|
|
|
|
|
|
by loceng
1908 days ago
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out - I misread what they said. If you have a link to a writeup provided by the SEC's investigation outlying this as an accident - I'd like to see that. Plausible deniability is used by bad actors, and the existence of investors investing in founders who will do anything to protect their investment isn't a myth - it gets discussed a few times per year in threads on HN and Reddit. |
|
|
Two independent programs with separate purposes, sometimes accidentally trading with each other which could affect the price. This information was included in API data (since it was just normal trades) which can create the appearance of activity or volume that doesn't truly exist. But these were real trades, so in some ways it does still exist it's just that CB happens to be on both sides.
[0]: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8369-21
> Plausible deniability is used by bad actors, and the existence of investors investing in founders who will do anything to protect their investment isn't a myth - it gets discussed a few times per year in threads on HN and Reddit.
I agree that has been used like this and will be in the future, but it's different to claim it's possible than spread FUD that it is actually happening (not directed at you to be clear). The latter is what you commonly see in online discussions revolving around Coinbase, though really with all tech companies.