[hn_throwaway_99]

And a perfect snapshot for what a steaming pile of BS all this crypto-hucksterism was in the first place.

I admit, I don't understand humans. I'm just trying to comprehend how anyone would think it a good idea to buy a token because any one of these celebrities hawked it.

[zopa]

If someone got into wine or baseball cards because their boss liked them, we might call it a smart career move. But much of the time the underlying psychology will be exactly the same. And in fact it will likely work better if it’s not done rationally: anyone who becomes too conscious of what their motivation might be risks coming off as insincere.

Wanting to connect with important members and of your community it a perfectly normal human impulse, and finding or creating things the two of you have in common is often a very reasonable strategy towards that end. It goes badly at the scale of modern celebrity, is all.

[rcme]

> If someone got into wine or baseball cards because their boss liked them, we might call it a smart career move. But much of the time the underlying psychology will be exactly the same.

Is the underlying psychology the same? As you mentioned, one is a smart career move. Your desire to emulate your boss may stem from your selfish desire to promote your career, not a desire to connect with important members of your community.

[yieldcrv]

the SEC’s logic is that if you decided that a wine bottle or baseball card you bought was to be sold at a profit in the future, then the winery and card issuer should have registered them as securities, and the seller should have been a registered broker dealer. and the boss should have provided a whole list of disclaimer to mitigate regulatory liability.

otherwise, the winery or baseball card issuer is engaged in fraud, and the seller is too, and the boss who recommended them is as well

this is what people find to be… at best … incomplete logic. there is a Howey test interpretation that would allow for this expansion, and crypto folks would gain power by having it applied congruently to those physical established artificial scarcity collections too, because Congress would reevaluate this inconvenience more holistically. There is another interpretation where the SEC makes no sense at all, and has to provide a clear exemption framework for crypto assets to navigate in order to be treated the same as wine bottles and baseball cards, ignoring the current parasocial relationship and reliance that crypto traders have with crypto project creators.

[rcme]

The SEC's logic is actually about how the items are marketed by the manufacturer. Baseball cards and wine aren't marketed by the manufacturer as items to buy as an investment.

[peyton]

Baseball cards are a bad example. The packs are lotteries with extra steps, and the manufacturers routinely face racketeering suits.

[yieldcrv]

and many crypto teams are meticulous about not doing that too

its why their discords say “no price discussion”, amongst many other communication nuances and project structuring to avoid securities issues. dont confuse celebrities and youtubers for the actual teams.

the only teams that have been sued by the SEC are ones that deviated in very predictable ways, there have been no surprises in the cases the SEC have brought, compared to the legal guidance that is given by law firms in the US

its just that the SEC then pretends as if it just hasnt gotten to other project issuers yet, and when not going after a specific project it just says “all cryptos are securities” because theyre going after an exchange, at the moment, and wont tell the exchange which ones

everything suggests the SEC’s logic is flimsy, or needs to apply even more broadly in a way that makes the SEC’s logic flimsy. The SEC is dragging this out because they understand the same thing, that all paths lead to their charter being modified even though they were just hoping that crypto went away.

[rcme]

This case is literally about celebrities being paid by the developers to market the product. Banning price discussions on Discord doesn’t absolve the developers of responsibility.

[cowl]

Hmm that's not the SEC's logic though. Winery or Baseball cards have thier own intrinsic value and while their value can be pumped by promoters it does not depend only on that and they are not sold as an investment. You may decide to buy them as an investement but they are not Created for that purpose. The same as I may invest in Property to profit in the future but the property is not a security becasue it has it's own intrinsic value and does not depend only on the promotion or market expectation or how the contructor company does afer I have bought the house.

There might be some parallels in Art and NFT but there the issue is completly different and is more of grey area of what you are actually bying than if it's an investment or not.

[yieldcrv]

intrinsic value isn't the qualifier for a distinction

and many crypto issuers focus on their nonspeculative utility

everything you described is exactly the problem. The SEC is saying that because any individual may have decided to buy them as an investment, then the SEC can ignore everything to the contrary. except the SEC hasnt actually ignored everything to the contrary because they havent charge crypto teams that focus exclusively on nonspeculative utility and other nuances. they charged teams that promised the price would go up. believe it or not, very many teams focus on the nonspeculative utility exclusively, the prevailing legal opinions from law firms in the US have had this advice to crypto teams for at least 6 years, and civil charges the SEC has brought have not undermined these assumptions. in any case, the SEC then turns around and says “theyre all securities” when speaking publicly or when charging an exchange. now we’ve come full circle between yours and mine perspective: either apply the same logic to “things with intrinsic value (that you respect)” or point out exactly which way for digital asset collections to be exempt as well.

