of who those people are. It's fun to pretend that the government is always completely arbitrary in its actions, but it isn't very realistic.

mike_hearn 11y ago
The point is that by manufacturing Tide, that was in some sense also "facilitating transactions". Where the line is drawn is pretty arbitrary and vague.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It isn't that vague, P&G isn't buying Tide, no questions asked, from anyone who wants to sell it to them.
  - nmrm 11y ago
    And in fact, if you read the article about Tide, the people who are buying Tide, no questions asked, from anyone who wants to sell it to them are committing felonies and are tracked down in sting operations.
  - mike_hearn 11y ago
    But regular people do buy Tide without asking questions, don't they? They just walk into some shop they found on the street and hand over the money.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Yeah sure. I'm not sure what the difficulty is, when I say "facilitate a transaction" I mean that there is a party with minority interest in the transaction (it ends up with just a fee) and that it does business with 2 (or more) other parties (that are presumably transferring an amount greater than the fee). That is a pretty normal use of the word facilitate (involving an action in the middle of the other parties). In the case of Proctor and Gamble, they end up with whatever price they charge for the Tide when they first sell it and (AFAIK) don't buy any of it. They do business only as a seller and keep their profits. So sure, the existence of bottles of Tide does in fact make it possible to use bottles of Tide to transfer value. It does not however implicate Proctor and Gamble as a party to each of those transactions. In the case of a company that makes a business out of receiving value from one party and transferring it to another, they are naturally implicated in every single transaction that they participate in.