Bitfinex, for example is being prosecuted. The SEC have cases against a few of the mid-level people, but the founder is hiding out somewhere in Asia, and will never see the inside of a US courtroom.
Also, it's very easy to con someone, but it's almost impossible to convince someone who has been conned that they've been cheated. If you do your due diligence, and disclose your findings, the marks will ignore you, the con artists will smear you in the press, start lawsuits against you, and everyone uninvolved will shrug their shoulders and 'both sides' your feud.
first a cryptic puzzle as a recruiting tool for analysts: https://twitter.com/Galois_Capital/status/148693793605468979...
followed by months of warnings like this: https://twitter.com/Galois_Capital/status/151217543903232819...
and threads pushing the systemic risk angle: https://twitter.com/Galois_Capital/status/150461116699529216...
And then the CEO guy basically says that their old school finance may consider it a Ponzi but it’s the future of finance and they’re just gonna end up suffering from FOMO.
why the founders didn't flinch... who knows? maybe they decided that 3ac being invested is their security.
> But is this any more likely to happen than, say, the global thermonuclear war that is held at bay by the principle of MAD? I feel like we are surrounded by doomsday scenarios; economic and existential. Who would pull the pin on this one? Or is the problem blind faith in an algo? - https://twitter.com/thestephoflife/status/151220218743844864...
Even when it does go wrong, there still might not be a crime any more serious than being an idiot, obviously would be different if the company misrepresents itself for gain, which would be fraud.
I suspect that many of these people genuinely believe their own hype, which is how they convince others to buy into it.
Where is the line between an outright scam and just people believing their own bullshit.
I'm curious why you call the first one cryptic though? It seems the opposite to me: it refers to all the elements by their actual, real-cryptocurrency-world names. To me, "cryptic" would mean that it abstracted away from all the actual terminology used, and just describes it in terms of pure mathematical finance, which would be cryptic since you'd be left wondering, "uh, what is this referring to? Is this an actual thing?"
I also don't see how it works as a recruiting tool. This is a space that involves exploiting domain knowledge, and it's trying to bring in expert outsiders who just haven't yet used their analytical expertise in this domain. But tweets heavily depend on you already knowing how all these protocols work (e.g. what staking/minting/gauge weight mean). Such a person, if an expert analyst as well, would already be working in the field or exploiting that knowledge themselves, and you wouldn't be plucking such diamonds out of the Twitter rough.
https://twitter.com/galois_capital/status/148693794923729715...