[cowl]

Although technically you are right that the "intrinsic value" is not explicitly stated by SEC, the whole purpose of the Howey Test it to establish whether something has intrinsic Value. At least that's my interpretation of it. The main points of it are is it an investment and does this investment value depend only on the enterprise you investing on and promotion or does it have any other value that is independent of those factors (thus intrinsic value). Put it another way, if you investment is completely lost when the actor who put it in the market disappears, then it is a security.

[chordalkeyboard]

The ape brain doesn't have a separate category for 'people you see on TV' and 'people you work with', celebrities are stored in the same place as your friends except the nature of parasocial relations seems to polarize their status; such that these people are seen as very high or very low status.

[rcme]

Citation needed

[chordalkeyboard]

>> Our brains treat on-screen faces the same as in-person faces, explains Bradley Bond. He is a communication researcher at the University of San Diego in California. “We assign personhood to people we see in-person and on screens,” he explains. And we “process them in a similar fashion.” We are a social species. So we crave connections to other people. “It’s human instinct,” he says, and parasocial bonds help fill that need.

https://www.snexplores.org/article/imagine-friends-parasocia...

[root_axis]

It's not surprising to me that we process faces the same whether we see them in person or on a screen, that's because screens are designed to accurately display the visual qualities of their subjects. That is not even close to the same thing as saying "celebrities are stored in the same place as your friends".

[p0pcult]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction

Will wikipedia work?

[heresie-dabord]

I am skeptical that there is any profound scientific value in the term "parasocial interaction".

To judge from the origin of the term,[0] we are calling a "parasocial relationship" the phenomenon of mass conditioning of consumers by controlled media. There is enough clear evidence of a state's ability to affect public discourse by controlling entertainment (and news) media.[1]

Although people may be inclined to credulity or at least some basic level of cooperation, most people can see when they are being duped in a tangible way.

There are extreme cases, which the article calls, "extreme parasocial behaviour".

Other terms exist to describe a person who believes things that are not real, highly improbable, or hallucinatory. And in the marketplace, there is caveat emptor, the complete phrase being,

"Let a purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party."[2]

[0] > Evolution of the term > Parasocial interaction was first described from the perspective of media and communication studies. In 1956, Horton and Wohl explored the different interactions between mass media users and media figures and determined the existence of a parasocial relationship (PSR), where the user acts as though they are involved in a typical social relationship.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor

[j16sdiz]

No.

The Wikipedia article claims we treat YouTuber like our personal friend.

The parent post claims ape don't have different caregory for boss that can advance your career and a celebrity that, at its best, can be treated as a friend ..

[ShamelessC]

> If someone got into wine or baseball cards because their boss liked them, we might call it a smart career move.

First off, no, we wouldn’t. The boss and the other members of the team will all see that for what it is- trying to kiss ass to get ahead instead of doing your job. Particularly because (as you’re suggesting at least) the person doesn’t actually like those things and is simply trying to get ahead.

Just watch the Office. Dwight and Andy constantly try to do this to Michael and while they are occasionally successful, it hardly matters or has a lasting impact. Further, their coworkers all find them annoying (while they continue to “just do their jobs”).

[x-complexity]

> > If someone got into wine or baseball cards because their boss liked them, we might call it a smart career move.

> First off, no, we wouldn’t. The boss and the other members of the team will all see that for what it is- trying to kiss ass to get ahead instead of doing your job. Particularly because (as you’re suggesting at least) the person doesn’t actually like those things and is simply trying to get ahead.

The counter-assertion relies on the axioms of

(1) "100% of people are capable of detecting 'kiss-assery'",

(2) "100% of people don't like 'kiss-assery'", and

(3) "100% of all actions of a person copying their boss' likes are due to 'kiss-assery'".

All 3 axioms are invalid: (1) is invalid because not all people can detect it properly without false positives or negatives. (2) is invalid because of the existence of narcissism & (2)'s contribution towards the affirmation of narcissism. (3) is invalid as it excludes the possibility of taking on a new like simply because of enjoying it.

> Just watch the Office. Dwight and Andy constantly try to do this to Michael and while they are occasionally successful, it hardly matters or has a lasting impact. Further, their coworkers all find them annoying (while they continue to “just do their jobs”).

The example given cannot be considered useful as its reliant on using constructed scenarios in a semi-fictional setting, and using it as evidence. Its equivalent would be the usage of the CSI episode "Fur and Loathing" as evidence of the furry fandom always being about sex & deviancy at all times, which is not the case.

[jallen_dot_dev]

It's simple: they thought they could later sell it for more. Celebrities hawking it is "bullish" because other people (suckers) will see the hype and want to buy their bags. Unfortunately for them, they were the suckers.

[Gigachad]

Everyone knows it’s a scam, they just don’t know when the rug gets pulled. So they buy thinking they won’t be the last in the scam chain.

[ShamelessC]

Then they barely understand what a scam actually is.

