[yieldcrv]

our realization is that we don't really have laws to cover this. insider trading is exclusively a securities law violation, which requires securities to have been traded. the NFTs in question are not securities and the actions around them are not being prosecuted as such. the remaining laws the prosecutors came up with are such a stretch that it seems like a waste of public resources, although "wire fraud" is sufficiently broad enough it may still be either kind of weak, or, not the expansion we want.

Case in point, "wire fraud" is typically a tacked on charge, in addition to another charge. and "money laundering" is also a tacked on charge, that requires an illicit origin, not just the action of obfuscation or movement of money. So they have to tie a couple things together solely because "we don't like what happened", but it may be the wrong authority to deal consequence.

It has nothing to do with a public understanding or a legal understanding of insider trading, because that's not what he was charged with, despite his trades being the catalyst for this indictment. semantics, but relevant semantics. you can insider trade everything except securities. you can have a market advantage on spot commodities, real estate, trading cards, you name it. but yes its typically a form of fraud when you can be proven to have created more demand than was really there + trading on that + when your employer has entrusted you not to do that. there are many circumstances where this would all be a non-case.