OT: Hurricanes Lounge XLI: It's August

[Lempo]

And the fact that a "global" mod who we never see has this thread under surveillance...

We've been on SniperHof's watchlist ever since the like feature was introduced. He once posted us an accusatory graph on the anomalous forum activity.

 

[Negan4Coach]

We've been on SniperHof's watchlist ever since the like feature was introduced. He once posted us an accusatory graph on the anomalous forum activity.

Isn't it true that liking things on other fans boards can be interpreted as a form of aggression?

 

[MinJaBen]

Isn't it true that liking things on other fans boards can be interpreted as a form of aggression?

Liking things on our own board and then using the likes to take control of a public part of the board to mock the slugs was certainly an act of aggression.

 

[Lempo]

Isn't it true that liking things on other fans boards can be interpreted as a form of aggression?

In a world full of micro-aggressions, I'm kind of exhiliarated if that's all it takes to get into the big league.

NOW I AM BECOME LIKE

THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS​

 

[Blueline Bomber]

My favorite news of today is that Musk changed the Twitter blue bird to the dog from the Doge meme

Which everyone initially assumed was a late April Fool's joke.

But no. He did it because there's a $258 billion lawsuit over Dogecoin and Musk wanted to try and bury the story in the trending section.

The man has zero shame.

 

[hockeynjune]

Liking things on our own board and then using the likes to take control of a public part of the board to mock the slugs was certainly an act of aggression.

And one of the reasons I signed up.

 

[DaveG]

Hey mods, any guidance on how to keep this shiny new thread open?

Avoid bad shit happening where there's a clear ideological bent to it happening that's extremely divisive. So probably will be closing this one some time in the next 48-96 hours give or take.

 

[Lempo]

My favorite news of today is that Musk changed the Twitter blue bird to the dog from the Doge meme

Which everyone initially assumed was a late April Fool's joke.

But no. He did it because there's a $258 billion lawsuit over Dogecoin and Musk wanted to try and bury the story in the trending section.

The man has zero shame.

The lawsuit is curious, to say at least.

"There is nothing unlawful about tweeting words of support for, or funny pictures about, a legitimate cryptocurrency that continues to hold a market cap of nearly $10 billion," Musk's lawyers said.

Investors accused Musk, the world's second-richest person according to Forbes, of deliberately driving up Dogecoin's price more than 36,000% over two years and then letting it crash.

They said this generated billions of dollars of profit at other Dogecoin investors' expense, even as Musk knew the currency lacked intrinsic value.

Effectively cryptocurrency investors are accusing a shitposter for suggesting that said cryptocurrency has value, which it, in fact, doesn't.

 

[MinJaBen]

The lawsuit is curious, to say at least.



Effectively cryptocurrency investors are accusing a shitposter for suggesting that said cryptocurrency has value, which it, in fact, doesn't.

Doesn’t he hold a large amount of that coin?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Effectively cryptocurrency investors are accusing a shitposter for suggesting that said cryptocurrency has value, which it, in fact, doesn't.

Fire all of these ****ing people into the sun.

 

[Svechhammer]

The lawsuit is curious, to say at least.



Effectively cryptocurrency investors are accusing a shitposter for suggesting that said cryptocurrency has value, which it, in fact, doesn't.

If he was propping up and effectively selling dogecoin to potential investors knowing it has no intrinsic value other than what other people invest into it, and you can show that he was actively profiting from it, you almost have a textbook case of someone running a Ponzi Scheme. It would be super fantastic if Elon ends up Madoffing himself over this

 

[cptjeff]

Doesn’t he hold a large amount of that coin?

Not since he started selling off after hyping it up. Classic pump and dump. Which is pretty much all of what crypto is, so the hypocrisy is hilarious. How dare Musk run a scam using our different scam!

 

[cptjeff]

If he was propping up and effectively selling dogecoin to potential investors knowing it has no intrinsic value other than what other people invest into it, and you can show that he was actively profiting from it, you almost have a textbook case of someone running a Ponzi Scheme. It would be super fantastic if Elon ends up Madoffing himself over this

He wasn't selling dogecoin to investors, he was just promoting an asset in the general market. No different from somebody on CNBC offering a stock tip- except there are far more regulations around stock trades than crypto, so those schemes are illegal in stocks. With crypto? Not at all clear that it's in any way illegal.

Investing in imaginary assets named after a meme based on the advice of a loudmouth on twitter has risks. Film at 11.

 

[Chrispy]

He wasn't selling dogecoin to investors, he was just promoting an asset in the general market. No different from somebody on CNBC offering a stock tip- except there are far more regulations around stock trades than crypto, so those schemes are illegal in stocks. With crypto? Not at all clear that it's in any way illegal.

Investing in imaginary assets named after a meme based on the advice of a loudmouth on twitter has risks. Film at 11.

He was promoting an asset with no value to increase its value so he could pay people who already have the asset, including himself.

If the asset has no inherent value or product, it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

And yes, you can argue that all crypto without some sort of backing by a bank or government is a Ponzi scheme by that definition.

 

[Stubu]

And one of the reasons I signed up.

