[tifadg1]

> I think we should punish these ads & its associated companies for not indicating that there is risk in investing cryptos.

punish who exactly? an ad agency that took the job or influencer that took the job or an llc registered who knows where?

they should have known better is logical, but when you write something into law it's tricky to convey the spirit. Should an ad agency do due diligence on every product they advertise, even if they understand nothing about it?

[Uehreka]

We already have laws for this and they work, so no need for hemming and hawing. They’re why ads for stock brokers and such have to say things like “investment carries risk” and “past performance is no indication of future returns”. It’s possible those ads are already in breach of these laws, or possibly the regulations just need to be updated to cover crypto companies.

[mbreese]

It’s not the ad agencies or spokespeople that are liable if those disclaimers are removed — it’s the primary company. The ad agency gets paid to produce the ad and help place it on media channels. If there is a legally required warning, that’s up to the customer to provide. The celebrity endorser is a paid performer and nothing more. Their reputation could take a hit from being involved in the ads, but that’s not a legal concern. That said, I do wish them luck in trying to market anything else.

In this case, the customer doesn’t think they are covered by SEC rules because they aren’t trading in securities. The claim being that crypto isn’t a security but rather a commodity, which have fewer regulatory restrictions. However, that’s all about to be tested in court at a massive scale.

[Uehreka]

Sounds awesome! Punish the people benefitting most from the fraud (the actual fraudsters as opposed to the people being paid a commission to advertise) and provide an incentive for them to police their ad agencies and influencers to not let it happen in the future!

Crypto companies are absolutely securities companies, so it’s just a a matter of time until the hammer comes down. I’m often cynical about the ability of government to crack down on businesses, but in this case it really feels like a lot of crypto folks are miles out over their skis in terms of the kinds of “mind games” they think they can play on the justice system.

[Nextgrid]

> Should an ad agency do due diligence on every product they advertise, even if they understand nothing about it?

Why not? This will cut down on scams and dubious products dramatically, a good thing in my opinion.

[formerkrogemp]

Or, you know we could just ban cryptocurrencies.

[ikt]

There was no crypto involved, just the word.

Before Bitcoin there was 'secret stock trading program that can make you millions!', a few of the scammers literally changed the name from stock trading to crypto trading with the same scam.

For anyone reading you should definitely read up on how these romance scams and finance scams work.

The main thing they try to do is create an emotional connection, because once you're emotionally involved it actually overrides your brains 'logical' side of things, as in emotion is in a different part of the brain and you'll ignore blatant logical issues when you're essentially in love or the deep end. It's interesting to read about at least.

[core-utility]

People get scammed with telephones and 7-eleven gift cards, should we ban those too? Bans only target the symptoms while ignoring the root cause and hurting the 99.999% of valid use in the process.

And as another pointed out, this scam involved no actual crypto.

[shkkmo]

> 7-eleven gift cards, should we ban those too?

Yes, actually.

While a complete gift card ban is possibly not necessary, I do think there is a strong need to place legal limitations on their use and transferability to reduce or eliminate the degree to which they enable scammers.

Stores have done a little bit to try to combat this at the point of sale but it isn't nearly enough.

On the telephone side, I think we need to start holding phone companies liable if a spoofed number was used in a scam. It is ridiculous that they still haven't been able to solve that issue after years of effort and legistlation.

[bombcar]

We also need more "public service" announcements - and not the 30 second boring ads, but actual plot points in movies and TV be centered around these common scams. If (I have no idea what's popular now, but let's say Marvel) a movie had a crypto scam as a central point, it would educate people way more than any number of government warnings.

[shkkmo]

Education would be a great stop gap, but I still think we need to close the hole thay is being used. One example would be requiring gift cards to be bound to a name on purchase and have IDs checked when it is used.

[toolz]

How do you propose we ban algorithms communicating over networks?

[hourago]

> "As of 2009, non-military cryptography exports from the U.S. are controlled by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.[9] Some restrictions still exist, even for mass market products; particularly with regards to export to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations." Wikipedia

The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security has means to enforce that kind of ban, like it has done in the past, and still does.

[toolz]

No, it has the authority - it does not have the means. You'd need a surveillance state far more powerful than we have today.

[hugh-avherald]

True if your goal is to absolutely eliminate cryptocurrency. If you're trying to ban them from the ordinary economy and 99% of retail consumers, enforcement is definitely with its means.

[FabHK]

You can ban it, you can ban mining, you can ban and control the on- and off-ramps. People might still use it, but less, and it'll be harder to sell it as a legitimate investment opportunity.

[toolz]

If people want it, it'll be unstoppable. Just look at drugs and sex trafficking. Specifically with sex trafficking the on-ramp is literally kidnapping humans and as far as I'm aware that industry isn't shrinking (granted I know very little about it, so I hope I'm wrong).

Banning it just ensures that law-abiding citizens can't use it for good while you solidify the market belongs to criminals. Who knows what the outcome for that will be, but if the war on drugs is any indicator, I'm not optimistic that would end up as a net positive for society.

[shkkmo]

Except the only use it has for "law abiding citizens" is specilation.

While banning cryptocurrencies won't eliminate it, it would make it much less attractive for fraud, extortion and money laundering.

The war on drugs turned otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. A ban on crypto wouldn't have the same effect nor would it have the effect of driving a behavior that should be treated as a mental health issue underground.

I am not sure a ban is the best solution, I am open to alternatives.

[fartcannon]

Why not ban scams?

[ivankelly]

name the celebrities at least.

[UnpossibleJim]

https://youtu.be/9hBC5TVdYT8

I can only think of Matt Damon's somewhat notorious Crypto.com commercial, which has been lampooned so many times. There are others, I'm sure.

[Joeboy]

Spike Lee, rather horrifyingly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAZ7beWo0I

[addingnumbers]

Wow, they dressed him up exactly like Lyle Lanley singing Springfield a monorail song.

[s1artibartfast]

Funny thing is that there was a disclaimer at the end of that one.

[UnpossibleJim]

Yeah, I think they knew that one was on shaky ground as far as Ponzi schemes were concerned =)

[baobabKoodaa]

The way these scams work is they use celebrity names and images without permission. Completely different from the Matt Damon case and similar cases, where the celebrity is actually involved.