[KGIII]

Greed I can understand, the seeming insanity I can't. I'm not sure how many times I've seen stuff like, "They can't stop me!" That's pretty crazy, because it's well known that they can, and will, stop someone who gets their negative attention. They may not be able to fully prevent an activity, but they sure as hell can stop a person.

Maybe the greed makes them insane? I dunno, psychiatry is not really my domain. I find it curious behavior.

[beager]

I can't speak to the psychology of it, but I imagine the same sort of invincibility complex exists for big movers in traditional business/finance/politics. We're just being made aware of it here now because of the democratization of the entire system.

[sillysaurus3]

For what it's worth, KGIII is mischaracterizing their position. In no way do they feel invincible. They're keenly aware of how vulnerable they are and are hyper-vigilant about their opsec. I'm pretty sure their #1 fear is to make a dumb mistake that gives away their identity.

The idea that they think they're untouchable or that "They think that being nice is going to keep them from going to prison" is just flat-out a blatant misrepresentation of their words and persona.

Also, this is amusing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15371053

>> It may sound crazy ...

> I don't offer an opinion on your business methods, recovery methods, or even the morality.

Followed by

I'm no psychiatrist and a few Internet posts aren't enough to diagnose someone, but I'm pretty sure they are crazy. Not 'so crazy they might just get away with it' crazy, but 'should seek professional care' crazy.

I suspect people are simply bothered by the idea that his venture could actually succeed, which manifests itself as "He's crazy." Yes, obviously you have to be a little nuts to go up against the full weight of the law. But there is method underpinning the madness, and he seems to be holding up his end of the bargain so far. He could've disappeared with the money and no one could trace him.

We'll see if that happens, but until then it's worth keeping an open mind. It all depends whether he can execute and actually deliver the app.

[KGIII]

Their comment about how they won't get complaints and will be ignored by the SEC says they do believe they are invincible with regards to the SEC. They, themselves said it. That's not my mischaracterization, that's was in their reply.

The SEC isn't going to care that people were happy with their sex purchases. No, they aren't even going to care a little bit. If he follows through on this, he's almost certainly going to prison.

It's not sane. That's not rational thinking that causes harm to the individual. I may not know their diagnosis, but I can tell you that's not sane.

[sillysaurus3]

But it's not in their reply. That's not at all what they said:

It's our view that the SEC part won't be what pushes us over the edge. 100% what we're doing is not legal, it's in our business plan. SEC won't care if investors are OK, yes. But if investors are OK, they won't be filing complaints and there will be less pressure to go after us. Not a defense! Just a delaying factor. Prosecution isn't free. Far easier to shut down ICOs that aren't operating as proper anonymous extrajurisdictional companies. They can go after us, but it's a terrible ROI for them.

It's important to represent your opponent accurately. He's saying his biggest threat is law enforcement, not the SEC. And that makes sense: once he starts making headlines, which government entity will be the most motivated to catch him? The SEC, or the FBI?

At no point did he insinuate that he could avoid SEC scrutiny by being nice.

[KGIII]

> ... SEC won't care if investors are OK, yes.

I'd say that's them saying they believe they are impervious so long as they are nice.

He's not my opponent, I feel sorry for him, not that he's my enemy. I feel that's a very accurate representation of what he said.

And no, really, not my opponent. I don't have a nickel invested in any cryptocurrency or ICO. I don't mind if you do, but it's going to suck if you lose your money - or, worse, end up going to jail.

[sillysaurus3]

Ha, no way. I like keeping my money away from potential fraudsters. But it's intellectually interesting that he could change the world with his plan.

[the_stc]

> ... SEC won't care if investors are OK, yes.

Hastily written comment! Should read:

> SEC won't care whether investors are OK

I am admitting it is irrelevant as far as legality goes. My point is that if investors are not being defrauded then it lowers our priority. If we defraud investors then they will complain to the SEC and make us a higher priority.

And for all, it is besides the point. We must have strong opsec and technical measures or we fail.

[grey-area]

They’ve already made multiple dumb mistakes, and it’s very very unlikely their identity has not leaked already, there just isn’t sufficient motivation to go after them yet.

Within a few months we plan to move nearly exclusively to high-latency communication methods.

[the_stc]

There is no invincibility complex. We are acutely aware of the risks. I just believe I am good enough to get the project working and stay ahead of LE until we can take a more hidden approach and reduce our opsec surface area.

[csomar]

It'll be an entertaining thing to watch, though. Natural Selection! The Feds/Sec will hammer the guys they can hammer. But with Natural Selection, is it possible that some guy out there escapes all the Feds?