"...their favourite influencers, ready to betray their fans' trust for a fee."
Influencers ready to sell out at the first opportunity, and not caring about their followers - Say it aint so?
Big Tech and the likes of Kim Kardashian need to be named and shamed so that innovative digital tokens can flourish, according to Charles Randell, chair of the UKs Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Payments Systems Regulator (PSR). In a keynote speech delivered on Monday night at the Cambridge International Symposium on …
Now, how much did you agree to pay me to say that?
The Good News:
You will be paid
The Bad News:
The payment will be in a cryptocurrency called Badcoin which is currently trading at $0.02 asked, nothing bid.
The fee to convert your 100 Badcoin payment to US dollars will likely be around $35.
There is no underlying asset, speculative or otherwise.
It's just another financial con format.
The sooner you pick an example, and prosecute, the sooner the conmen will shut up shop and take their winnings. The later you leave it, the more people will be suckered in and lose their money.
Do your job.
Recently rereading the Wheel of Time series I came across the perfect explanation of the crypto markets
"The merchant and the Cargomaster found an ordinary rock on the shore and proceeded to sell it back and forth between them, somehow making a profit each time. Then an Aes Sedai came along. The Domani convinced the Aes Sedai to buy the simple stone for twice what she herself had last paid."
I seriously wonder whether anyone can explain the origin of the influence that "influencers" like Kim Kardashian exercise. What makes them even remotely interesting to anyone? Is it the emptiness of the lives of the followers? If, why do so many people seem to have empty lives, given the huge range of opportunities open to most of us in the G20 demimonde?
Opportunity may well exist, but capitalising on it takes education, ambition, intelligence, charisma, effort, time, a supportive environment and usually money. All of them. For education it starts early, before school age even. Supportive environment starts with the parents, and it's not teaching their kids they're always awesome at everything, it's also teaching them they aren't always perfect, how to handle failure, and how to move on from it and improve.
And most people simply don't have all, or even any, of those things. Which leaves them with empty lives, wishing for things they'll never have, and blindly following whoever manages to capture their attention, completely unable to understand they're just marks being suckered for every extractable penny.
They're doing so well, everything they say must be true, real, right?
I didn't just mean commercial opportunity. If that's the only kind considered, most of us are doomed to failure as only a very few reach even half way up the plutocratic pyramid. A fulfilling life can manifest itself in may other ways, provided one is prepared to recognise and value them.
To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, making millions doesn't require great cleverness, provided you're dumb enough to want them in the first place.
Eh, it's nothing new. They used to be called socialites. Centuries before that term was coined there were already published registers of who were considered important members of society. The only thing that's changed is how much access people have, both in terms of becoming one or watching what they do. Radio, film, TV and now the internet have made it progressively easier to go in both directions. So where it used to be difficult (although far from impossible, especially if you were pretty enough) to get into the right parties without already being landed gentry, now any idiot with a camera can potentially find a following. But the principle hasn't changed since humans have had society. A lot of people just like watching the lives of people who dress up nicely and put on a bit of a show.
And that is still their rightful name. People who look good and are completely useless.
But now, because of social platforms, these people have gained the moniker of "influencers". And Kardashian went and it what she usually does, find something to say in exchange for a boatload of money. The fact that she's encouraging her "followers" to lose their money is not a problem for her.
Kardashian is poison. It's normal that she is promoting funny money.
Influence in the bullshit mongering sense, not "the gang of four were influential to design patterns" sense of the word.
The influence is the number of people who follow them, xyz has 10,000,000 people who will be notified the next time they post a pic of their first dump of the day or post a picture of lunch, as much like spam there is a certain low percentage per million who will bite, and as most influencers are sub z-list celeb status people they will shill for a tin of beans and there name in glitter...
Once enough shitcoins have come out and all the gullible people have been scammed.
As for "holding back useful crypto", that assumes there is such a thing. Unless you're in need of a way to launder ill gotten gains, there's precious little use for cryptocurrency aside from speculation. If anything all the scams will make people concentrate on the two they've heard of and have been around a while, bitcoin and ethereum. Is there really a need for more cryptocurrencies? We've got those two, the rest are useless.