Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j00h6zj wrote

[deleted]

23

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_j00kgq6 wrote

It's almost like trading an imaginary commodity between suckers and scammers isn't a legitimate financial business model.

Though, charging fees on those fraudulent transactions (to be paid in REAL dollars) is definitely a tried and true technique of the 1% to siphon cash from suckers and scammers alike.

22

DetectiveTank t1_j019rvf wrote

They're unregistered securities but otherwise yeah you're right.

4

ThisAltDoesNotExist t1_j01b124 wrote

With enough handwaving we can pretend they are so new the law isn't clear and dust of scams of ages past in an unregulated space. For a while.

4

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_j0259xb wrote

They are not securities, which are legitimate financial instruments.

Bitcon and its ilk are commodities and imaginary ones at that. And they always have been.

1

DetectiveTank t1_j027n9x wrote

Lmao. Bitcoin is a commodity. You're right about that. The rest are not. They are centrally managed and issued.

1

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_j029aq6 wrote

> They are centrally managed and issued.

This has no bearing on whether or not they are an imaginary commodity.

They still have no value. Like Bitcon.

They are all examples of the old "shares of the Brooklyn Bridge" scam, except now not only is the bridge imaginary and the seller has no rights to sell but the shares are imaginary (digital zeroes attached to a serial number) too.

Both swindlers still take real dollars from the suckers for the sale, though. :)

0

DetectiveTank t1_j029r34 wrote

It absolutely does have bearing on whether they are a commodity or security XD.

2

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_j02afn2 wrote

Then you seem to be fighting over them being imaginary securities instead of imaginary commodities. They fail the Howey Test, so they are not securities. But that doesn't matter. They are still worthless frauds (aka Ponzi schemes) nonetheless.

0

DetectiveTank t1_j02ussi wrote

I'm actually really only interested in the commodity vs security part because that's where the discussion about how governments are going to regulate them is.

But at least we can agree that centrally controlled proof of stake tokens are ponzis. So, I'm satisfied with that.

1

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_j02w4lj wrote

You can't legitimately regulate a Ponzi scheme. You can only shut it down, arrest the perpetrators, recover the gains from those that profited, and distribute those gains to the losers for pennies on the dollar.

Like they did with Madoff and the "investors" who made money off the Ponzi scheme. To avoid going to prison as de facto accomplices (they couldn't prove they didn't know it was a scam), they returned all of their gains to a common pool.

2