The BUFFALO SABERS SUCK thing was impressive. It convinced me these are likable people. Been a semi-lurker ever since. (I can't hockey. Never was a jock. We had a rink/field, sort of, and sometimes a pond with miles of stretch on good winters, okay that wasn't really a pond but frozen grain fields, back then. Love the game nevertheless. We did have sticks and even mitts but that was about it. Bauer skates were an object of envy, especially the circus bauers.)

 

[cptjeff]

He was promoting an asset with no value to increase its value so he could pay people who already have the asset, including himself.

If the asset has no inherent value or product, it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

And yes, you can argue that all crypto without some sort of backing by a bank or government is a Ponzi scheme by that definition.

That's factually not the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. To be a Ponzi Scheme, you have to continually pay existing investors with the money of new investors, thus requiring an every increasing number of new investors. The person running the scheme is making payments out of a fraudulent investment fund of some sort. But in this case, buyers got exactly what they paid for- shares of dogecoin- and they did not buy it from Musk, nor was Musk managing the asset in any way. They purchased and sold on an open exchange. It was by no definition anywhere close to a Ponzi Scheme. Musk held shares of asset that he in no way controlled and he hyped up the value using his public platform and then sold his shares when the value was artificially high due to his influence. What Musk did was absolutely not a ponzi scheme, but it was a classic pump and dump. Illegal if you're doing it with stocks. With crypto, buyer beware.

Musk bought his beanie babies, told other people they should buy beanie babies, other people buy beanie babies, Musk sells his on ebay when everyone else is buying, thus getting a high return. Nobody is getting a fraudulent product- everybody still owns a beanie baby, as promised- it's just that that beanie baby winds up being worth less than it was when big public figure is promoting it.

 

[Chrispy]

That's factually not the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. To be a Ponzi Scheme, you have to continually pay existing investors with the money of new investors, thus requiring an every increasing number of new investors. The person running the scheme is making payments out of a fraudulent investment fund of some sort. But in this case, buyers got exactly what they paid for- shares of dogecoin- and they did not buy it from Musk, nor was Musk managing the asset in any way. It was by no definition anywhere close to a Ponzi Scheme. Musk held shares of asset that he in no way controlled and he hyped up the value using his public platform and then sold his shares when the value was artificially high due to his influence. What Musk did was absolutely not a ponzi scheme, but it was a classic pump and dump. Illegal if you're doing it with stocks. With crypto, buyer beware.

But are shares of dogecoin actually anything? If they aren't, it's much closer to a Ponzi scheme than you claim, whether Musk is running it or an accomplice.

 

[cptjeff]

But are shares of dogecoin actually anything? If they aren't, it's much closer to a Ponzi scheme than you claim, whether Musk is running it or an accomplice.

A share of dogecoin is a share of dogecoin. It is a ledger in a blockchain, and it is thus *something*. That something is an worth whatever value the market assigns to it. Musk was manipulating that market, he wasn't selling a fraudulent investment. Everyone involved knew they were buying a publicly tradable token of variable value. They got exactly what they paid for- an indexed number of shares of a string of numbers on a computer.

You can make the argument that making returns on crypto as a whole is a ponzi scheme, but what Musk did with it was absolutely not. It was a Pump and Dump. One of the most pure and obvious examples ever. There are multiple different types of financial fraud, they're not all Ponzi Schemes.

 

[Chrispy]

You can make the argument that making returns on crypto as a whole is a ponzi scheme, but what Musk did with it was absolutely not. It was a Pump and Dump. One of the most pure and obvious examples ever. There are multiple different types of financial fraud, they're not all Ponzi Schemes.

Here's where I think we are talking past each other. And I'll agree that Musk may have done other financial fraud as part of perpetuating a cryptocurrency that may be a Ponzi scheme, while not running the Ponzi scheme himself.

 

[Svechhammer]

Here's where I think we are talking past each other. And I'll agree that Musk may have done other financial fraud as part of perpetuating a cryptocurrency that may be a Ponzi scheme, while not running the Ponzi scheme himself.

You don't have to be running it to be tagged as a conspirator.

 

[DaveG]

He was promoting an asset with no value to increase its value so he could pay people who already have the asset, including himself.

If the asset has no inherent value or product, it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

And yes, you can argue that all crypto without some sort of backing by a bank or government is a Ponzi scheme by that definition.

Jeff addressed it pretty well. Fwiw it would be considered closer to insider trading than a Ponzi scheme. Shady as hell either way and I'm certainly not a fan of operating that way, but there's also not the same protections with crypto that the SEC(sec, sec) has in place to deal with it in the stock market.

 

[Borsig]

Crypto in itsself is a scam lol

 

[Unsustainable]

I like posts, it’s not that I like it, it’s just what I do

 

[tarheelhockey]

Crypto in itsself is a scam lol

To be fair, it's the best idea anyone's had yet for selling drugs, stolen paintings, people, etc.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

If the asset has no inherent value or product, it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Yeah, no.

If this definition were true, then fiat currency would be a Ponzi scheme.

Crypto, for all its silliness, is just another value store that a sufficient number of people have agreed upon. If that wise? In my opinion, not particularly. Is it legal? Sure.

Is manipulating the value of this value store an actual crime? Looks like we're about to find out.

The SEC needs to just declare that crypto is a security and thus subject to all the same laws and restrictions.