[cowl]

Unfortunetly these type of Pyramidal schemes always have that factor: "If i just get in early i get out making money and someone else looses". There will alwasy be people ready to make that bet, that they are not late because those 10 people that were early and made a fortune make more impression to them than the thousands that lost (and maybe lost even more than they could afford too) only in this case the chances of that are predetermined. most of these "new releases" have their winner deck already predetermined before the launch, a closed group knows when they get in on the action immediately and everyone of the public, no matter how "early" they enter they are already late.

[Gigachad]

Of course. If they did they wouldn’t buy crypto, they’d be the one minting the coins and shilling them.

[ShamelessC]

Indeed! Just wanted to make sure I’m on the same wavelength as the comments here ha.

[komali2]

I bet you can think of some irrational things you've done in the last few years. I'd be curious what they might be.

Let's see, for me... Well any time I got games in a steam sale recently, my backlog is huge and I don't have time anyway. Any time I spend on Twitter, I know I don't enjoy how I feel after. Plenty of times I had irrational excuses for why I didn't have to go to the gym on a given day. Made a batch of really good ice cream despite trying to lose weight. Etc.

When I was younger I made some irrational decisions in stocks, now I don't anymore, I think if you get burned enough maybe that's what it takes? I too often wonder why people seem to need to "learn the hard way." For me, if a friend gets in a car accident, I listen to how it happened and make sure to never repeat their mistake, triple for motorcycling. But maybe its domain specific in that regard? Some people are good at being more rational in some areas rather than others?

[thefounder]

It's just FOMO. You surely experienced it until now. It's "irrational" because people make many irrational(emotional) decisions. Sometimes it pays off to ride the wave but we all know that most will not make it...however the potential upside is too great to "miss" it...until you lose.

[tomcam]

> It's just FOMO. You surely experienced it until now.

I mean yeah. For years I’ve looked up to Akon and Kendra Lust for innovative and reliable financial products

[thefounder]

FOMO has little to do with "reliability" or innovation. I believe most people see crypto coins for what they are: volatile, speculaive assets. They know it's really just a pump&dump scheme and if Akon is promoting a specific coin that means the team behind the pump is "serious" (i.e pumping money into it) so there is a higher chance to get rich before the fall compared with a random s** coin.

If you look at the stock market a big part of it didn't behave that different than the crypto market and that's due FOMO. Why did people buy stocks at insane valuations? Some of them were burned and I'm sure they though they will sell just before the market is going down.

[goldenkey]

A lot of it is young kids or college students with undeveloped brains and a lack of good guidance. Then a bunch is desperate needy or greedy folks who are thinking impulsively.

[jkubicek]

it's also just plain advertising. When the celebrities listed in these charges say that they're buying NFTs, a whole lot of people are going to see that and notice.

The number of people that buy an NFT because Soulja Boy bought one is probably pretty small. The number of people who buy NFTs because "everyone else is" is much much larger.

[pavlov]

Yes, in advertising terms these endorsements are not tactical but strategic. You want to create an ambience where people sense that everyone successful is now getting into crypto/NFTs. That kind of diffuse group pressure is much harder to consciously analyze than “do I want to buy this thing because Soulja Boy told me to?” — and thus much more effective over time.

Crypto seems to have been particularly powerful at preying on women and minorities who felt like they’re missing out with mainstream finance. This kind of highly focused influencer marketing within communities must have been a major contributor to its uptake.

[ipaddr]

Crypto is mainly a boys club. These celebrity endorsements came late to the party hoping to bring in a new group of people.

[nradov]

Is that really true? When I was in college some years ago I didn't fall for any scams and few of my classmates did either. Most of us barely had money for beer and textbooks, so there wasn't much to scam from us in the first place. Has the situation changed?

[prawn]

Do you remember those Power Balance wristbands? I think the things back then on the radars of school/college kids were a bit simpler. In the recent past, fashion was the big driver and what 15-20 year olds saw in trends. Now, social media exposes them to influencers and wealth and they figure they want to get on the crypto train, or get a GoPro because it will make adventure sports happen in their lives, or go live in a van.

Last year, a colleague was talking about his ~15 year old kid insisting he wanted to buy NFTs. Said colleague had suffered FOMO from years of the rest of us talking about Bitcoin and might've therefore been primed to acquiesce.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> And a perfect snapshot for what a steaming pile of BS all this crypto-hucksterism was in the first place.

"Web3 is a flaming pile of feces orbiting a giant dripping hairball."[0]

–Grady Booch

[0] https://www.infoworld.com/article/3689914/the-philosopher-a-...

[every]

Sort of the adult version of being suckered into buying a breakfast cereal because of the cartoon characters on the box...

[Tao3300]

At least you got the cereal.

[di456]

Humans have a soft spot for snake oil. Always have, always will.

"If it sounds too good to be true" vs "but everyone else is doing it"

[djbusby]

With a lil bit of "this time is different"

[taeric]

The irony, of course, being that actual snake oil worked...

[mmaunder]

Greed.