[PragmaticPulp]

> 4. Recently they have cropped up a set of anonymous people who purport themselves to be insiders only to reveal complete ignorance about the topic at hand (otteroo on Twitter, for instance).

Can you clarify this? By “they” do you mean this Substack? I didn’t see anything about “otteroo” or Twitter insiders in a quick search of the Substack, but I didn’t exhaustively search the entire backlog.

[cryptoanon]

I mean this guy as well as a bunch of people on Twitter who have been clout chasing ambulance chasers, running over the truth to chase a story.

The formula is this: 1. Create an helpful explainer thread to explain some crisis (ex-post)

2. Start to make vague predictions about relatively easy to predict things (like that Celsius is going to go down, a couple days before it technically goes down).

3. Refer your readers back to your foresightedness

4. Get extremely excited as you receive DMs from people to check out x or y.

5. Lock your eyes on a juicy new company and start to make unfounded claims about said company, referring to a sole rando as a “source” (eg Nexo is insolvent!)

6. Create an expose on your new target, run shoddy analysis based on no actual data, and throw it into a larger conspiratorial framework that starts to implicate other actors.

7. All the while, build a captive audience who doesn’t know the better and eventually use that audience to run ads or to pay for your newsletter.

8. They can run this affinity scam because 1. What they say is not falsifiable, 2. you have an infinite timescale for which to be correct about any one company going bankrupt, 3. there are people out there who are earnestly trying to learn about the market and don’t know who to turn to, and 4. if you’re wrong, you’re not accountable to your actions because there was never any actual money on the line.

There are serious issues in the industry, do not get me wrong. It’s kind of messed up that people who have no connections have to look into the void and decide whether they’re going to trust an internet rando or nobody at all. Disclosures need to be better. But the people writing these sensationalist pieces are part of the problem and not the solution.

[bhouston]

"If it wasn't for these damn twitter personalities messing up the plans, they would have gotten away with it."

You sound like a Scooby Doo villain. If these companies are not run well, they can be brought down by mere twitter personalities. This is a stress test. Those who are run well, will survive this.

Another analogy: If you build a house out of straw (because you cut corners) should you blame the big bad wolf who can just blow it down?

[cryptoanon]

Sure you can say this is a stress test - I’m just saying it’s misinformation. I am annoyed by people who spread misinformation for clout. Applies to both the bullish credit and the bearish crowd.

[polygamous_bat]

You cannot complain something is misinformation without offering information to counter it. That never works, will never work. The only reason an article like this, speculative or not, has wind to it's sails because crypto is not regulated like equity and companies like Alameda does not have to publish regular financial reports that classic market participants moving billions of "dollars" have to publish.

[cryptoanon]

What if I saw military helicopters flying above and told others “war has broken out!” I see how you can say that’s not misinformation, but wild speculation. For me, it’s both.

[polygamous_bat]

Turn on a TV. No news about a war? No war. Unless you think there is a deeper conspiracy to keeping a war secret.

There you go, some really simple sources of information to counter your misinformation.

[boc]

You have no evidence that this post is misinformation. You’re just choosing to believe it’s untrue.

[cryptoanon]

I do not have the burden of proof.

[polygamous_bat]

No, Alameda/SBF does. And they haven't said anything about it. People are free to draw their conclusions from that.

[wokwokwok]

> if you’re wrong, you’re not accountable to your actions because there was never any actual money on the line.

I mean, that's the risk you run right?

Either you're a regulated system where you can avoid this kind of thing, or you're an unregulated system where you go 'screw the man', but you don't get the protections that are associated with the traditional financial system.

There's some deep irony about complaining about it; isn't the 'good' thing about crypto?

That's what people keep telling me anyway.

[tender_euler]

>> if you’re wrong, you’re not accountable to your actions because there was never any actual money on the line.

> I mean, that's the risk you run right?

> Either you're a regulated system where you can avoid this kind of thing, or you're an unregulated system where you go 'screw the man', but you don't get the protections that are associated with the traditional financial system.

He does not mean companies operating in the unregulated crypto space. He means the author of articles like this one.

[adamsmith143]

Dude you sound like the saddest most desperate FTT bag holder of all time. Did you lose your house and did your wife leave you or what...

[cryptoanon]

I have no interest in Sam, Sam coins, or the cult of Sam.

[adamsmith143]

Well for having 0 interest you seem to be spending non 0 time defending him, his coins and his former hedge fund.

[guelo]

> What they say is not falsifiable

It's easily falsifiable by Alameda